MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Noedelhap on January 19, 2012, 20:01

Title: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: Noedelhap on January 19, 2012, 20:01
Istock is down again. And ofcourse, the dreaded webpage has returned...

English Français Deutsch Español 日本語

Thanks for visiting the 1979 version iStockphoto. We’re working to get the site back to the future as quickly as we can. In the meantime, check out the coupon code below and be sure to come back soon.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: cmannphoto on January 19, 2012, 20:02
You bet me too it.

Someone must have pulled the plug in their way out the door.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: ShadySue on January 19, 2012, 20:03
So the discount code will be disseminated throughout the web and we lose again.
Though I guess there is a slight possiblitily that it might be new buyers who use the disseminated codes ...
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: jjneff on January 19, 2012, 20:07
Oh joy and I was having a good day
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on January 19, 2012, 20:12
And the discount code is BYTES2011 - they must have laid off whoever writes these not-very-funny outage messages. So we save money by recycling old 2011 verbiage :)
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: cmannphoto on January 19, 2012, 20:15
And the discount code is BYTES2011 - they must have laid off whoever writes these not-very-funny outage messages. So we save money by recycling old 2011 verbiage :)
Or the Twitter message
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: hiddenstock on January 19, 2012, 20:16
Just childish. Maybe JJRD took the keys to the server on the way out.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: ShadySue on January 19, 2012, 20:18
Just childish. Maybe JJRD took the keys to the server on the way out.
Now I'm getting the equally unprofessional
"The glitch monsters are at work down in the dark internety room, but they sent a note up that said: “Dear You, Me fix broken thing. Sorry for trouble. Love, Monsters.”
They, and the site, will be back up soon. In the meantime, we’d like to offer you 10% off your next purchase of 50 or more iStock credits using the coupon code below."
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: KarenH on January 19, 2012, 20:19
Worse -- it's back to the monster error page.  "The glitch monsters are at work down in the dark internety room, but they sent a note up that said: “Dear You, Me fix broken thing. Sorry for trouble. Love, Monsters."

:(
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: Noedelhap on January 19, 2012, 20:24
I haven't been following the updates and problems threads on iStock, but is there a new fix coming up or something? Or is everything bugged beyond recognition again? Sales for january were going okay-ish, I must say.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: Karimala on January 19, 2012, 20:24
This is seriously getting out of hand.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: KB on January 19, 2012, 20:31
No update was pending AFAIK.

But based on past experiences, once the site is up & running again, new bugs will have appeared.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: madelaide on January 19, 2012, 20:33
Anonymous targetting IS too?
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: Morphart on January 19, 2012, 20:33
Worse -- it's back to the monster error page.  "The glitch monsters are at work down in the dark internety room, but they sent a note up that said: “Dear You, Me fix broken thing. Sorry for trouble. Love, Monsters."

:(

Just saw that "monstre text" on my iPhone... Very unprofessionnal indeed... The French version is better though, simply telling the site is down for maintenance.

Sounds like a Nerd text a programmer left there. "Me cookie monster no like server wires. Me eat em, yummy! Want some?"

I am sorry for all of you exclusive contributors out there, it's really a sad story going on...

I remember finaly getting approved as a contributor at iStock, and happy I was. However since then, the downhill slope and long submission time discourage me to upload more over time.

Seems we are witnessing the sinking of Atlantis...
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: KarenH on January 19, 2012, 20:36
They're calling it "unscheduled maintenance" on their twitter post.  Although that sounds oxymoronic to me -- because don't you generally schedule maintenance, and if it's unscheduled, how can it be maintenance?
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: Chico on January 19, 2012, 20:37
Anonymous targetting IS too?

Perhaps our files were in Megaupload servers.

OH, WAIT...
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: Karimala on January 19, 2012, 20:39
Aahhhh...that didn't last long, thank goodness.  IS's back online.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: ShadySue on January 19, 2012, 21:07
Down again; like before, nada on FF, but I can get the home page and a search in IE, but can't click on a photo.
Later: nada on IE either.
Off to bed! It might look better in the morning. Or ...
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: briciola on January 19, 2012, 21:11
what a pathetic message.  "The glitch monsters are at work down in the dark internety room, but they sent a note up that said: “Dear You, Me fix broken thing. Sorry for trouble. Love, Monsters"  Oh my god, is the dev team 12?
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: cathyslife on January 19, 2012, 21:16
I'm getting the site down message right now.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: cathyslife on January 19, 2012, 21:17
Maybe all istock contributors will be redirected to the Getty or Stinkstock site sooner than later?  ???
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: jamirae on January 19, 2012, 21:57
oh brother.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: ARTPUPPY on January 19, 2012, 22:22
Well this was professional... well I think we can see that some layoffs were in order after all. All this is doing is convincing Getty to shut down the Calgary office ASAP if this kind of crap is going on. Unacceptable.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: THP Creative on January 19, 2012, 22:32
Just when you think they may be starting to get it together (wishful thinking, I know)...

Can't believe after the backlash of the '11 Meltdown they have retained such an infantile approach to their outages.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: dgilder on January 19, 2012, 22:50
Interestingly, StockFresh seems to be getting the biggest bump from the downtime so far as my ports go. 
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: luissantos84 on January 19, 2012, 23:13
@iStock "Still working on bringing things back to normal. In the meantime, please go to thinkstock.com or photos.com for any image needs."
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: THP Creative on January 19, 2012, 23:22
I wonder how much cheering and back-slapping goes on at SS and DT and the like when this keeps happening to IS...  ;D
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: Karimala on January 19, 2012, 23:29
It's back up again...but who knows for how long.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: Karimala on January 19, 2012, 23:33
Interesting...while IS was down, Thinkstock's entire front page was redesigned.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: Karimala on January 20, 2012, 00:46
Also interesting...Anonymous was in the middle of implementing a huge attack against high-profile SOPA/PIPA supporters at the same time IS went down.  Although Getty/IS weren't mentioned in their release, gotta wonder if a rogue hacker got a hold of IS tonight. 
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: RapidEye on January 20, 2012, 02:19
Interesting that one of ThinkStock's selling points is "simplicity". Wonder who they're trying to differentiate themselves from?
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on January 20, 2012, 02:27
Interesting that one of ThinkStock's selling points is "simplicity". Wonder who they're trying to differentiate themselves from?

If I had to guess, this is insider thinking from some Getty folks - it's simpler than RM license pricing or their main site with both RM and RF plus a pile of collections. This ignores the fact that there are a bunch of other micro sites out there that are equally simple. If you were comparing SS and TS, I don't think you'd find TS "simpler".
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: CarlssonInc on January 20, 2012, 02:30
They really need to get an appropriate professional business-like "out of order" page. Current page(s) are a joke!
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: RapidEye on January 20, 2012, 05:54
Interesting that one of ThinkStock's selling points is "simplicity". Wonder who they're trying to differentiate themselves from?

If I had to guess, this is insider thinking from some Getty folks - it's simpler than RM license pricing or their main site with both RM and RF plus a pile of collections. This ignores the fact that there are a bunch of other micro sites out there that are equally simple. If you were comparing SS and TS, I don't think you'd find TS "simpler".

No, I was wondering if they were trying to lure iStock customers who were baffled by the myriad options there.
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: RacePhoto on January 20, 2012, 15:35
Interesting that one of ThinkStock's selling points is "simplicity". Wonder who they're trying to differentiate themselves from?

Alfred E. Neuman
Title: Re: Oh no, not again...Istock back to 1979.
Post by: cathyslife on January 20, 2012, 15:55
Interesting that one of ThinkStock's selling points is "simplicity". Wonder who they're trying to differentiate themselves from?

Alfred E. Neuman

 :D