MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: This is what got my iStock forum privileges and sitemail access revoked  (Read 61575 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #350 on: September 28, 2010, 11:26 »
0
I was feeling a little more 'Dude Where's My Car' tonight....I'm bored of MASH these days, watched too much of it lately.
and then?  :)

sorry, couldn't resist.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 11:29 by cdwheatley »


« Reply #351 on: September 30, 2010, 19:01 »
0
Has anyone who has been banned been reinstated yet? If not, are you getting sitemails? If so, have you been able to get access to them by contacted customer service?

« Reply #352 on: September 30, 2010, 22:13 »
0
Has anyone who has been banned been reinstated yet? If not, are you getting sitemails? If so, have you been able to get access to them by contacted customer service?

are you still banned??  geez!  what a crappy way to treat a buyer!

« Reply #353 on: September 30, 2010, 23:38 »
0
Yup. Still banned. I suspect it's intended to be permanent judging from Lobo's note that accompanied it, "Good luck with your future endeavors".

« Reply #354 on: October 01, 2010, 03:21 »
0
Yeah I am still banned. Not phased - In fact, this time has given me a chance to really re-evaluate where my income is coming from. With a small amount of adjustments I will no longer have to rely on Istock next year and I get to do things I have put on the backburner for some time.

...and if they think i am going to come crawling back for mere forum & sitemail 'priviledges' after having to deal with "Trollobo" then they got another thing coming - for I am perfectly able to get my message across without them ;)

The longer they leave it, the stronger my resolve becomes and the 'free-er' I feel. Another huge fail from IS who once had me working every other hour for them.

traveler1116

« Reply #355 on: October 01, 2010, 03:57 »
0
Has anyone who has been banned been reinstated yet? If not, are you getting sitemails? If so, have you been able to get access to them by contacted customer service?

I was told I needed a week break, then asked after about 9 days what was going on and this was the reply
"Your forum privileges are still being discussed by the admin team. We are taking all of you posts over the last month into consideration to ascertain if your future participation will result in another revocation of your privileges.

Whereas we had provided a considerable amount of leeway to the community regarding their sentiment towards the announcement we found some of you may have taken advantage of this fact.

In short, we don't feel enough time has passed yet to safely reintroduce your privileges. As things start to settle down and we are able to provide further clarity to the community we will then be able to allow you back in."


Still being discussed by the admin team?  I wonder how many hours they have spent on this top priority right now?  I still don't have an idea as to why I got banned since my posts were much calmer than most and didn't insult anyone personally.  Since I was told I don't do this for the money and can't post in the forums what am I doing there?  I wonder what is meant by "some of you may have taken advantage of this fact", I feel like I have been working extremely hard with over 1200 new images on IS this year and currently I'm 31st on the istockcharts for new uploads this month.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 04:04 by traveler1116 »

« Reply #356 on: October 01, 2010, 09:15 »
0
Wow. What a load of total BS. I'm sure that is the answer that I'll get too (even though I made a mere 10 or so posts that were pretty general in nature and not nearly as bad as many that I've seen). Looks like a "stock" answer. Frankly, I could care less about the forums at this point, but I would like access to my sitemail.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 09:16 by caspixel »

« Reply #357 on: October 01, 2010, 10:24 »
0
the istock craziness continues.

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #358 on: October 01, 2010, 12:56 »
0
Has anyone who has been banned been reinstated yet? If not, are you getting sitemails? If so, have you been able to get access to them by contacted customer service?

I was told I needed a week break, then asked after about 9 days what was going on and this was the reply
"Your forum privileges are still being discussed by the admin team. We are taking all of you posts over the last month into consideration to ascertain if your future participation will result in another revocation of your privileges.

Whereas we had provided a considerable amount of leeway to the community regarding their sentiment towards the announcement we found some of you may have taken advantage of this fact.

In short, we don't feel enough time has passed yet to safely reintroduce your privileges. As things start to settle down and we are able to provide further clarity to the community we will then be able to allow you back in."


Still being discussed by the admin team?  I wonder how many hours they have spent on this top priority right now?  I still don't have an idea as to why I got banned since my posts were much calmer than most and didn't insult anyone personally.  Since I was told I don't do this for the money and can't post in the forums what am I doing there?  I wonder what is meant by "some of you may have taken advantage of this fact", I feel like I have been working extremely hard with over 1200 new images on IS this year and currently I'm 31st on the istockcharts for new uploads this month.
You're post probably got too many thumbs up!

traveler1116

« Reply #359 on: October 01, 2010, 13:00 »
0
I was told I was banging my head against a wall and that it was best for me.  No word on thumbs up though.

« Reply #360 on: October 01, 2010, 13:31 »
0
Well thank heavens for MSG.

I did drop my membership here briefly after I became exclusive, but decided that wasn't a sane way to approach things and signed back up again.

In the future, it may be that the main forum benefit is for contributors to compare notes and discuss amongst themselves. Once, I'd have said that it mattered to be part of the iStock forums as they gave contributors a way to discuss things with TPTB. At this point I don't think they're listening - except for the clubby little love fests among the inner circle in the exclusive forums.

The only other thing this site doesn't have that IS does is a Request Forum - a place buyers can come and ask for images they need. That's a service both for buyers and contributors (a couple of times I've shot things for people and found it filled a useful niche in my portfolio.

Other than caspixel, do we have enough buyers here to get this sort of thing going?

« Reply #361 on: October 01, 2010, 14:04 »
0
The only other thing this site doesn't have that IS does is a Request Forum - a place buyers can come and ask for images they need. That's a service both for buyers and contributors (a couple of times I've shot things for people and found it filled a useful niche in my portfolio.

Other than caspixel, do we have enough buyers here to get this sort of thing going?

I like this idea! And since a few of our members are so strict on "pimping", those threads won't be spammed.

lisafx

« Reply #362 on: October 01, 2010, 15:46 »
0

I did drop my membership here briefly after I became exclusive, but decided that wasn't a sane way to approach things and signed back up again.


I am really glad you are back posting here JoAnn.  Independent or exclusive, yours is one of the most astute and reasonable voices.  You generally have important insights to add to the conversation IMO.  :)

« Reply #363 on: October 01, 2010, 16:07 »
0
Well thank heavens for MSG.

I did drop my membership here briefly after I became exclusive, but decided that wasn't a sane way to approach things and signed back up again.

In the future, it may be that the main forum benefit is for contributors to compare notes and discuss amongst themselves. Once, I'd have said that it mattered to be part of the iStock forums as they gave contributors a way to discuss things with TPTB. At this point I don't think they're listening - except for the clubby little love fests among the inner circle in the exclusive forums.

The only other thing this site doesn't have that IS does is a Request Forum - a place buyers can come and ask for images they need. That's a service both for buyers and contributors (a couple of times I've shot things for people and found it filled a useful niche in my portfolio.

Other than caspixel, do we have enough buyers here to get this sort of thing going?

Yes. Thank heavens for MSG! As truly late to this party, I'm glad to finally be here.

OMG. So glad someone brought up the clubfest going down over yonder. Pom-poms and all (and the very words used therein - not mine!) ... it's ... difficult to stomach if you've just eaten and hope to keep a meal down. To say the least.

And I too wonder how many buyers participate here. That would be good to know, to get initiatives like the one you suggest off the ground

« Reply #364 on: October 01, 2010, 16:21 »
0
So glad someone brought up the clubfest going down over yonder. Pom-poms and all (and the very words used therein - not mine!) ... it's ... difficult to stomach if you've just eaten and hope to keep a meal down. To say the least.

Really? What __ even now??? How much abuse, greed and worthless disregard does Istockphoto have to demonstrate to them before they realise they are being shafted?

« Reply #365 on: October 01, 2010, 17:19 »
0
So glad someone brought up the clubfest going down over yonder. Pom-poms and all (and the very words used therein - not mine!) ... it's ... difficult to stomach if you've just eaten and hope to keep a meal down. To say the least.

Really? What __ even now??? How much abuse, greed and worthless disregard does Istockphoto have to demonstrate to them before they realise they are being shafted?

agreed - it seems to be taking place in the exclusive forum mostly, but that's fine.  I think eventually those who are really being screwed will see it for what it is and those who are in the "clique" will just get bigger pom-poms so they can hide behind those without seeing how their fellow contributors are being screwed. 

« Reply #366 on: October 01, 2010, 17:46 »
0
Really?

Really.

it seems to be taking place in the exclusive forum mostly, but that's fine.  I think eventually those who are really being screwed will see it for what it is and those who are in the "clique" will just get bigger pom-poms so they can hide behind those without seeing how their fellow contributors are being screwed.  

It's the right place to contain it. Especially right now. And I agree with everything else you've stated, also.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 17:49 by Risamay »

« Reply #367 on: October 01, 2010, 18:52 »
0
So glad someone brought up the clubfest going down over yonder. Pom-poms and all (and the very words used therein - not mine!) ... it's ... difficult to stomach if you've just eaten and hope to keep a meal down. To say the least.

Really? What __ even now??? How much abuse, greed and worthless disregard does Istockphoto have to demonstrate to them before they realise they are being shafted?

Not that I want you to encourage them, but apparently more than has been dispensed thus far :)

I think that there are some people who have lots of Vetta files who find the the whole situation OK for them - they feel well taken care of and don't connect with the vast majority of the contributor pool (even the exclusive contributor pool). I'm putting words in their mouths, but I think they'd make a variation of the argument often voiced by many independents that as long as the $$ keeps going up, they won't fuss about changing royalty percentages, or subscriptions or anything else.

By the time Getty takes aim at them, they may look around for support in fighting back, but I doubt there'll be much.  

As we've seen, each time one of the agencies pulls off a cash crab - and unfortunately iStock isn't the first, just the latest and most spectacular to date - it emboldens the others. They then claim they have to stay competitive.

@Lisa - we've been contributors for roughly the same amount of time.  The only constant seems to be change :)

« Reply #368 on: October 01, 2010, 18:55 »
0
So glad someone brought up the clubfest going down over yonder. Pom-poms and all (and the very words used therein - not mine!) ... it's ... difficult to stomach if you've just eaten and hope to keep a meal down. To say the least.

Really? What __ even now??? How much abuse, greed and worthless disregard does Istockphoto have to demonstrate to them before they realise they are being shafted?

Not that I want you to encourage them, but apparently more than has been dispensed thus far :)

I think that there are some people who have lots of Vetta files who find the the whole situation OK for them - they feel well taken care of and don't connect with the vast majority of the contributor pool (even the exclusive contributor pool). I'm putting words in their mouths, but I think they'd make a variation of the argument often voiced by many independents that as long as the $$ keeps going up, they won't fuss about changing royalty percentages, or subscriptions or anything else.

By the time Getty takes aim at them, they may look around for support in fighting back, but I doubt there'll be much.  

As we've seen, each time one of the agencies pulls off a cash crab - and unfortunately iStock isn't the first, just the latest and most spectacular to date - it emboldens the others. They then claim they have to stay competitive.

@Lisa - we've been contributors for roughly the same amount of time.  The only constant seems to be change :)

I think you pretty much nailed it.

« Reply #369 on: October 01, 2010, 19:11 »
0
So glad someone brought up the clubfest going down over yonder. Pom-poms and all (and the very words used therein - not mine!) ... it's ... difficult to stomach if you've just eaten and hope to keep a meal down. To say the least.

Really? What __ even now??? How much abuse, greed and worthless disregard does Istockphoto have to demonstrate to them before they realise they are being shafted?

Not that I want you to encourage them, but apparently more than has been dispensed thus far :)

I think that there are some people who have lots of Vetta files who find the the whole situation OK for them - they feel well taken care of and don't connect with the vast majority of the contributor pool (even the exclusive contributor pool). I'm putting words in their mouths, but I think they'd make a variation of the argument often voiced by many independents that as long as the $$ keeps going up, they won't fuss about changing royalty percentages, or subscriptions or anything else.

By the time Getty takes aim at them, they may look around for support in fighting back, but I doubt there'll be much.  

As we've seen, each time one of the agencies pulls off a cash crab - and unfortunately iStock isn't the first, just the latest and most spectacular to date - it emboldens the others. They then claim they have to stay competitive.

@Lisa - we've been contributors for roughly the same amount of time.  The only constant seems to be change :)

Looking for support is meaningless and useless, except for personal confort. Agencies don't listen, not just IS: All. If istock is able to improve my earnings with these changes, my hat will be off, and I will stay here. If not, probably not. It's my war, and the only thing that really matters, because economics are 100 times stronger than emotions, and one dent in earnings and so, a threat to basic income would force many exlusives to really rethink their exclusiveness. And just that, a runaway en masse could make change politics and decisions.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 19:34 by loop »

« Reply #370 on: October 01, 2010, 22:09 »
0
I got bounced too.   :-\  And judging by the response traveler got, I won't get reinstated.  I wasn't necessarily 'new' to istock but i only had a couple of files there and according to Lobo I was very disparaging to someone else's port, which I absolutely feel I was not.  I was called 'too helpful.' 

I don't know much about microstock.  When I signed up about two years ago, my life was very different, and soon after, well, life happened and I didn't do much photographically, it just didn't seem fun anymore.  I am hoping to move back to the US soon, and and am looking at gearing up again, and have been lurking here a while.  I guess I was overly vocal in expressing my opinions.   But it irks me that he accused me of trashing someone's portfolio, that is just not true.  Perhaps  I am out of place having an opinion on the changes since I don't really have a port online, what do i know.  But I am keenly following this to see how the crowdsourcing model evolves with the changes iStock made. 

« Reply #371 on: October 02, 2010, 03:35 »
0
How many diamond exclusives do you reckon are on $80k+? There can't be very many.

Offhand, I'd say 300+. Probably closer to 400 than 300.

From where I'm sitting I'd say that is an overestimate :-\

Definitely! Somewhere between 70 - 100 would be my guess, probably on the lower end of that scale. Working from my own data (as an independent) you'd probably need to be averaging something like 2200 sales per month.
A little under 500.

obvisously I cant know if it is the way the new system is configured but someone did some reasonable impressive calculations halfway through the istock forum thread and it looked extremely likely that exactly 100 people will get 40%.

« Reply #372 on: October 02, 2010, 11:22 »
0
...
obvisously I cant know if it is the way the new system is configured but someone did some reasonable impressive calculations halfway through the istock forum thread and it looked extremely likely that exactly 100 people will get 40%.

If the calculations are right then that seems like a suspiciously round number, doesn't it.  Do you think that have they decided that 40% is a perfectly sustainable commission rate but only as long as they cull the herd down from whatever-thousand contributors they have now, to this "golden 100" of top performers?

traveler1116

« Reply #373 on: October 02, 2010, 11:48 »
0
Obviously the change was made to fit whatever outcome getty wants.  If they want to pay out an average of 25% they fix the numbers to be that way.  They are trying to keep the top people and encourage a large amount of silver and bronze exclusives to stay it's the nonexclusives (except Yuri maybe), gold exclusives, and a lot of diamond exclusives that seem to be losing out a lot.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #374 on: October 02, 2010, 11:59 »
0
I still believe that they are moving towards making Getty Macro...iStock Mid Stock and Thinkstock as their micro. I also think that the non exclusive is going to be forced to sell only at Thinkstock if they choose not to go exclusive, so iStock will be a mid stock run exclusive agency.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
3244 Views
Last post April 18, 2007, 16:56
by GeoPappas
20 Replies
10133 Views
Last post April 07, 2014, 02:20
by hakusan
40 Replies
6319 Views
Last post April 02, 2013, 07:54
by Luppload
8 Replies
2878 Views
Last post December 03, 2016, 18:46
by YadaYadaYada
1 Replies
1754 Views
Last post September 26, 2017, 11:03
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors