Quote from: sjlocke on July 30, 2011, 21:24
'No more insulting and no less accurate than comments on any of the various critique fora - folks who commit to ANY single agency are going to be more inclined to buy into the crap.  I'm doing contract work for one of the big IT multinationals at the moment and see exactly the same thing in the permanent staff.  '

Sorry, obviously you were only looking for negative comments, under the guise of asking for positive ones, else you'd be happy to hear from anyone.

Not the case at all.  The question is prompted by the almost universal negative vibe I get from most IS related threads here and comments on other fora from former exclisives so it was an honest question.  I have no problem with exclusives rowing in but:

1.  If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?

Quote from: madelaide on July 30, 2011, 21:50
BTW, does IS still accept 2MPix images? If so, that is something good to say about them.  

Minimum accepted size 1200x1600 (or equivalent product).

Quote from: madelaide on July 30, 2011, 21:50
BTW, does IS still accept 2MPix images? If so, that is something good to say about them.  

They do and I have a dozen of 2 mpix images there, which can't be uploaded anywhere else. And yeah this is a good thing I already mentioned it in on of the 123RF threads (6 mpix that you mentioned, which is nonsense).

If I think really hard there are 2-3 good things, but they really don't do much good since there are so many bad things and issues. They still are greedy, neoliberalistic pigs.

Quote from: sjlocke on July 30, 2011, 21:24
'No more insulting and no less accurate than comments on any of the various critique fora - folks who commit to ANY single agency are going to be more inclined to buy into the crap.  I'm doing contract work for one of the big IT multinationals at the moment and see exactly the same thing in the permanent staff.  '

Sorry, obviously you were only looking for negative comments, under the guise of asking for positive ones, else you'd be happy to hear from anyone.

well, maybe the ppl who said things like "wow, thank you istock", "wow, thanks istock for this new inspiration" when new credit limits and the agency collection was introduced will pop up here if we wait long enough : )

btw, istock is somewhat better than cancer (not sure tho)

'1.  If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?'

You didn't ask for 'balanced'.  You asked for positive. 

And if you're looking for 'positive' and you believe #2, then you would want to hear from exclusives, definitely.

A better title might be 'Are any independents having any positive thoughts about IS'.

OK, lay those positives on me .....   

Quote from: heywoody on July 30, 2011, 22:37
OK, lay those positives on me .....   

http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/

**Sigh**
other one of these istock bad rest of the world good threads

**Sigh**

To the OP, if you're looking for some sort of accurate picture, this site isn't the place for it. The few istock exclusives who regularly post here, me included, take a good deal of flak. Frankly the more of you that hate and stop contributing to istock, the better for exclusives. you're not looking for real replies in this thread anyways....

Quote from: heywoody on July 30, 2011, 22:07

Quote from: sjlocke on July 30, 2011, 21:24
'No more insulting and no less accurate than comments on any of the various critique fora - folks who commit to ANY single agency are going to be more inclined to buy into the crap.  I'm doing contract work for one of the big IT multinationals at the moment and see exactly the same thing in the permanent staff.  '

Sorry, obviously you were only looking for negative comments, under the guise of asking for positive ones, else you'd be happy to hear from anyone.

Not the case at all.  The question is prompted by the almost universal negative vibe I get from most IS related threads here and comments on other fora from former exclisives so it was an honest question.  I have no problem with exclusives rowing in but:

1.  If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?

IS is definitely the most polarising subject on this forum - some of us have experience from both time as non-exclusives and after having made the switch (or the opposite).

The thing is when IS does something it draws  endlessly long threads from a handful of people on this forum and exactly the same arguments are re-hashed over and over again.

One of the reasons I made the switch is that all of the sites in the top 4 have flaws, and my income was slowly but surely being whittled away. If you talk about cuts in commissions for independents, FT and DT have both had multiple stabs at it, and there's surely more coming. DT is more subtle about it and seems to get a crowd that cheers the actions. Remember the days when the commissions there were 50% minimum - well they've dropped to a 25% minimum under the guise of "level 0" files.

The threads about search not working: well, the search has *never* worked on some sites. FT has been buggy since V2 and but they don't make any efforts to fix a thing.

Bottom line for me at the moment is that IS involves me doing less work, earns more money and (despite some opinion here to the contrary) is run by competent people who understand the business.

What Holgs said ... too much "Haterade" being sipped in here.   

Quote from: holgs on July 30, 2011, 23:16

One of the reasons I made the switch is that all of the sites in the top 4 have flaws, and my income was slowly but surely being whittled away. If you talk about cuts in commissions for independents, FT and DT have both had multiple stabs at it, and there's surely more coming. DT is more subtle about it and seems to get a crowd that cheers the actions. Remember the days when the commissions there were 50% minimum - well they've dropped to a 25% minimum under the guise of "level 0" files.

I was going to say the same thing, for all the negatives at IS I don't see things as being any better with most of the other agencies right now.  I would like a few things to be changed like the RC system but the bottom line is that IS is helping me earn more money than I think I would be making at other agencies and with a lot less work.

This is not always true because some of us were independent not a long time ago. We know what were on the other side of the fence.

Quote from: heywoody on July 30, 2011, 22:07

Quote from: sjlocke on July 30, 2011, 21:24
'No more insulting and no less accurate than comments on any of the various critique fora - folks who commit to ANY single agency are going to be more inclined to buy into the crap.  I'm doing contract work for one of the big IT multinationals at the moment and see exactly the same thing in the permanent staff.  '

Sorry, obviously you were only looking for negative comments, under the guise of asking for positive ones, else you'd be happy to hear from anyone.

Not the case at all.  The question is prompted by the almost universal negative vibe I get from most IS related threads here and comments on other fora from former exclisives so it was an honest question.  I have no problem with exclusives rowing in but:

1.  If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?

every agency has flaws, even SS.. which have been having a lot these latest months, mainly regarding new approved pictures not showing up (like 3 times this month) which is not helping on sales and getting pics buried fast..

IS has a big flaw for a long time which is the PP, a lot of people are against it and so on (thats their own business) but I am in since the start, and still haven´t all my portfolio migrated and worst the payment is taking longer and longer each month..

apart from this I am having better and better months at IS (nothing significant but surely not bad for my current earnings..)

Quote from: sjlocke on July 30, 2011, 22:24
'1.  If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?'

You didn't ask for 'balanced'.  You asked for positive.  

And if you're looking for 'positive' and you believe #2, then you would want to hear from exclusives, definitely.

A better title might be 'Are any independents having any positive thoughts about IS'.

"Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think.  Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised...."

I think he was pretty clear in his initial statement that he was more interested in the non exclusive opinion.  "Institutionalized" simply implies that he understands that exclusives will have a more emotional, defensive response.  Both you and SNP have emphasized the reasoning as to why he used this term by your very responses.

Then there really wasn't a point to the thread was there? Being exclusive doesn't mean I question less, in fact it means I'm risking far more than you are. That risk is a calculated risk that is almost always cut down to cheerleading or blind faith by many (certainly not all) posters here. I'm sorry you don't feel exclusives have a valid POV....because I guarantee that we're far more aware of what's happening on iStock than many of those here who simply join the negative chorus without any firsthand contributor knowledge.

Quote from: SNP on July 31, 2011, 02:46
Then there really wasn't a point to the thread was there? Being exclusive doesn't mean I question less, in fact it means I'm risking far more than you are. That risk is a calculated risk that is almost always cut down to cheerleading or blind faith by many (certainly not all) posters here. I'm sorry you don't feel exclusives have a valid POV....because I guarantee that we're far more aware of what's happening on iStock than many of those here who simply join the negative chorus without any firsthand contributor knowledge.

He is merely asking for feedback from non exclusives in his OP.  You've spun it. And so has Sean.

Quote from: Mantis on July 31, 2011, 02:50
He is merely asking for feedback from non exclusives in his OP.  You've spun it. And so has Sean.

I didn't spin anything.  By the phrasing, it was what it was.

Quote from: sjlocke on July 31, 2011, 03:47

Quote from: Mantis on July 31, 2011, 02:50
He is merely asking for feedback from non exclusives in his OP.  You've spun it. And so has Sean.

I didn't spin anything.  By the phrasing, it was what it was.

Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.

You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?

Quote from: WarrenPrice on July 30, 2011, 23:23
What Holgs said ... too much "Haterade" being sipped in here.   

lol ... haterade brigade versus the koolaid drinkers ... that's about right. When did istock get soo divisive? When they introduced exclusivity I would guess was the start of it ... 

Quote from: nruboc on July 31, 2011, 03:55
Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.

You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?

Lol, you can try to spin it that way, but obviously that was not the intended meaning of the OP:
' Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think.  Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised....'

Quote from: sjlocke on July 31, 2011, 04:35

Quote from: nruboc on July 31, 2011, 03:55
Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.

You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?

Lol, you can try to spin it that way, but obviously that was not the intended meaning of the OP:
' Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think.  Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised....'

That's just your paranoia speaking.  When I read it, I assumed he meant institutionalized as in part of the institution, not belonging in one.

Quote from: sjlocke on July 30, 2011, 22:24
'1.  If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?'

You didn't ask for 'balanced'.  You asked for positive. 

And if you're looking for 'positive' and you believe #2, then you would want to hear from exclusives, definitely.

A better title might be 'Are any independents having any positive thoughts about IS'.

+1 

Although with the title as it is now the comment "Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised...." should be removed. A positive comment is a positive comment no matter who it comes from. I would like this thread to be as positive as possible. I don't want contributors to stop becoming exclusives on IS, I just want the buyers to buy from elsewhere (and I think they are starting to) and I'm guessing this forum is read mostly by contributors.

Over the past several months I keep reading on this forum and also on DT's forum (although on DT they mention as 'another major site' etc) people saying that they were former IS exclusives and it's really starting to annoy me    . For anyone reading this, who is thinking about becoming an exclusive with an agency, Microstock Posts highly recommends iStockphoto. And look I even recommend them without putting in a referral link, I'm sure IS loves me. 
   

Ok, I am going to add something postive about iStock, lol, the point is, if so many contributors are willing to be so hair spliting about iStock, even if they make negative comments, it only shows one thing - that iStock still carries a lot of weight, because it has got your attention.  Otherwise, iStock threads won't last.

Quote from: SNP on July 31, 2011, 02:46
Then there really wasn't a point to the thread was there? Being exclusive doesn't mean I question less, in fact it means I'm risking far more than you are. That risk is a calculated risk that is almost always cut down to cheerleading or blind faith by many (certainly not all) posters here. I'm sorry you don't feel exclusives have a valid POV....because I guarantee that we're far more aware of what's happening on iStock than many of those here who simply join the negative chorus without any firsthand contributor knowledge.

you can rant all you want, but brainless sychophancy by dependent ppl is commonplace. spread that out to as many shades as you want up to total honesty, you should still end up with exclusives' opinions being worthless.

I didn't think the OP was asking for positives but "Does anyone have a good word to say about istock?" ie. asking whether anyone had anything positive to say. It invites a yes or no answer.

If it was asking for positive comments I thought he would have titled it "Say something positive about IStock" or something similar. And it would have been a lot shorter.