I'm speechless..  Is it what is called tragicomedy in english?   

It does seem to have some problems. I'm getting results for man now, but not dog. But cartoon dog returns results.

here's the thread on istock

I can't get any search results at all, in either Firefox or Safari, but rogermexico posted that they're pushing a fix in about 15 minutes, so I hope that will change shortly

The search is not looking too good at the moment.  Tried to do a couple and got no results.  Lots of complaints from buyers in the forum, meaning lots of free/low cost credits being given away, meaning we get less royalties for Istock's poor execution.

I'm getting single words (elephant) but not phrases (New York City)

I just searched 'elephant' again, and every image has a red rectangle with the word SALE in it.
Does that mean it's on sale, or there's a cut-price sale on?

IS doesn't test your improvements before put it on fly? They don't have a test site? It's a shame.

Well, if it works, could be a good change for all. Editorial is a very good thing, but i'm a illustrator and nothing changes AGAIN.

It's going really weird right now.
My search for elephant was OK on page 1.
Go onto page two and you don't get another page of options, you get a category list from which to choose.
I chose animal, and got back to the first page of elephants.
Tried page two, back to the list of categories.
Out of badness, I chose archticture.
And got a page of elephant carvings on buildings.
So if you want a second page, you must use a category to filter.
Is that really what the facetted search is all about?

From a buyer right now:

"Like many of your customers, I am on a deadline today and I don't have time to wait for the bugs to get worked out live. I am so tired of the half-assed way iStock implements everything."

Their incompetence is truly breathtaking. How long are they supposed to have been working on this?

And to think I was joking when I said this.

What is most baffling is that the buyers seem to be mostly just sitting around waiting for things to get fixed. The buyer mentioned above is apparently on a deadline. So go buy some credits at another stock site and get the images you need there.

Makes me think it's not such a crazy idea that many buyers are completely unaware that images can be purchased elsewhere. It's no wonder new microstock companies have such a hard time getting off the ground. Some people think istock is the only game in town.

Exactly.  The guy who built my website was not aware of other sites.  Several others I've met did not want to bother with the hassle (and added expense) of more than one account.

What is most baffling is that the buyers seem to be mostly just sitting around waiting for things to get fixed. The buyer mentioned above is apparently on a deadline. So go buy some credits at another stock site and get the images you need there.

Makes me think it's not such a crazy idea that many buyers are completely unaware that images can be purchased elsewhere. It's no wonder new microstock companies have such a hard time getting off the ground. Some people think istock is the only game in town.

I suppose the buyers that have already gone to the other sites aren't bothering to complain in the istock forum?

I can't remember ever reading a thread at Istock before that contained so many comments from people without canisters (strictly buyers)!

There's a word or phrase which slips my mind for hiding bad news behind good or neutral news, or a scandal or somesuch.
iStock have managed to reverse this, by muffling the apparent good news of introducing editorial images (and, by the way, the iStockys results) with the unfortunately mishandled 'faceted search' introduction.
Maybe they should have a Contest to invent a name for this phenomenon.

LOL!  Surely there must already be some German word for this?  What a great language - they have words for everything!  (Schadenfreude springs to mind as an example, but doesn't fit this situation)

Good news - the search must be working better.  Sales seem to be sputtering back to life.

How can we trust the numbers? (rhetorical question only)

Quote from: lisafx on December 13, 2010, 19:21

LOL!  Surely there must already be some German word for this?  What a great language - they have words for everything!  (Schadenfreude springs to mind as an example, but doesn't fit this situation)

Good news - the search must be working better.  Sales seem to be sputtering back to life.

How can we trust the numbers? (rhetorical question only)

I see it's a rhetorical question, but if you've been following the Missing EL Bonus and the now-locked (unresolved) Contributers Underpaid Twice threads on iStock, you might well wonder.

I believe the phrase you are searching for might be "wag the dog". 

Perfect phrase.

Wow, I only sold 3 there yesterday, the same as I sold on Sunday.  I wonder how much this latest fiasco has cost them?

Quote from: whatalife on December 13, 2010, 19:40

I believe the phrase you are searching for might be "wag the dog". 

Perfect phrase.

Well, not quite, because the most important thing is the search. I can't think of an expression for hiding a success behind a disaster, probably because no rational organisation would ever do that. Perhaps it should be called being istocked.

I can't think of an expression for hiding a success behind a disaster, probably because no rational organisation would ever do that. Perhaps it should be called being istocked.

Good one.  Maybe it will catch on. 

[irony]This is really good search engine[/irony].

Every search which starts with "3d" returns: File Not Available

I tried 3d cloud, 3d car, 3d man..

The search engine is stripping numbers out of tags, and other weird stuff.  Like 3d tries to pull up file #3.

This happens only if 3d is first word.
car 3d - is ok.

lisafx has the same name, but a good number of people here are anonymous because some sites - notably FT - have closed accounts on the basis of things they didn't like said here (yes, an off site forum). It's really unfortunate, but understandable in the circumstances.

You may find you start to recognize people by their postings, however

lisafx has the same name, but a good number of people here are anonymous because some sites - notably FT - have closed accounts on the basis of things they didn't like said here (yes, an off site forum). It's really unfortunate, but understandable in the circumstances.

You may find you start to recognize people by their postings, however

I would like to say I find it unfortunate that people have to be anonymous, but it is understandable considering what some sites have done. It is in no way understandable that the sites would punish people in the way they have for what those people have said elsewhere (although it is still unfortunate).

--=Tom

Quote

MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL

If it's so bad why not give up exclusivity and joinn all the other sites out there? Everyone here is always saying how much better than IS they are.

earnings, ease of upload.

are you saying that because my earnings are good I have to put up with crap?

are you saying that because my earnings are good I have to put up with crap?

I'm not saying that at all, everyone here seems to think you can earn more being non-exclusive and putting work on other sites, why not follow their advice, that's all. Calm down.

earnings, ease of upload.

are you saying that because my earnings are good I have to put up with crap?

I also read your posts in the IS forum. They have been biased for quite a while now against buyers/contributors. I know, because I am one (or should say WAS one...I don't buy from IS anymore) myself. Comments are met with hostility and rejection, as though you don't belong to their club.

No one should have to put up with crap, but from what I understand, Getty has been dishing it out for quite some time, long before they bought IS. So the question is...are you willing to put up with a lot of crap just to keep your good earnings? If you are, then you should probably just go about shooting and not frequent the forums. I am certain you can detect patterns there, just as we all have. And if you don't want to put up with the crap, then you should look for other means of income, as a number of contributors who post here are doing.

I work for web publishing company as my day job. Of course - none of our sites have even nearly 1/100 of daily visits as iStock but I'm sure that if we would work this way many of our readers would leave to competitors. And our sites are "only" for readers, iStock buyers are exposed to very unpleasant situations with their clients.
I can imagine that iStock  would publish some not public "beta.istock.com" site and would very kindly ask contributors (and maybe in very very polite way selected buyers) to help them to fix the bugs and share their opinions. It's sure that not all of bugs would be found in beta mode but ...   "new" iStock at the moment when it was released was just one fat giant bug. To me it's pure amateurism.
Howgh.

Quote

are you saying that because my earnings are good I have to put up with crap?

I'm not saying that at all, everyone here seems to think you can earn more being non-exclusive and putting work on other sites, why not follow their advice, that's all. Calm down.

I don't think anybody has a clue which is most lucrative. But being non-exclusive provides some protection against one site or another doing something nasty to you, by accident or by design. It also involves a lot more work.