MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: spike on September 30, 2014, 14:00
-
I was just thinking the other day, as I submitted a lot of similar garbage to iStock and it all got rejected with quite good reasons (reviewers went through the keywords, checked if everything was really isolated, and so on), that it must take a lot of time to review images ;).
So, instead of deactivating images (work for contributors, doesn't do much against them), maybe we should just SPAM them with as many crappy images as we can. I mean, just upload all of the (non-sensitive) photos you have ever taken, keyworded with no effort and incorrectly.
It's no work for us - you just need to import the images and let the upload continue overnight(s). The upload cap is currently 999 images per week, and if a significant amount of contributors decide to spam them at the exact same time, while they don't have time to adjust and enforce the new limits, the queue will grow so long that not only that it will hurt the processing times, but they'll have to hire new reviewers and so on, making their expenses even higher. If the action is coordinated enough and a very high amount of images is submitted, this could make iStock choke.
What do you think? naive or genius? Or none of those things.
-
^^^ Utterly pointless waste of time (and therefore money) for all involved. Istock could quickly block those spamming from uploading or just close their accounts.
-
Yikes! I don't want iStock to go away. I want it to get better.
-
^^^ Utterly pointless waste of time (and therefore money) for all involved. Istock could quickly block those spamming from uploading or just close their accounts.
But it's not really spamming.
You're just uploading your pictures for them to review. I mean, they in some cases get 85% of the royalty, so for that percentage they offer the service to review your images, which is quite nice.
I'm not saying upload identical pictures or things taken from the web. Just upload a BUNCH of your own pictures which aren't up to iStock's standards. I call it spam, but legally it's not.
-
Why? So the now-weeklong review process takes even longer?
No, I think they're already choking...that's the problem. I'd like to see them get better as well.
-
So, instead of deactivating images (work for contributors, doesn't do much against them), maybe we should just SPAM them with as many crappy images as we can. I mean, just upload all of the (non-sensitive) photos you have ever taken, keyworded with no effort and incorrectly.
Theres' so much C%£p submitted anyway how would anyone tell?
Anyway I wouldn't want iS to die, I just want them to get back their roots. Achievable 40% commission, properly curated collection and prices that work for designers and contributors.
-
This forum has gotten so poisonous that there are people here that think this would be a good use of their time?
-
This forum has gotten so poisonous that there are people here that think this would be a good use of their time?
Only the OP, AFAICS.
-
I'm actually surprised to see the amount of support iStock has even though they take 80-85% of the royalties for non-exclusives. They'll never increase this percentage.
Well, you* get what you deserve.
*not you specifically, it's just a saying :)
-
So, instead of deactivating images (work for contributors, doesn't do much against them), maybe we should just SPAM them with as many crappy images as we can. I mean, just upload all of the (non-sensitive) photos you have ever taken, keyworded with no effort and incorrectly.
I did that, they accepted everything, and they are selling some…
-
I don't understand what I might gain by putting my time and effort into trying to destroy an agency where I've already put my time and effort into building a portfolio. I may not like a lot of the things they've done but I still want to make money.
-
When someone comes up with an idea like this, it just reflect on the OP's personality, and does not help make IS better.