Yes. I saw it and thankfully Sean has updated his Greasemonkey scripts - which broke after IS's changes - so I don't have to look at it any more.

Sean's updated scripts aren't working for me 

Why don't they just get rid of the column for ratings?  Does anyone care about ratings anymore, really?  Seems like a quaint vestige of long ago times. 

Sean's updated scripts aren't working for me 

Why don't they just get rid of the column for ratings?  Does anyone care about ratings anymore, really?  Seems like a quaint vestige of long ago times. 

Got the new ones, they work now. (again)

Maybe someone can explain to me where the ratings come from and what they mean. I never bothered to ask or care, just like the same on a couple other sites like Panther and Mostphotos. Since they always came right after an upload, I thought they were from the reviewers. But I bet I'm wrong!

Please submit a new release signed by the witness on the same date as signed by the model.  Then to go through the freaking hassle to have a new release signed and the f*ckers reject the f*cking photo.  I don't know who is stupider, me or them. 

That is so frustrating!  I went through the same thing . I even HAD the models and witnesses sign at the same time, but one guy had the date wrong, and it ruined his release and two others he witnessed!  What a massive PITA rounding three people up and getting new releases. 

Quote from: Pixart on March 04, 2011, 19:11

Please submit a new release signed by the witness on the same date as signed by the model.  Then to go through the freaking hassle to have a new release signed and the f*ckers reject the f*cking photo.  I don't know who is stupider, me or them. 

I had quite a few of those. They would reject it for one reason, I would fix, resubmit, then they would reject for something else. Like they couldn't list all the things wrong with it the first time. But this is really where I realized that there was NO consistency to reviewing and contributors are pretty much at their mercy and whims...

I had a series accepted last year, then deactivated for IP. I've uploaded them again for editorial, and half have been rejected, for a gamut of reasons.

The better question Caz, is why didn't I review the thing from top to bottom before the shoot started?  Lesson learned. 

I had quite a few of those. They would reject it for one reason, I would fix, resubmit, then they would reject for something else. Like they couldn't list all the things wrong with it the first time. But this is really where I realized that there was NO consistency to reviewing and contributors are pretty much at their mercy and whims...

I think the problem is that the re-submission doesn't go to the original reviewer.  And maybe the new reviewer knows that it was already rejected once, so he automatically looks at it with a hypercritical eye, and sure enough, finds something else.  Instead of wasting time with resubmissions and appeals, I've had better luck just submitting the same image again after a few weeks.  I don't know if that's technically a violation of their system. 

Something to do when I'm bored. Find the upload from 2009, upload again and correct the copyright issue portion.

Or upload as editorial.
The queue is now 89921, almost 2000 more than it was 13 months ago.
They clearly haven't worked out what they mean by editorial: loads or rejections and inconsistencies being noted in the Editorial forum, and some important questions aren't being answered.
Plus they are insisting on strict editorial guidelines about editing and captioning, which is fair enough for some buyers, but they still won't allow these potential buyers to filter editorial only, though you can filter out editorial images.

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 05, 2011, 17:04

Quote from: stockastic on March 05, 2011, 16:10

  Instead of wasting time with resubmissions and appeals, I've had better luck just submitting the same image again after a few weeks.  I don't know if that's technically a violation of their system. 

Not if it's marked re-submit allowed? We just picked a different route to the same destination. (personal opinion of course)

Yeah, sorry, but that's actually not accurate. Or, at least, it wasn't a couple of years ago when I got "caught" doing exactly that. I got an admonishment stating that the file had been uploaded as new when it should have been uploaded as a resubmittal (I don't even know how they could possibly have found out), and I was asked (ok, told!) not to do it again.

Since then, I've always used the resubmit link, even though that's extra work since it can't be done (yet?!) through DM. 

Thanks for clearing that one up. I would have guessed it was OK, since it's not the same image. And you know the stories about fixing one thing and having a photo rejected for something different. Odd as it is. I also remember reading many posts here from people who don't resubmit, but send in as new. I seldom if ever re-send images, so it's not a big issue for me, but you saved someone else a potential problem.

IS support ticket on my removed image: "You are welcome to re-upload the file as an editorial file if you like.  We can't change the file type on our end, it needs to be re-uploaded and the 'editorial' checkbox selected."

... many of us having got random rejections while they change the rules at a whim, the next 'privilege' is going to relate to acceptance rate.

That would indicate that there are rules.  It seems that they are making them up as they go.

Quote from: tundraphoto on March 06, 2011, 07:17

Quote from: ShadySue on March 06, 2011, 06:38

... many of us having got random rejections while they change the rules at a whim, the next 'privilege' is going to relate to acceptance rate.

That would indicate that there are rules.  It seems that they are making them up as they go.

Making them up and changing them as they go, as some have had acceptances for editorial, which were subsequently rejected. The initial instructions re captions were unclear/ambiguous and led to many rejections while they clarified them.
I guess it was the office junior's turn to choose something new and said, "Why don't we try editorial?" and they coggled something together, apu.
Bear in mind that it was often repeated, and not so long ago, that they would not be offering editorial.
But having decided that they would, why wouldn't they have got some people experienced in selling and marketing editorial and thrashed out all the issues, including but not only:

• What are our target markets? (share with contributors)
• How do we want images to be captioned? (test with at least twenty users of various levels and experience who have nothing to do with development)
• What will/won't be allowed? Is there any logical/legal reason for this? Explain clearly to contributors.
• Hire and train members for Team Metadata, as there is clearly going to be a rush on new keywords. Urgently, the many words which already have a meaning in the CV, but new meanings for editorial, which mean that important words can't be used, even if they are the main keyword for that image. Of course, the existing team, which is stretched too far as it is, couldn't be expected to cope. Maybe the temps could do the background maintenance work, e.g. the backlog of wiki files, and the experienced team could work on the Editorial keyword issues.
• Hire and train new inspectors.
• Decide whether the 'normal' istock lighting standards are appropriate, bearing in mind that editorial events happen when they happen. If so, at least don't send lighting rejections with all these cookie cutter lighting hints for using artificial light for obviously available light situations (which are useless to natural light photographers anyway).
• Test with a sample of contributors from all levels.
• Launch to the general community.

[/li]
[/list]
I'm sure there are lots more steps, but I've never been in 'business'.
Decide if, at the beginning, upload quotas for editorial should be limited.

OMG.  I'd not been into the editorial forum until now and all I can say is what a mess!   Once again Istock rolling something out without much thought and the contributor base is the beta test.  Crowdtesting at its worst. 

Quote from: KB on March 06, 2011, 00:37

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 05, 2011, 17:04

Quote from: stockastic on March 05, 2011, 16:10

  Instead of wasting time with resubmissions and appeals, I've had better luck just submitting the same image again after a few weeks.  I don't know if that's technically a violation of their system. 

Not if it's marked re-submit allowed? We just picked a different route to the same destination. (personal opinion of course)

Yeah, sorry, but that's actually not accurate. Or, at least, it wasn't a couple of years ago when I got "caught" doing exactly that. I got an admonishment stating that the file had been uploaded as new when it should have been uploaded as a resubmittal (I don't even know how they could possibly have found out), and I was asked (ok, told!) not to do it again.

Since then, I've always used the resubmit link, even though that's extra work since it can't be done (yet?!) through DM. 

I'm not surprised.  What would surprise me is to find out there's a way to 'sting' contributors that IS hasn'tthought of.     But let me be devil's advocate and ask, regarding re-submission vs. just waiting and submitting as new: what the heck is the difference and why should IS care?  The photo is either good enough, or it isn't, and any inspector should be able to decide, and past history is irrelevant.   Why have a special 'resubmit' process unless it's purpose is just to look closer and find even more stuff wrong?   

Have to admit that when I started, I didn't even notice the resubmit button for some months. I read the email rejection notice, and if I could fix the file, I did. Not deliberately avoiding the rejection button: ignorance, not malice.
That advantage of using the resubmit button is that your info is mostly still there, but you still have to DA and add categories.

I've been told in private conversations with inspectors that Istock knows the human inspection process is inconsistent.  A resubmitted image is flagged for closer inspection since one inspector found at least 1 flaw with it before.  They know a "new" submission without that previous submission history is a lot more likely to get accepted even if the original flaw is not fixed.

That's what I suspected and leads to the maddening situation of new problems being flagged on resubmission.  Sorry but I don't see the logic of the statement that  "a "new" submission without that previous submission history is a lot more likely to get accepted even if the original flaw is not fixed."   The inspection criteria are the same, the inspectors are all equal, the photo has the same chance on a second submission.

The real problem is that their submission system - i.e. their software - can apparently only report one flaw back to the contributor.  It may also be true that they tell their inspectors to stop after finding just one flaw.  But still, an inspection is an inspection, there's no reason to even bother checking for an image being submitted twice.  Just inspect it like any other.

It's like the TSA at the airports, adding layer after layer, there's no realistic balancing of risks against costs.