Oh, boy.

  It's a business.  Why shouldn't they do every possible thing they can to make the end user happy?  BigStock even shares with us how they rank a photo.  I just don't buy into this whole conspiracy theory.
If I owned an agency, I would make darn sure that the best of Iofoto or Yuri Arcurs photos float to the top.  I would hate to see some of that total crap that I submitted two years ago rank better than quality photos.  (Doesn't bother me if it does sell though!)

i think the older guys with more experience in stock photos here say it right.
it's up to you to decide whether you want to play the game by the rules or waste your breath submitting and getting rejections.

they would be idiotic if they favor certain photographers just to "sleep with them".  clients are not idiots, they know what to buy.

as a newbie, you can learn from the rejects and make changes to your attitude. soon you will see more accepts.
it happened to me. BigStock first 25 submits 2 accepts.
i changed to send what they are looking for. now i got 8 accepts.

at DST, i got 4 rejects of 5, then i deleted the lot waiting for review and uploaded what they told me they wanted. i ended up with 2 of 3 accepted. i went back into my files to look for those they want.
worked on them to give them the composition and color they insist.

sure, i slow down my submission though. but my  acceptance percentage is higher.
it's a learning process. you don't win first round , nobody does.

you'll benefit if you just listen to why they reject you and what they want from you

istock -> primarily number of downloads or best match based heavily on number of downloads, number of views and age. I wouldn't be surprised to find it has a hidden starting rating, but I think after that its up to the image.

I think it is common knowledge that IS puts both non-exclusive and exclusive images in the first few hits on a customer's search. After those first few, IS packs the search results with the images of exclusives.

Is this fair to non-exclusive submitters? Maybe, maybe not; after all, I can choose to go exclusive there any time I want, if Iwant to :
-give up the  75% of my stocking which comes from other sites
-give up the revenue from the 30-40% of my images which IS rejects because they are "not suitable for stock" but which sell very well elsewhere. (Although maybe they wouldn't reject those images if I were exclusive?)

But is it fair to the customers? Shouldn't they see the best matches to their search terms, and not results packed instead with the images of IS's favorites and pets?

Quote from: michaeldb on April 18, 2008, 18:34

I think it is common knowledge that IS puts both non-exclusive and exclusive images in the first few hits on a customer's search. After those first few, IS packs the search results with the images of exclusives.

I don't think it is common knowledge, I think it is a commonly mistaken belief. People keep putting up single search results as, at most, anecdotal evidence, but the truth is that they don't "pack" search results with images of exclusives. You see slightly, and I mean slightly, more exclusive images in search results because, as the admins at IS have stated, the exclusives generate the majority of the images (myself excluded).

You may be right, maybe it is an urban legend that IS puts non-exclusives in an equal ratio with exclusives only in the first [n] search results, but I seem to recall having seen it stated as fact by reliable sources. Hm, if I'm wrong I'll be glad to eat crow.

That means that they DO push images AS YOU SAY

the they do it when ever they want and for who ever they want

Geez, man. Way to selectively quote someone.

Yes, I said they do push new images. However I also said NEW images, for ALL contributors. Don't twist my words to spin your bizarre theories.