Actually, that's not very convenient.   You have to scroll way down to find a popular site like Shutterstock with 50,000 posts, tucked in among others with just a few hundred.   The forums with most posts should still be at the top.

If the description is less than 10 words, they give you a snide comment "Oops, your description only has 5 words!"

Don't they know a picture is worth 1000 words?  Occasionally, a photo will need some clarification, but most of the time a good stock photo's content will be obvious from looking at it.  Shutterstock, which sells far better than Dreamstime, doesn't even ask for a separate title and description except for editorial photos.

Recently in each batch uploaded, I have been getting one or two files with a "file transfer error," where I am asked to resubmit.  I never had this until about two weeks ago.   Is this happening to others, or is there some problem with my browser or connection?

It's hard to make any predictions with DT, as sales volumes generally have been weak for the past few years.   I just had a rare EL sale, and it was an image that hadn't sold at all for two years before that.

They haven't put a captcha on the Adobe site.  It was getting to be enough of a nuisance that I stopped using the Fotolia version.

I'm a Canadian contributor who received a notice that my form had expired.  The new form is much more complicated than the old one (actually, just much longer -- most of it doesn't apply).   I found this page to be a very useful guide on what to fill out:

http://ontariotaxmen.ca/w8-ben-e.htm

If you don't fill out this horrible form, US tax will be deducted from your revenue even though you live in a tax treaty country that exempts you from US tax.

I was able to submit a few photos, and the new interface is a bit nicer than the old one.   If there is a separate editorial category designation available, I could not see it.

There is a search box that's supposed to let you search by status.  However, I was not able to get it to show either the photos I just uploaded through ESP, or the ones I uploaded last week through the old iStock.

Mat,  thanks for the quick response.  I checked my tax form, and it did indeed expire on December 31.  I see that they are only valid for three years.

I have now submitted an updated form.  I will wait eagerly for tomorrow's sales to see if that fixes the problem.   

I've seen all the Dreamstime bashing here.  I suspect that it depends on what types of photos people produce.   Many stock photographers focus on generic model released scenes of the type that is good for commercial advertising. 

I find that for travel and editorial shots Dreamstime is pretty good.   Dreamstime was one of the first to accept editorial shots, and in my opinion is still the best.  They are easy to upload, and unlike other sites don't force you to jump through hoops to caption editorial shots.  They are also much more liberal in accepting just about any editorial shot, including interiors, for which many other sites insist that releases are needed even for editorial use.

I discovered that the problem of no updating of the statistics is an issue in Firefox.  Looking at the same page in Chrome, I do see statistics for September, but sales are awful, worst half month ever.  (123rf, which is usually my worst, has triple the revenue with a much smaller portfolio).  DT has occasionally fluctuated before, but has never fallen off a cliff quite as badly as this.

4 (four) days ago I submitted 20 images to DT.
They just got reviewed (and accepted) today!

Normally I wait about 2 1/2 weeks, but this, I can't explain.
My world is spinning!

Now, if I could just earn half as much as I do from SS, I'd be ecstatic!

I have always found it odd that they take so long to review, as they have the highest acceptance rate of any of the big four.  They are not very particular, and almost everything gets accepted, so you would think it should not take them so long to review.  Unfortunately, their sales (never great) just keep going down and down.   

I regularly get annoying "four years without sales" e-mails from them.  Why do they bother?  It's more their fault than mine, as some of the ones that have had no sales on Dreamstime have had numerous sales on other sites.

I like them so I have continued to upload, but now I am having second thoughts about whether it is worth the trouble.

Quote from: Danybot on April 23, 2014, 15:11

  In most countries, the owner of the house has no right to prevent somebody from taking a photo of his house from the public street. ...

... for personal use, or to sell as editorial, just the same as shooting a person for editorial.
Commercial use is different for people, and in some countries, e.g. the UK, for property:
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/02/12/is-it-legal-to-take-pictures-of-buildings-photography-law-questions-answered-by-experts

If there is no copyright, it generally does not make a difference whether you use it commercially or not.  In the UK, it appears that there is a voluntary advertising standards council that has a policy of discouraging advertisers from using such photos.  That is a concession to the overly sensitive, but it is unlikely to be a legal requirement.  Stock photos are always de-identified, with house numbers etc. removed.  Most houses are not very unique, and for many of the photos being removed by Istock, their owners would not be able to swear that it is their own house as opposed to a similar one a thousand miles away. 

In any event, it is up to the user to know what they are using the photo for and whether that use is legal where they are using it.  I sell hundreds of photos of "personal residences" on microstock sites every year.  Presumably, if there was a major legal risk in using them, people would have gotten wind of it, and stopped buying long before now.   

Removing a photo just because it is of a "personal residence," which Istock is doing, is a downright silly reason.  However, as somebody else pointed out, it is probably a good thing, as buyers who want these will have to migrate to other stock sites, and virtually all of them pay a higher commission to the photographer than Istock.

For me, everything has been pretty normal except DT, which has fallen off a cliff in March.  Total sales are about one quarter of normal, my worst month since 2007, when I had only 300 images on-line (now about 1500).    There is obviously something strange going on at DT, and it would be incumbent on management to make some clarification about it.