MicrostockGroup

I am just curious if anyone else has had a recent number of charge backs in the last week or two or if there is another thread somewhere talking about an above average amount of recent charge backs that people have had as of late?

I do get the occasional charge back on a purchase refund every now and again, but over the last week I have gotten close to 10. Also, refunds and charge backs typically occur either the same day, or within a couple of days of the purchase of an image from what I have seen in the past, but all of these recent charge backs are dating back at least a month or more on the date of purchase. So all of these charge backs are from sales made last year and some were made as far back as 3-4 months ago even.

Is that common to have charge backs on sales made from such a long time ago occurring months later?

Ive been getting a lot of refund notices for my files these days. I am thinking this is yet another scheme to take more money from contributors as they/we have absolutely no way in asking for proof that a client asked for a refund. We just need to believe istock???

There's a thread in the IS forums about large groups of refunds that some contributors are seeing recently. I have not seen many (one on Jan 4th), and other than the e-mail giving month and day but no year for the original download, nothing seemed amiss. It was a sale on Dec 26th and as things had been so horribly slow I remembered seeing the image in the list of sales, so I believe it was Dec 26th 2011.

Sean had a sale on a future date referred to in a refund e-mail - clearly they're at a minimum having trouble with the proces of sending out refund e-mails: "This is in reference to the file downloaded on 16/08/2012 in the amount of $ 0,58 ." Even if you account for month/day day/month issues, that date is future.

My text had the date this way "This is in reference to the file downloaded on Dec 26   ,in the amount of $ 2.60." Why would the date format be different?

Sodafish reported his recent rash of refunds totalled $280.

So they remove the original sale leaving no record of what originally happened. They send out malformed e-mails and list possible reasons for the refund, saying : "due to the high volume of daily transactions, we will be unable to provide additional clarification on the refund performed"

I have to believe this is all incompetence and bad software, but with so little in the way of detailed reports, plus a track record of messing up payments (the EL reimbursements) it's hard to have any confidence in what they're doing with our money.

I'm wondering if they report all of our sales to begin with - that would be easy to get away with in the case of indies. I'm not accusing IS of anything, but it does seem strange that they still are at the second highest rank, in the spite of the fact that most people's sales there are abysmal.

I've been wondering the same ever since I found four of my images with inaccurate September earnings:

Did Support tell you it was a 'glitch' and would be 'fixed soon'?

I don't even bother contacting them anymore.  It's like talking to dead air.

I'm getting a little off topic here...this should be in the Best Match thread, but since I mentioned it here first...

My previous post mentions how sales just stopped on a series of 20 or so images in August 2010.  Well, I just searched for them and there's only 100 images with the keywords "neon" "alphabet," and my series comes up just fine.  Why, then, have only a few sold since August 2010 when they were all getting regular sales prior to that date and show up fine in the search?  It doesn't make any sense.  None at all.

minutes ago

12/12/11 for the amount of 1.26