MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Strange Deactivation by Istock  (Read 4307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: November 20, 2013, 14:07 »
+1
Sure, when was that logo restriction implemented, surely from the early days.
No big deal and no reason for a minor mistake by an inspector to be used as basis ugly attacks and 7th grade level humor.
.
If I only had a nickel for everytime I've heard THAT one, I could retire....Ron, I gave you a heart because I DO believe your humor is at least 8th grade level :)


« Reply #26 on: November 20, 2013, 15:18 »
-6
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh. Incompetent hacks.
Really. An Incompetent hack? Ha Ha. A tired inspector hits the wrong rejection button. OK I get a laugh out of that. So what's the difference, the file is being rejected anyway. To call an inspector an incompetent hack kind of makes you look like a heartless idiot. I  do 100s of inspections a day. Not for istock. Sometimes I click a wrong button. Well I guess when you are not using you professional name you can get away with being as ugly as you want. I love hitting the reject button.

Ron

« Reply #27 on: November 20, 2013, 15:20 »
0
Jaysus, its a vote down massacre today on MSG.  :'(

Ron

« Reply #28 on: November 20, 2013, 15:22 »
0
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh. Incompetent hacks.
Really. An Incompetent hack? Ha Ha. A tired inspector hits the wrong rejection button. OK I get a laugh out of that. So what's the difference, the file is being rejected anyway. To call an inspector an incompetent hack kind of makes you look like a heartless idiot. I  do 100s of inspections a day. Not for istock. Sometimes I click a wrong button. Well I guess when you are not using you professional name you can get away with being as ugly as you want. I love hitting the reject button.
OK, are you saying you reject images based on who the photographer is, and what he/she says in forums??

« Reply #29 on: November 20, 2013, 15:53 »
0
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh. Incompetent hacks.
Really. An Incompetent hack? Ha Ha. A tired inspector hits the wrong rejection button. OK I get a laugh out of that. So what's the difference, the file is being rejected anyway. To call an inspector an incompetent hack kind of makes you look like a heartless idiot. I  do 100s of inspections a day. Not for istock. Sometimes I click a wrong button. Well I guess when you are not using you professional name you can get away with being as ugly as you want. I love hitting the reject button.
OK, are you saying you reject images based on who the photographer is, and what he/she says in forums??
I am saying you don't know who is in the forum and to laugh and ridicule people that inspect your images is probably not very wise.

Ron

« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2013, 16:04 »
0
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh. Incompetent hacks.
Really. An Incompetent hack? Ha Ha. A tired inspector hits the wrong rejection button. OK I get a laugh out of that. So what's the difference, the file is being rejected anyway. To call an inspector an incompetent hack kind of makes you look like a heartless idiot. I  do 100s of inspections a day. Not for istock. Sometimes I click a wrong button. Well I guess when you are not using you professional name you can get away with being as ugly as you want. I love hitting the reject button.
OK, are you saying you reject images based on who the photographer is, and what he/she says in forums??
I am saying you don't know who is in the forum and to laugh and ridicule people that inspect your images is probably not very wise.
So you are saying reviewers are not impartial?

« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2013, 17:36 »
+2
Sure, when was that logo restriction implemented, surely from the early days.
Ron. Istock editorial started in 2010. They started allowing images showing brands as part of that. After a while they decided that pictures where logos were the main subject were leaving the files open to misuse, so they are no longer allowed. That was fairly recently. So now they are reviewing images and taking some down. No big deal and no reason for a minor mistake by an inspector to be used as basis ugly attacks and 7th grade level humor.
.

What ugly attacks?  I mean a notice like that just cries out for schoolboy humour..

Sue is right though, we have seen files moving around collections by software that should have been done by eye (even if the contributors' eyes) and its a complete mess, then they do something by eye which would be a breeze with a simple select statement...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2013, 17:45 »
0
I guess it might not even be an inspector mistake, but somehow they have changed the linking so that an inspector correctly hitting the 'logo' button now triggers the 'adult content' button.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 18:05 by ShadySue »

Ron

« Reply #33 on: November 20, 2013, 17:47 »
+2
They have mis-wired the whole freaken site, so that sounds very plausible

« Reply #34 on: November 20, 2013, 18:47 »
+5
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh. Incompetent hacks.
Really. An Incompetent hack? Ha Ha. A tired inspector hits the wrong rejection button. OK I get a laugh out of that. So what's the difference, the file is being rejected anyway. To call an inspector an incompetent hack kind of makes you look like a heartless idiot. I  do 100s of inspections a day. Not for istock. Sometimes I click a wrong button. Well I guess when you are not using you professional name you can get away with being as ugly as you want. I love hitting the reject button.
OK, are you saying you reject images based on who the photographer is, and what he/she says in forums??
I am saying you don't know who is in the forum and to laugh and ridicule people that inspect your images is probably not very wise.

Well, they've given themselves the track record of incompetence, not me.  Does the phrase 'pattern of performance' mean anything to you?

« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2013, 14:24 »
+1
Wow! What a train-wreck of a thread - and it started so well, too.

All I can say is that I think it shows tremendous moral courage by iStock to list McDonald's as an "Adults Only" sort of place, which is exactly what it should be (I should point out that I don't venture in there myself, if I want to go somewhere at night I prefer a cosy strip-club). 

I doubt if an American-based company would have had the courage to take a stand against Big Mac. Go, Canucks!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4106 Views
Last post February 28, 2011, 17:43
by click_click
938 Replies
100898 Views
Last post April 30, 2014, 18:36
by deryl1975
11 Replies
2468 Views
Last post October 01, 2014, 13:42
by Freedom
13 Replies
3459 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 12:00
by tickstock
3 Replies
720 Views
Last post January 27, 2017, 09:54
by russianbeardedman

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors