MicrostockGroup

No, it's pretty much a mishmash of hot shots and random stuff at this point.  There's really neat stuff in there, and then some where you're like "what?".

Mishmash LOL!
Sean your Yiddishe background is showing 

It's for iStock exclusives only
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/premiere-collection-submission-process-announced/

I think it's a bit weird too. I nominated two photos based solely on the number of positive reviews by people not on my CN (and whom I don't know) and low sales. TBH, I was fairly surprised when they were accepted (but then again I was astonished when Getty accepted me via the iStock silver thingy).
Since then I've had notification of four other files being slated for Premier. One 'singleton', two from a series and one from a series of two. Seems odd that buyers could get one from the 'main' collection for a lower price than a similar-ish one in the Premier collection - and the polar opposite to the 'similars' rule with Getty.

I am wondering if IS isn't going for a 'Halo effect'.
For those not familiar, this is an old automobile company tactic.

Produce a flagship automobile in small numbers (think Dodge Viper for instance) that you don't intend to sell many of...but it will get people into the store and excited about your brand.

In essence IS might be saying: here is our best of the best... but if you cannot afford this, check out the artists port, there may be something similar there for less.

They don't show the download numbers, but if you sort a search by downloads, then the Infinite collection pictures seem to appear in the right order, thus you can derive the approximate number of downloads. Not sure that this is really true or if they are presented there in some random order, but I would assume that FT would not put effort in programming something like that (after all, sort by download is just a simple database query...)

Hmm, very interesting.
So, which came first? the chicken (favourable placement in search) or the egg (the sales and downloads)?
IOW, did they get to be downloaded the most because they were placed first in the search and found the most, or they earned that favorable placement AFTER they became downloaded the most?

just wondering, as favouritism sure stinks. of course, it's prevalent with every site no doubt.
would it be a lovely world if we were all given a level playing field so that no one person gets to flood the search with all his/her images in preference to other less fortunate to have their images hidden under pages 50, 100, 200,etc?

but then again, i am dreaming , am i?   

Sales are always a direct result of exposure. Putting it another way, a mediocre image with good exposure will outsell an outstanding image with poor exposure by a very large margin. This is why knowing the ins and outs of each agency's search engine is so important. Once you know how to make an image that is 'good enough', exposure and keywording become the most important aspects to success in this industry.

Au contraire, slap any old image on the front page of IS and watch the sales soar and many users spend their time making lightboxes for the extra visibility it gains them.

Some of the highly successfully contributers have files from a few years ago that by their own admission wouldn't pass inspection. Indeed at least one has a message on some of his files not to buy that he has better ones in his portfolio but they still get downloaded.

Just a quick update.

The file from my opening post just sold today as a Vetta.
It netted $7.42 for a small.
I would have had to sell more than 21 copies of this file @ $0.35 ea for he same net.

In conclusion, I guess the editors/inspectors do know what they are doing.
I never thought this would sell as a Vetta, but I was wrong