every single post on the istock forum:

[Catastrophe]

RelativelyNewSubmitter: I went to upload some images on Istock, and this is what happened - the categories would not work, the disambiguation was illogical, and I had to do 10x as much work as any other stock site to upload because of arbitrary limits and unneccessary hoops to jump through. Then my image of a grizzly bear was rejected because the keywords "furry" and "animal" are apparently not acceptable. My image of a rock was rejected for "copyrighted material" and my image shot on ISO 100 with strobes and a perfect exposure was rejected for "noise". I searched for the images that were accepted, and they were found on page 1032 of 1050 results, with lots of images that did not have anything to do with my search term on pages 1, 2, and 3. Any ideas on how I can improve my results?

BrownNoser: Why are you so upset?!!! I find it a privilege to be rejected by iStock's wonderful, talented, genius, and good looking image reviewers! They are sooooo nice to me when they reject my images for illogical reasons, once they even gave me the suggestion that I should make my photos "better" - where else on earth can you get that loving kind of thoughtful feedback? Istock is #1 at everything!!!!!

CluelessNoob: The picture I took with my cellphone in a dark bar where I cut off my friend's head and used the wrong color balance was rejected too! Apparently the keywords "rocketship" and "atom bomb" are not acceptable for a picture of a guy drinking beer! This sucks! I'm quitting!

SJLocke: 200% of my pictures are accepted and featured on page 1 of best match. You are non-exclusive and therefore do not exist.

SoccerMom: I LOVE ISTOCK!!! ISTOCK #1!!!!

I<3Nikon: You people complain so much. I remember back in 1932 when Istock just started. We had to pay THEM to use our images! And they flogged us with barbed wire, and we loved it! Why don't you just bask in the glory of being in the best stock site EVAR! Who cares if your income takes a giant hit because istock refuses to fix simple problems. They are doing you a giant favor by hosting your files! All they get out of it is millions of dollars from other people's work. You should thank them for even taking the time to acknowledge you - all you do is supply their product. They are the supreme beings. You think that just because you do most of the work, that you deserve credit, or fair treatment? BAH!

RandomSubmitter: I don't post here much, but I have had the same problems. Does anyone have anything of value to offer?

IStockDiamond: you are not exclusive, so why should anyone care about your problems. If you want to be treated fairly, then all you have to do is sell your soul to Istock. It's easy. I did it, and the only problems I have are silly things like my income dropping by 80% on occasion when they randomly change everything.

IStockBronze: I just went exclusive, and I can tell you, it's the best thing that ever happened to me in my whole life! My sales went from $1.50/month to over $2.00 a month! I am so happy and fulfilled now! I'm going to save up for that (whatever the most expensive Canon is) camera now!

IStockSilver: Lisa Gagne's photos have lots of blue in them. So obviously you should have more blue in your photos. And goldfish. At least half of your photos should have goldfish, because Lisa's do. Everything anyone who has 1000+ images on Istock does is to be idolized. I love IStock!

IStockGold: You only have 200 images in your portfolio. Why do you bother asking for your images to be considered in a fair manner, when the real answer is to work harder, shoot more, and post on this forum at least 100 times a day? If 75% of your submissions are rejected for stupid and illogical reasons, all you have to do is shoot and submit 4x as many images. The answer is not to seek fair treatment, or a system that works well - the answer is to shoot more! why are you reading this, when you could be shooting right now?

SomeIdiot: ebbbbb......

AnotherIdiot: OMG. Not another thread about this. We've had four threads in the last 12 months about this very topic. Have you not read and memorized every single post on this board? What, do you actually visit sites other than Istock, or actually turn the computer off sometimes?! What is wrong with you?

FirstAdminToSeePost: thread locked.

[johngriffin]

That is really good.  Hhahahaha. 

[goldenangel]

Hilarious!

[Dreamframer]

Hahahaha! GREAT! And we even have someone who's category by him self!

[Freedom]

 

[RT]

To the OP - You've forgotten to add your iStock link 

[willie]

rofl i give you one heart for making my day

[gostwyck]

Excellent __ and painfully but hilariously accurate too!

If that's not worth a 'Useful' vote then I don't know what is.

[madelaide]

There must be more "Wow"s and "Great"s and "Thanks IS!"

[Kngkyle]

Haha. And most of them are so very true.

[MichaelJay]

Wow.

Thanks.

You've added sense to my life, Catastrophe.

 

[puravida]

Sacre bleu 
 you have committed the mother of all grievous mortal sins against the
highest of all microstock deities. You better kneel pray for penance. May your head be full of dandruff and you scratch the mother of all itches   

[CofkoCof]

Woo-jay!

[stockastic]

Yes.

Yes.

[sjlocke]

SJLocke: 200% of my pictures are accepted and featured on page 1 of best match. You are non-exclusive and therefore do not exist.

I wish.  The first part, I mean.  You may just be a figment of my imagination and not exist.

[StockManiac]

SJLocke: 200% of my pictures are accepted and featured on page 1 of best match. You are non-exclusive and therefore do not exist.

Although SJLocke might be thinking that, he is much more strategic in his replies.

His reply would probably be more in the line of:

"... ranting about keyword rejections without showing the image in question is useless."

or

"Critique requires a full size image to look at."

[cobalt]

LOL! I love it!

[digiology]

thanks for that. well done 

[puravida]

Hahahaha! GREAT! And we even have someone who's category by him self!

Catastrophe, are you  sure you can use SJLOCKE without an Intellectual Property release? How did this get passed the reviewer? 

[zymmetricaldotcom]

NVM

[null]

Welcome back, Batman 

[bittersweet]

It would be funnier if half the people in this thread weren't "new members" but hilarious all the same.

But I have to say... I do miss the days when nearly every thread contained a random exclamation of "BOOBIES!!!!"

 

[m@m]

LMAO!!!...Great job

[fullvalue]

Thanks for the laugh.

[Suljo]

He he
Cattle is the cattle anyhow
 
I have the another theory about noise in they heads. One time somehow I see they location in Calgary on Google maps widget I think and look at it about 1,266752734% of milisecond and I deeply in my mind figured that they are in triangle spot of railways which can make interference with every electornic device such as Monitor, LCD, speakers.. etc.....
Somehow this turbulence of electircity my be the reason why they are dont see correct image with they own eyes.
OK
all reviewers are not from Calgary but I am suspicious at that if the first drone nut is from noisy place, and it will trying to find other from the similar noise location eg.(Streetcar Named Desire).
When they catch up other bees by their goal from desired CV of wanabee reviewers they all has the same distortions in they heads (Noise)....

I tell my opinion and hope that I dont hurt anybody...

MicrostockGroup Email Updates

[Site]

Site	Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock	100
iStock	66.7
Fotolia	34.9
Dreamstime	26.7
Middle Tier
DepositPhotos	21.6
123RF	16.3
Canstockphoto	11.2
Bigstockphoto	9.5
Veer	8.7
Low Earners
PantherMedia	6.7
PhotoDune	5.8
isignstock	4.1
Zoonar	3.5
GLStockImages	2.7
Stockfresh	2.2
YayMicro	1.8
FeaturePics	1.4
MostPhotos	1.3
ScanStockPhoto	1.1
Crestock	0.8
Cutcaster	0.6
AllYouCanStock	0.1
ClipartOf
Pond5
RevoStock
Clipcanvas
DrawShop
ClipDealer
PhotoSpin
VectorStock
GraphicRiver
Pixmac
PhotoCase
The3dStudio
photaki
SuperHug
PhotoKore
iRockStock
Vivozoom
StockPhotoMedia
Regimages
ImageVortex
Imagegate
ViscoImages
More Poll Results Updated: 2012-05-26