MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is there a search on iStock which actually works correctly?  (Read 5897 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 13, 2011, 18:01 »
0
That is actually a hypothetical question. I have the misfortune to currently be conducting a search for a client project and I decided to by-pass the best match BS by searching by "File Age". "File Age" is supposed to mean newer first, right?  Because I see files that are at least a year old at the beginning of the search, in front of more recent stuff. Or is this, yet again, an "iStock re-definition" of something?


ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2011, 18:15 »
0
That is actually a hypothetical question. I have the misfortune to currently be conducting a search for a client project and I decided to by-pass the best match BS by searching by "File Age". "File Age" is supposed to mean newer first, right?  Because I see files that are at least a year old at the beginning of the search, in front of more recent stuff. Or is this, yet again, an "iStock re-definition" of something?
Sorting by age usually works, I just tried a couple and it seems like it's working. I do notice sometimes that when you change search by, it doesn't immediately change, but this has been the case since I started iStock, mostly when inside someone's port.
The workaround is to change to the search you want, then if it hasn't worked, go to any other search, then back to the one you want. That usually works IME, but if it doesn't, maybe you could say the search you're using, and we can try it out. (I might be in bed by the time you see this, though.)

« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2011, 18:21 »
0
It was for "horse". And it did seem like it switched when I changed it. And I even redid the search twice, because the first time I did it it showed videos in the search, even though only photos was checked.

« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2011, 18:24 »
0
Okay, I just did it again, and it was the same. On the bottom of page 5 (200 images per page) there are two images of a woman silhouetted with a horse in a barn that know are from almost a year ago. I immediately recognized them because I know the photographer, the location, and the person in the photo. They are from July of 2010. And then right next to them are photos that are dated April 2011.

« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2011, 18:58 »
0
Last week I try to use its search engine and results are NONE for any common word.
I know Safari on Mac is buggy especially if you dont shut down comp for weeks and clear up browser cache, but imagine potential buyer who is on they site and cant find anything.
I dont buy on iStock because of my own principle, but I have client who need medicine nurses in front to make poster for sign in mid medical school and we didnt find suitable image on Dream (or its to uniform/common or to much sexy). So I try to find suitable image on iStock but search engine didnt show any result. :)
I dont know is it problem with buggy Safari or lack of iStock site to support all browsers or it is just one of million gliches on iStock.
Anyhow, we choose some common image from Dream while I talk 1111111% totally negative about iStock, how they are, how they treat contributors like in chinese sweet shops etc etc.
Even they search engine didnt work at all  ;D
(This day when I try to search anything)

This post is maybe for thread "Buyers bailing the iStock"  ;D

I didnt post anything bad long time ago about how they are natural greedy *insult removed* because I am to sick to think about them that they even exist.

Blind Wooyayy iStock Exlusives
feel free to press my ignore button.

ShadySue

« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2011, 19:00 »
0
Hmmm, incredibly I also searched 'horse', because that's the one I tend to go to since it is so Vetta-heavy by best match (except for the second-top image, which isn't even exclusive) But I have to admit, I only checked the top line, not the bottom of page 5.

« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2011, 20:54 »
0
Wow I just discovered that I use wrong naming for iStock
Usually in my anger and against posts for iStock I use phase "Cattle with little teeth" but accordingly real name for it is:
"small-time cattle" ("iStock sitnog zuba") (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagreb_crisis) on the bottom of the page under "Protest and resolution"

« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2011, 21:06 »
0
Also on Page 5 are photos of rows of iceburg lettuce. Not a horse in sight.

lagereek

« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2011, 00:27 »
0
Buyers!!  dont even see these small options, IS, has made them so SMALL and insignificant that they are almost impossible to see,  simply because the whole mess is based on their best match.

If IS, made them stand out more and easier to use,  half of the troubles would go away.

ShadySue

« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2011, 07:40 »
0
Also on Page 5 are photos of rows of iceburg lettuce. Not a horse in sight.
Oooooh, harsh - it's an XXXL file and if you zoom in to maximum size and go along the 'join' between the flat land and the mountain, there's a paddock with some tiny horses in it.  ;D
However, with the overnight update, a photo of a goat's had against a pink background has appeared on the first line of a search on 'horse' by age. I'll wiki it!

« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2011, 08:21 »
0
Quote
Or is this, yet again, an "iStock re-definition" of something?

As you seem to spend a great deal of time here constantly being rude about IS I'm amazed you're still giving them your valuable business.

« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2011, 08:24 »
0
Quote
Or is this, yet again, an "iStock re-definition" of something?

As you seem to spend a great deal of time here constantly being rude about IS I'm amazed you're still giving them your valuable business.

To be fair, there are plenty of contributors both here and on the istock forum who are constantly being rude about IS and yet are still uploading to them and still retain their exclusivity. Sometimes, people don't have a choice.  :)

That amazes me, too.

« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2011, 08:44 »
0
Also on Page 5 are photos of rows of iceburg lettuce. Not a horse in sight.

Now, that's where you're wrong. If you zoom to 100% and look just under the trees beyond the lettuces, centre right, it's possible to make out at least six horses. They're not exactly the main subject, though.

lagereek

« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2011, 08:44 »
0
Seriously!  why cant they make the other search-options more clear? popular, age, newest, etc. Instead of an almost invicible button and a rolldown list, why not headings for differant options.

« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2011, 09:10 »
0
Quote
Or is this, yet again, an "iStock re-definition" of something?

As you seem to spend a great deal of time here constantly being rude about IS I'm amazed you're still giving them your valuable business.

To be fair, there are plenty of contributors both here and on the istock forum who are constantly being rude about IS and yet are still uploading to them and still retain their exclusivity. Sometimes, people don't have a choice.  :)

That amazes me, too.

What she said.

And I can't help it if some of my clients still have accounts there. You know, designers don't have control over everything our clients do.

And it's funny, I see an *exclusive* johnwoodcock complaining on the iStock forums, if you are the same person, I'm amazed you are still contributing!

« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2011, 09:18 »
0
Okay, I just did it again, and it was the same. On the bottom of page 5 (200 images per page) there are two images of a woman silhouetted with a horse in a barn that know are from almost a year ago. I immediately recognized them because I know the photographer, the location, and the person in the photo. They are from July of 2010. And then right next to them are photos that are dated April 2011.

Maybe they factor "newest" using newest within categories too, not just strict date calculations.  So it could be that they show the newest exclusive image, newest non-exclusive, newest agency, newest vetta, and any other mystery categories they chose to include in the algorithim, giving heavier weight to the exclusives, vetta, agency, even though they are older than the new "lower tier" images.  That would account for "new" images with a wide range of dates.

« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2011, 09:31 »
0

Maybe they factor "newest" using newest within categories too, not just strict date calculations.  So it could be that they show the newest exclusive image, newest non-exclusive, newest agency, newest vetta, and any other mystery categories they chose to include in the algorithim, giving heavier weight to the exclusives, vetta, agency, even though they are older than the new "lower tier" images.  That would account for "new" images with a wide range of dates.

Then that would be a redefining of "File Age", wouldn't it? LOL

« Reply #17 on: June 14, 2011, 10:31 »
0

Maybe they factor "newest" using newest within categories too, not just strict date calculations.  So it could be that they show the newest exclusive image, newest non-exclusive, newest agency, newest vetta, and any other mystery categories they chose to include in the algorithim, giving heavier weight to the exclusives, vetta, agency, even though they are older than the new "lower tier" images.  That would account for "new" images with a wide range of dates.

Then that would be a redefining of "File Age", wouldn't it? LOL

In the real world, yes, but this is iStock's own bizzaro world with it's own convoluted logic!  The scary part is that my brain was starting to follow that possible logic.  I need an intervention!

ShadySue

« Reply #18 on: June 14, 2011, 17:25 »
0
What would Amazon do?

I went over to Amazon UK to see how much 4Gb CF cards cost, as I 'seem' to have lost two in the past week.   :'(

So I typed in SanDisk Compact Flash 4Gb and the 'above the fold' results were:
1. A SanDisk 8GB CF card (the upsell attempt)
2. A SanDisk 8GB SDHC card (in case I didn't have a clue what I was looking for?)
3. A SanDisk 4 GB card so cheap I'm assuming it's ancient, so slooooooow.
4. A book called "Quick snap guide to digital photography" with a mention of Sandisk 4GB cards on page 23, "SanDisk pioneered a 4GB CompactFlash card with a three-position switch on one edge that you can use to transform the card from a 4G/FAT32 ..." which I guess is news, as well as Geek, to me.
http://www.lizworld.com/CF4.jpg

I noticed the note at the top of the page which says, "select a department", but still, I thought my search term was pretty precise.
So I selected 'electronics and photo', same search for a SanDisk 4GB compact flash.
This time, at least they were all CF disks
1. 8GB card
2. Cheap, slow 4GB card
3. 4Gb, the kind I have at the moment
4. Cheap 4GB, claims to be the same speed as no 3, but less than half the price.
5. 32GB, costs 179.91. What I would get if I didn't keep losing them.
6 8GB slower and cheaper than no1
http://www.lizworld.com/SD4_2.jpg
So the first search got me one correct match out of 4 and the second, filtered, one, got me 3 out of 6.

BTW, I'm only noting the actual search results, not the merits of various CF cards.

ShadySue

« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2011, 17:05 »
0
I just noticed that iStock search wasn't working at all (though you can go into personal portfolios or public lightboxes) and hopped onto the forums. Strangely, only three people have posted about it. Oh, as I was typing this I fired up IE, and search is working there, but not on Firefox. Don't they test their 'tweaks' on Firefox?

nruboc

« Reply #20 on: June 15, 2011, 17:31 »
0
I just noticed that iStock search wasn't working at all (though you can go into personal portfolios or public lightboxes) and hopped onto the forums. Strangely, only three people have posted about it. Oh, as I was typing this I fired up IE, and search is working there, but not on Firefox. Don't they test their 'tweaks' on Firefox?

I'm using IE and it didn't work for me....FINALLY some positive news after a few slow days!!!!!!

ShadySue

« Reply #21 on: June 15, 2011, 17:58 »
0
I just noticed that iStock search wasn't working at all (though you can go into personal portfolios or public lightboxes) and hopped onto the forums. Strangely, only three people have posted about it. Oh, as I was typing this I fired up IE, and search is working there, but not on Firefox. Don't they test their 'tweaks' on Firefox?

I'm using IE and it didn't work for me....FINALLY some positive news after a few slow days!!!!!!
Oh, it's still working here, but I'm on such an old version of IE (Win), I get that orange banner telling me to upgrade. Ironic, huh?

nruboc

« Reply #22 on: June 15, 2011, 18:07 »
0
I just noticed that iStock search wasn't working at all (though you can go into personal portfolios or public lightboxes) and hopped onto the forums. Strangely, only three people have posted about it. Oh, as I was typing this I fired up IE, and search is working there, but not on Firefox. Don't they test their 'tweaks' on Firefox?

I'm using IE and it didn't work for me....FINALLY some positive news after a few slow days!!!!!!
Oh, it's still working here, but I'm on such an old version of IE (Win), I get that orange banner telling me to upgrade. Ironic, huh?


Yeah, you need to upgrade so you can fully appreciate IStock's f-ups!

« Reply #23 on: June 15, 2011, 19:10 »
0
I just noticed that iStock search wasn't working at all (though you can go into personal portfolios or public lightboxes) and hopped onto the forums. Strangely, only three people have posted about it. Oh, as I was typing this I fired up IE, and search is working there, but not on Firefox. Don't they test their 'tweaks' on Firefox?

How frustrating for buyers and contributors alike. I, fortunately, have had several IS-search-free blissful days. :D

ShadySue

« Reply #24 on: June 15, 2011, 19:14 »
0
Seems to be working again.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1861 Views
Last post June 24, 2008, 02:08
by fotografer
4 Replies
4815 Views
Last post February 05, 2010, 05:38
by kamphi
37 Replies
13514 Views
Last post August 22, 2010, 23:11
by ann
0 Replies
1564 Views
Last post December 15, 2010, 20:07
by 7fttallrussian
4 Replies
963 Views
Last post August 29, 2013, 20:01
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors