Quote from: asiseeit on January 29, 2013, 05:19

Quote from: lisafx on January 28, 2013, 20:32
A friend of mine who reads but doesn't post went to the trouble of creating a list of who's participating (according to the thread) and how many each has or will be deleting:


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai9dhorY3ovxdHFCY2FqdkFVQUtLMGRrNUhsVzV0SFE#gid=0

For a bit of irony, it was created in Google docs

I dare you to add a free stock image to the doc... I double-dog dare you 

LOL!  Great suggestion.  I will pass it along

Quote from: RapidEye on January 29, 2013, 15:26

Quote from: ShadySue on January 29, 2013, 12:05

You'd think,  but in recent times, they don't seem to have been looking after their exclusives at all; it has seemed to me like they'd like us all to ditch our crowns so that they could earn more percentage off us. Crazy to me, this profitability vs profit choice, but it really seems like it's the way they're going.

But I agree with:

QuoteI think the hapless responses of the Istock management and the increasing irritability of the forum moderator are quite telling on just how concerned they are (mainly for their own futures).

This is the kind of thing that's driving me crazy, quite apart from my falling earnings. iStock has become so inscrutable it's no wonder that people resort to conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theory? I think not. Almost every "conspiracy theory" that has been put forth in the past couple of years by contributors has come true. One only needs to list the facts of what has actually happened in that same time period to come to a factual conclusion. Some people just don't want to take their beer goggles off and take a true look. 

But hey, nil desperandum - Lobo has promised some comms for exclusives this very week.
I'm beside myself with excitement. 

Quote from: cclapper on January 29, 2013, 15:53

Conspiracy theory? I think not. Almost every "conspiracy theory" that has been put forth in the past couple of years by contributors has come true. One only needs to list the facts of what has actually happened in that same time period to come to a factual conclusion. Some people just don't want to take their beer goggles off and take a true look. 

I tend to agree Cathy.  If someone told me in 2009 all the things that would go down at Istock in the following three years I would have assumed they were a conspiracy theorist at best and more likely batsh!t crazy.  And yet here we are....

Quote from: ShadySue on January 29, 2013, 15:56
But hey, nil desperandum - Lobo has promised some comms for exclusives this very week.
I'm beside myself with excitement. 

Of course something is coming. It's part of the game...they do something wrong, contributors complain, they make a big deal out of "giving" them something new and exciting, but the $crewing continues. <sigh>

Quote from: ShadySue on January 29, 2013, 15:56
But hey, nil desperandum - Lobo has promised some comms for exclusives this very week.
I'm beside myself with excitement. 

Hoping someone will share what those are with the rest of us peons...

Quote from: cclapper on January 29, 2013, 15:53

Conspiracy theory? I think not. Almost every "conspiracy theory" that has been put forth in the past couple of years by contributors has come true. One only needs to list the facts of what has actually happened in that same time period to come to a factual conclusion. Some people just don't want to take their beer goggles off and take a true look. 

Depends on what we're referring to. Very good theories are often forthcoming from contributors, and I wouldn't dream of calling those conspiracy theories. But you must admit that notions about iStock's motives have been known to get a tad fanciful. You'd be surprised if you could look inside my head sometimes, for that matter.

Quote from: lisafx on January 29, 2013, 15:59

I tend to agree Cathy.  If someone told me in 2009 all the things that would go down at Istock in the following three years I would have assumed they were a conspiracy theorist at best and more likely batsh!t crazy.  And yet here we are....

It was predictable that Getty, after buying iStock, would try to drive costs down and revenues up -- i.e. royalty cuts and price hikes. It's a manoeuvre that seems to have failed but only because it's overshot, not because it was completely crazy. The whole disaster can probably be summarised by greed overshoot coupled with a lack of understanding of how crowdsourcing could work against a corporation that becomes disliked.

The worst of it with iStock is that no matter how bad I think it could get, they always manage to trump it. I hadn't foreseen the RC chicanery and would never have imagined the GoogleDocs disaster.
They certainly manage to exceed my conspiracy-theory-fuelled expections, and always in a negative way.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 29, 2013, 16:07
The worst of it with iStock is that no matter how bad I think it could get, they always manage to trump it. I hadn't foreseen the RC chicanery and would never have imagined the GoogleDocs disaster.
They certainly manage to exceed my conspiracy-theory-fuelled expections, and always in a negative way.

Yes, I'm entirely weary of opening the iStock forums in the morning with a sense of impending doom.

Quote from: RapidEye on January 29, 2013, 16:06

Quote from: lisafx on January 29, 2013, 15:59

I tend to agree Cathy.  If someone told me in 2009 all the things that would go down at Istock in the following three years I would have assumed they were a conspiracy theorist at best and more likely batsh!t crazy.  And yet here we are....

It was predictable that Getty, after buying iStock, would try to drive costs down and revenues up -- i.e. royalty cuts and price hikes. It's a manoeuvre that seems to have failed but only because it's overshot, not because it was completely crazy. The whole disaster can probably be summarised by greed overshoot coupled with a lack of understanding of how crowdsourcing could work against a corporation that becomes disliked.

I believe you misunderstood my post.  I didn't say Getty were crazy.  I said if someone had told me all the cr@p they'd be pulling over the last few years I would have thought that person was a conspiracy theorist or crazy. 

And I totally agree with Liz, it was certainly predictable that Getty would be greedy and care nothing for contributors, the the specifics are something far beyond what seemed predictable when they bought Istock. 

Quote from: lisafx on January 29, 2013, 16:11
I believe you misunderstood my post.  I didn't say Getty were crazy.  I said if someone had told me all the cr@p they'd be pulling over the last few years I would have thought that person was a conspiracy theorist or crazy. 

You're right. My apologies.

RapidEye, I just noticed your avatar pic.  LOL!  Love it! Kind of reminds me of that famous scene in Trainspotting

Quote from: lisafx on January 29, 2013, 16:14
RapidEye, I just noticed your avatar pic.  LOL!  Love it! Kind of reminds me of that famous scene in Trainspotting

Ha. Thanks. I have to confess to a certain amount of inspiration from the movie, but I thought the pic summed things up.

Quote from: RapidEye on January 29, 2013, 16:17

Quote from: lisafx on January 29, 2013, 16:14
RapidEye, I just noticed your avatar pic.  LOL!  Love it! Kind of reminds me of that famous scene in Trainspotting

Ha. Thanks. I have to confess to a certain amount of inspiration from the movie, but I thought the pic summed things up.

Oh yes, it does perfectly.  I think most of us can relate. 

The deactivation spread sheet is very nice... except it shows me pledging only 10.  I've deactivated 26 at istock (plus 327 at stockexpert) so far.  Will do more on Feb 2nd. 

Providing an opt out would be a smart business decision.  I hope Getty eventually realizes this. 

Quote from: trek on January 29, 2013, 16:53
The deactivation spread sheet is very nice... except it shows me pledging only 10.  I've deactivated 26 at istock (plus 327 at stockexpert) so far.  Will do more on Feb 2nd. 

Providing an opt out would be a smart business decision.  I hope Getty eventually realizes this.

Thanks for the update.  So then yours should say 353?  I will pass it along to Marina

Quote from: lisafx on January 29, 2013, 20:14

Quote from: trek on January 29, 2013, 16:53
The deactivation spread sheet is very nice... except it shows me pledging only 10.  I've deactivated 26 at istock (plus 327 at stockexpert) so far.  Will do more on Feb 2nd. 

Providing an opt out would be a smart business decision.  I hope Getty eventually realizes this.

Thanks for the update.  So then yours should say 353?  I will pass it along to Marina

If stockexpert/thinkstock deactivations count, then its 353.  So far... 

533 pics for me, in addition i removed the 15 video clips I had there

Quote from: RapidEye on January 29, 2013, 16:06... greed overshoot coupled with a lack of understanding of how crowdsourcing could work against a corporation that becomes disliked.

Interesting way to look at it.  What happens when the "crowd" turns against you? In today's connected world, the crowd is not without power of its own.

As always, that fine distinction between leading a parade and running from a mob.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 24, 2013, 19:37

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 24, 2013, 18:37

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 24, 2013, 18:33
Havent you asked yourself why these big-shots are not deactivating  NOW?  why wait? and why just deactivating? why not show them hell and DELETE?

1 - you have 16 flames active at iStock
2 - you have files uploaded on January 18th
3 - what . are you talking about?

now we have CJ6 and ClaridgeJ, isn't it boring to logout and login?

a year back my friend I deleted 7 blue flames and over 20 red flames. Not for this reason but for uploading them as macro RF.

just for the info. I havent got the lightest idea of who or what this CJ6 person is, might be an extention of MI6 I suppose.

Last week I deleted and closed my accounts at 3 other agencies. I go all the way and delete not JUST deactivate, anybody can do that.

No not at IS and why should I?  you mean to join the losers. No thanks.

When are you deactivating your SS pictures?

Interesting quote from the Istock forums:

-----------------------------
Posted By PaulCowan:
I think I will delete at least one useless old file on the 2nd, just in case anybody is watching the numbers to see how many contributors are annoyed enough to make some minor gesture of protest.

(Edited on 2013-01-29 04:25:50 by PaulCowan)


Posted By Lobo:
Paul, we are watching everything.

Quote from: cypher on January 30, 2013, 05:11
Interesting quote from the Istock forums:

-----------------------------
Posted By PaulCowan:
I think I will delete at least one useless old file on the 2nd, just in case anybody is watching the numbers to see how many contributors are annoyed enough to make some minor gesture of protest.

(Edited on 2013-01-29 04:25:50 by PaulCowan)


Posted By Lobo:
Paul, we are watching everything.

I think what Cowan suggested here is very interesting :  even if you do NOT plan to deactivate on Feb 2nd, or get rid of your crown, but you still want to show your concern :  DEACTIVATE AT LEAST 1 IMAGE on that date.   

Getty might not be impressed by the number of deactivated files, but they might be by the number of angry contributors.

Quote from: Anyka on January 30, 2013, 06:49

Quote from: cypher on January 30, 2013, 05:11
Interesting quote from the Istock forums:

-----------------------------
Posted By PaulCowan:
I think I will delete at least one useless old file on the 2nd, just in case anybody is watching the numbers to see how many contributors are annoyed enough to make some minor gesture of protest.

(Edited on 2013-01-29 04:25:50 by PaulCowan)


Posted By Lobo:
Paul, we are watching everything.

I think what Cowan suggested here is very interesting :  even if you do NOT plan to deactivate on Feb 2nd, or get rid of your crown, but you still want to show your concern :  DEACTIVATE AT LEAST 1 IMAGE on that date.   

Getty might not be impressed by the number of deactivated files, but they might be by the number of angry contributors.

That almost looked like a hint from Lobo. I've wondered a couple of times if he isn't upset over what Getty's doing.  GI does seem to have sidelined their IS staff and then left them to take the flack. It might rankle.

Quote from: Anyka on January 30, 2013, 06:49

Quote from: cypher on January 30, 2013, 05:11
Interesting quote from the Istock forums:

-----------------------------
Posted By PaulCowan:
I think I will delete at least one useless old file on the 2nd, just in case anybody is watching the numbers to see how many contributors are annoyed enough to make some minor gesture of protest.

(Edited on 2013-01-29 04:25:50 by PaulCowan)


Posted By Lobo:
Paul, we are watching everything.

I think what Cowan suggested here is very interesting :  even if you do NOT plan to deactivate on Feb 2nd, or get rid of your crown, but you still want to show your concern :  DEACTIVATE AT LEAST 1 IMAGE on that date.   

Getty might not be impressed by the number of deactivated files, but they might be by the number of angry contributors.

This is a very smart strategy...