Quote from: stockastic on September 14, 2012, 18:21

Quote from: ShadySue on September 14, 2012, 18:17

Quote from: stockastic on September 14, 2012, 18:16

ShadySue does have a point although I don't see how that point implies a criticism of the OP.    It is true that if - for a given search - agency 'A' simply presents more pages of cr@p than agency 'B', it's not really a reason to prefer 'A'.  I think the OP was expressing disappointment that none of these agencies, despite their tens of millions of images, had what he wanted - and that he expected IS to do much better than it did.

And as the OP won't share with us the actual search, we can't find out whether it is a deficiency of iStock's search system or an actual lack of images.

Ok, I sense a money-making opportunity here, for those who have mastered IS's constantly-changing search functions.    Buyers need professional help to find the needles in that haystack.

Or they could crowdsource via the request new contest thread.
If you were going to pay someone to find stuff, they might as well go to a macro and get their picture researchers to do it.
OTOH, my sales haven't recovered this month, so PICK ME as your searcher! 

Well, its not so much about finding stuff. Off course I would always prefer finding something faster than spending more time on it, but usually for a print project the selection of a image is so important that I wanna do it myself and see the whole spectrum. Every third or fourth Project I end up finding a different pic than the requested because of blurry search and then sell it to the client when I really think it is the better option. The other side is paying actually a contributor to realize a image...this happens.

I think the good news for us as Contributors is that I repeat to find unexpected "holes" in the coverage of Microstock that are waiting to be filled. Good opportunities for us creatives. Mostly as a Contrib I think "...it`s all been done already" and then realize that it hasn`t.

Sorry, I have the opposite experience as buyer. For me they still have the best collection. Than SS .....

Quote from: ShadySue on September 14, 2012, 18:25

Quote from: stockastic on September 14, 2012, 18:21

Quote from: ShadySue on September 14, 2012, 18:17

Quote from: stockastic on September 14, 2012, 18:16

ShadySue does have a point although I don't see how that point implies a criticism of the OP.    It is true that if - for a given search - agency 'A' simply presents more pages of cr@p than agency 'B', it's not really a reason to prefer 'A'.  I think the OP was expressing disappointment that none of these agencies, despite their tens of millions of images, had what he wanted - and that he expected IS to do much better than it did.

And as the OP won't share with us the actual search, we can't find out whether it is a deficiency of iStock's search system or an actual lack of images.

Ok, I sense a money-making opportunity here, for those who have mastered IS's constantly-changing search functions.    Buyers need professional help to find the needles in that haystack.

...they might as well go to a macro and get their picture researchers to do it.

You mean - like going to a retailer who actually knows what he has on his shelves and helps you find what you want?
What kind of a crazy idea is that?  So 20th century.

That's me, a 20th century gal.