MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: USA27 on June 26, 2016, 23:44

Title: ISTOCK missing downloads
Post by: USA27 on June 26, 2016, 23:44
Does anyone have notice that comparing 2 downloads stats pages in Istock, these don't coincide in the total number of downloads?

the first page is your portfolio classic view where in every image appears the numbers of downloads of each image... you need to add all the downloads for this year and compare this number against the profile page, right corner: downloads(for this year).

the total number of downloads in the classic view is bigger than the number that appears in the profile.So you are losing downloads that are not being pay to you or are not counting like a sale.

I sent a request to them to correct this, but after 1 week there is no answer.

I have checked with another user and it is happening the same.

There should be a system error (for how long?) in counting the downloads and we are losing money because the profile view is missing the real total download sales for your files in a year...


Title: Re: ISTOCK missing downloads
Post by: ShadySue on June 27, 2016, 05:37
Some pages count your subs as downloads, some don't.
Your portfolio search page even counts subs sales from the current month which hasn't been reported or paid yet.
We have been assured many times that we are not losing money, and on the few occasions I've tracked, the 'phantom' subs have been paid the following month. Of course, say you have a file with 2 phantom subs sales in June - by the time you get subs paid out in July, you may have acquired another phantom subs sale in early July.

It's a mess, sure, but you need to keep up on their forum, moribund though it is (at least you don't have to wade through a lot of posts!). Keep up with the bugs thread, at least (the busiest one [other than 'chat']). They call this one a 'display bug'. They show little interest in clearing bugs; some stay on the list for months then are 'disappeared' without being fixed.

It's horrendously untransparent, but any of the sites could be under-reporting and how would you ever know? If you feel you don't trust any of them, all you can do is remove your port.
Title: Re: ISTOCK missing downloads
Post by: JetCityImage on June 27, 2016, 10:09
Just got this response from them today:

"While regular iStock credit downloads are reported pretty much in real time, partner program and image subscription sales are reported in the following month, usually between the 8th and 23rd.

Since we just completed the May sub and partner sale reporting you may see fewer sales in the next week, until we start the June reporting in July."
Title: Re: ISTOCK missing downloads
Post by: ShadySue on June 27, 2016, 12:59
Just got this response from them today:

"While regular iStock credit downloads are reported pretty much in real time, partner program and image subscription sales are reported in the following month, usually between the 8th and 23rd.

Since we just completed the May sub and partner sale reporting you may see fewer sales in the next week, until we start the June reporting in July."

What was your actual question?
Title: Re: ISTOCK missing downloads
Post by: JetCityImage on June 27, 2016, 13:30
"Just curious as to how often statistics are updated. I realize that I\'m not a huge contributor, but that I haven\'t had any images downloaded since 01Jun, no subscription sales since 30May and no recent partner sales seems odd. That, and there was a flurry of activity the first week of June to reflect May sales makes me wonder if something is amiss."
Title: Re: ISTOCK missing downloads
Post by: ShadySue on June 27, 2016, 13:50
"Just curious as to how often statistics are updated. I realize that I\'m not a huge contributor, but that I haven\'t had any images downloaded since 01Jun, no subscription sales since 30May and no recent partner sales seems odd. That, and there was a flurry of activity the first week of June to reflect May sales makes me wonder if something is amiss."

Oh, that's OK, the reply seems relevant. (They're not always.)