MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 'Edstock' now has over 15,000 files...  (Read 33113 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: October 11, 2011, 14:17 »
0
So I click on their featured Celebrities lightbox to see a page full of Mandy Moore and I think that I haven't seen her in a while and she must be in a new movie.  WRONG.  The photos are from 2004.  My default was set to Age.  Then I sort the lightbox by best match and David Cameron, 2008 comes up.  Most popular brings up Steve Jobs (of course) then Obama, NO YEAR in the date though, and of course the 5th best match of a celebrity is a sidewalk star with the name Tom Hanks in it. 

Wow, what a useful relevant lightbox.  As it happened, I got a survey at the same time and I asked them why they wasted my time with such old irrelevant photos in a featured front page lightbox.


« Reply #126 on: October 16, 2011, 19:13 »
0
Edstock now up to 72,000 files. Seems they are now uploading lots more general news shots and less celebrity headshots. with many generic outdoors type shots that compete with istock contributors.

Meanwhile it appears the regular editorial inspection system may have been shut down to retrain inspectors over new policies. Appears nothing approved since about 10/5/2011. Also appears admins now have privilege of uploading same day self inspected editorial. Edstock and a few admin shots seem to be the only images coming thru.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #127 on: October 16, 2011, 19:22 »
0
Edstock now up to 72,000 files. Seems they are now uploading lots more general news shots and less celebrity headshots. with many generic outdoors type shots that compete with istock contributors.

Meanwhile it appears the regular editorial inspection system may have been shut down to retrain inspectors over new policies. Appears nothing approved since about 10/5/2011. Also appears admins now have privilege of uploading same day self inspected editorial. Edstock and a few admin shots seem to be the only images coming thru.

Yea, I notice old 'Ed' has been to Glasgow in the same 'flat' light I get rejected. No surprise there. To be honest, 'Ed' has got some Glasgow pics I'd never have dreamt of submitting because of the light, even though it's 'normal'.
There have been certain contributors whose images aren't inspected for quite some time. JJRD said they'd 'earned the right'.
I wish they'd at least make sure all inspectors are aware of the 'old' policies.

RacePhoto

« Reply #128 on: October 17, 2011, 14:40 »
0
Edstock now up to 72,000 files. Seems they are now uploading lots more general news shots and less celebrity headshots. with many generic outdoors type shots that compete with istock contributors.

Meanwhile it appears the regular editorial inspection system may have been shut down to retrain inspectors over new policies. Appears nothing approved since about 10/5/2011. Also appears admins now have privilege of uploading same day self inspected editorial. Edstock and a few admin shots seem to be the only images coming thru.

In most ways true, but not 100%. Two of my editorial accepted on the 11th and one rejected on the 15th. (last one based on the new rules) The two from the 11th were third time resubmit for EXIF not matching Caption date... On A Scan!  ::) With the new rules I've stopped sending in Editorial.

Edstock is at 75,000 maybe next week, another screen snapshot. ;) Are we going to have that pool for a total on Jan. 1st? Some winner should get a prize for being closest. Say a free membership to MSG for a year?

Admins same day self inspection? Oh wow, another class of member, true editorial and news. By the time we get something approved in two weeks or more, it's not news and useless.

« Reply #129 on: October 20, 2011, 06:39 »
0
Already 75624 files. Keeping the inspectors busy and customers away from our files.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #130 on: October 20, 2011, 06:54 »
0
Already 75624 files. Keeping the inspectors busy and customers away from our files.
I'm pretty certain they're not keeping the inspectors busy. Many of them would/should have been rejected for poor lighting.
The captions are not as required, and the keywording is often wrong or inadequate.
They are, however, enjoying a boost in the best match. The queleas are still 23 and 24 on a best match search for 'African Elephant' (with no AE in either of them).

« Reply #131 on: October 20, 2011, 09:26 »
0
Already 75624 files. Keeping the inspectors busy and customers away from our files.
I'm pretty certain they're not keeping the inspectors busy. Many of them would/should have been rejected for poor lighting.
The captions are not as required, and the keywording is often wrong or inadequate.
They are, however, enjoying a boost in the best match. The queleas are still 23 and 24 on a best match search for 'African Elephant' (with no AE in either of them).

Not likely anyone at Istock has anything to do with the submission process for Edstock. Edstock has pretty much killed any incentive to do any type of travel or big city editorial in the USA. Look at best match for cities like Washington, Los Angeles or Las Vegas. Edstock owns all but a few of the top slots. Its not just celebrity and politician headshots anymore. There are tons of cityscapes, gas station signs, street scenes etc.

Its pretty obvious now that the only reason IStock was allowed to start an editorial collection was so that Getty could dump their old editorial junk on the site and take advantage of Istock's traffic.

I am still not sure if the omission of the year from the Edstock captions is intentional to deceive customers and make them think the content is current. It forces buyers to click on the image if they want to dig out the actual full date of the image. I just can't imagine why any agency would show only the month and day of an image and hide the year in the description which is not even visible. Woe to any regular Istock contributor who tries a trick like that.

« Reply #132 on: October 20, 2011, 09:59 »
0
Edstock makes me ill. 

Didn't JJRD say back in the spring that the moment Istock stopped working for its contributors he was gone?  Should I stop holding my breath yet?  ::) 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #133 on: October 20, 2011, 10:01 »
0
Didn't JJRD say back in the spring that the moment Istock stopped working for its contributors he was gone? 
Yippers!

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #134 on: October 20, 2011, 10:08 »
0
Its pretty obvious now that the only reason IStock was allowed to start an editorial collection was so that Getty could dump their old editorial junk on the site and take advantage of Istock's traffic.

I think this is exactly what's happening. I feel the same way, and very frustrated about the situation. I've started a thread in iStock's suggestion forum imploring admins to treat iStock editorial contributors fairly.

KB

« Reply #135 on: October 20, 2011, 10:14 »
0
Not likely anyone at Istock has anything to do with the submission process for Edstock. Edstock has pretty much killed any incentive to do any type of travel or big city editorial in the USA. Look at best match for cities like Washington, Los Angeles or Las Vegas. Edstock owns all but a few of the top slots. Its not just celebrity and politician headshots anymore. There are tons of cityscapes, gas station signs, street scenes etc.

Its pretty obvious now that the only reason IStock was allowed to start an editorial collection was so that Getty could dump their old editorial junk on the site and take advantage of Istock's traffic.

I am still not sure if the omission of the year from the Edstock captions is intentional to deceive customers and make them think the content is current. It forces buyers to click on the image if they want to dig out the actual full date of the image. I just can't imagine why any agency would show only the month and day of an image and hide the year in the description which is not even visible. Woe to any regular Istock contributor who tries a trick like that.

I was with you until your last paragraph.

The Edstock caption format happens to be exactly the same format as that used at SS. So perhaps it's an industry wide standard, or perhaps Edstock is filled with photos that were originally submitted on SS (now that would be funny!).

KB

« Reply #136 on: October 20, 2011, 10:18 »
0
I've started a thread in iStock's suggestion forum imploring admins to treat iStock editorial contributors fairly.
Nice effort, but we contributors have already tried to get fair treatment re: the RC debacle / commission cuts and failed miserably. There's no reason to hope for that to suddenly change now.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #137 on: October 20, 2011, 10:42 »
0
I've started a thread in iStock's suggestion forum imploring admins to treat iStock editorial contributors fairly.
Nice effort, but we contributors have already tried to get fair treatment re: the RC debacle / commission cuts and failed miserably. There's no reason to hope for that to suddenly change now.

it isn't about making a nice effort. it's about getting a point across, and it's about making them aware of what they're putting iStock editorial contributors through by handicapping us the way they are. in the long run, I hope they see that they are creating a situation where we're be forced to compete with their editorial. currently I sell far more creative than editorial. editorial certainly isn't about money. but should editorial become a primary venture for me, and should I become entrenched in relationships with other agencies...I would consider dropping exclusivity for the sake of having more freedom to contribute to companies that value my work.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #138 on: October 20, 2011, 10:47 »
0
I've started a thread in iStock's suggestion forum imploring admins to treat iStock editorial contributors fairly.
Nice effort, but we contributors have already tried to get fair treatment re: the RC debacle / commission cuts and failed miserably. There's no reason to hope for that to suddenly change now.

it isn't about making a nice effort. it's about getting a point across, and it's about making them aware of what they're putting iStock editorial contributors through by handicapping us the way they are. in the long run, I hope they see that they are creating a situation where we're be forced to compete with their editorial. currently I sell far more creative than editorial. editorial certainly isn't about money. but should editorial become a primary venture for me, and should I become entrenched in relationships with other agencies...I would consider dropping exclusivity for the sake of having more freedom to contribute to companies that value my work.

To be honest, I'd rather not have all my eggs in one basket, especially the basket which is proving to have many holes. At the rate my sales have plummeted for the past three weeks, even RF exclusivity isn't looking that great right now.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #139 on: October 20, 2011, 10:50 »
0
fortunately, or unfortunately (in terms of dependence on income), my sales are very good right now....and have been this year. it makes it very hard for me to grow as an artist in both creative imagery and editorial when Getty is pitting exclusives against ourselves in the iStock collections.

KB

« Reply #140 on: October 20, 2011, 11:58 »
0
it isn't about making a nice effort. it's about getting a point across, and it's about making them aware of what they're putting iStock editorial contributors through by handicapping us the way they are.

My point was that all it will be is a nice effort. Because they are well aware of what they're putting contributors through and they do not care. They have demonstrated this time and again over the last year, if not longer.

In fact, they're taking a harder line stance than they used to. They used to let us complain, rant, and rave nearly unedited in the forums. Now Lobo is deleting posts left and right, even those that are not critical, but well reasoned and helpful.

The message is clear, at least to me: "This is the way it is; like it or not, but it won't change."

« Reply #141 on: October 20, 2011, 12:05 »
0
Not likely anyone at Istock has anything to do with the submission process for Edstock. Edstock has pretty much killed any incentive to do any type of travel or big city editorial in the USA. Look at best match for cities like Washington, Los Angeles or Las Vegas. Edstock owns all but a few of the top slots. Its not just celebrity and politician headshots anymore. There are tons of cityscapes, gas station signs, street scenes etc.

Its pretty obvious now that the only reason IStock was allowed to start an editorial collection was so that Getty could dump their old editorial junk on the site and take advantage of Istock's traffic.

I am still not sure if the omission of the year from the Edstock captions is intentional to deceive customers and make them think the content is current. It forces buyers to click on the image if they want to dig out the actual full date of the image. I just can't imagine why any agency would show only the month and day of an image and hide the year in the description which is not even visible. Woe to any regular Istock contributor who tries a trick like that.

I was with you until your last paragraph.

The Edstock caption format happens to be exactly the same format as that used at SS. So perhaps it's an industry wide standard, or perhaps Edstock is filled with photos that were originally submitted on SS (now that would be funny!).

Sorry, I wasn't aware of SS's policy of only month, date. I guess that blows my conspiracy theory. Although some of the SS's editorial that I just randomly checked seems to follow the Alamy standard where you can put as much or as little as you want.

On Istock the caption requirements are so rigid and restrictive that they cause contributors endless hardship. The first line of the caption is also visible when you hover over the thumbnail and get the preview. So on the edstock images you only see the month, date while on the Istock images you see the entire date and immediately know how old the picture is. Probably not a big thing in retrospect. Just annoying that the istock amateurs are held to higher standards than the Getty pros.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #142 on: October 20, 2011, 12:34 »
0
it isn't about making a nice effort. it's about getting a point across, and it's about making them aware of what they're putting iStock editorial contributors through by handicapping us the way they are.

My point was that all it will be is a nice effort. Because they are well aware of what they're putting contributors through and they do not care. They have demonstrated this time and again over the last year, if not longer.

In fact, they're taking a harder line stance than they used to. They used to let us complain, rant, and rave nearly unedited in the forums. Now Lobo is deleting posts left and right, even those that are not critical, but well reasoned and helpful.

The message is clear, at least to me: "This is the way it is; like it or not, but it won't change."

yes, that's the message. I agree.

KB

« Reply #143 on: October 20, 2011, 12:54 »
0

Although some of the SS's editorial that I just randomly checked seems to follow the Alamy standard where you can put as much or as little as you want.

On Istock the caption requirements are so rigid and restrictive that they cause contributors endless hardship. The first line of the caption is also visible when you hover over the thumbnail and get the preview. So on the edstock images you only see the month, date while on the Istock images you see the entire date and immediately know how old the picture is. Probably not a big thing in retrospect. Just annoying that the istock amateurs are held to higher standards than the Getty pros.

I agree, and it isn't limited to just captioning.  ;D

I was a contributor there when SS introduced their caption format. At the time, they were very, very picky about it, too -- very similar to how iStock is now. If there was anything that even slightly deviated from the specified format, it was rejected. Perhaps they've eased up on it now, or maybe the examples you saw were older ones UL'd before the caption format went into effect.

RacePhoto

« Reply #144 on: October 20, 2011, 14:16 »
0

Its pretty obvious now that the only reason IStock was allowed to start an editorial collection was so that Getty could dump their old editorial junk on the site and take advantage of Istock's traffic.
 


Done, that said it all and is the correct answer.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #145 on: October 20, 2011, 17:56 »
0
Ed has 27 of the top 50 files keyworded Glasgow, and his queleas have moved up to 20 and 21 in the African Elephant search since this morning.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #146 on: October 20, 2011, 18:11 »
0
Thanks to the person who had saved out the expunged post I mentioned earlier, in response to Lobo's nippy note about 'we won't be answering your questions in the forum: contact CR, Scout or [email protected]

~~~~~~~~~~

Sorry, wrong thread, so I've moved it to the    Unreleased Copyrighted Material No Longer Accepted thread. Sorry Stacey for 'orphaning' your comment.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2011, 18:41 by ShadySue »

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #147 on: October 20, 2011, 18:15 »
0
I love pastorscott...he posts the best comments. thanks for resurfacing that one

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #148 on: October 20, 2011, 19:13 »
0
I'm not religious, but his name has never gotten me upset, as it seems to have you...who cares? his posts are thoughtful and relevant. and long--my guess is that he seems to wait until he's read a lot about a discussion before jumping in. he is one of the posters I often keep an eye on in threads and he is generous with advice.

« Reply #149 on: October 20, 2011, 19:43 »
0
I'm not religious, but his name has never gotten me upset, as it seems to have you...who cares? his posts are thoughtful and relevant. and long--my guess is that he seems to wait until he's read a lot about a discussion before jumping in. he is one of the posters I often keep an eye on in threads and he is generous with advice.

Whatever. I can't believe you're still whinging about IS's editorial policy. It is the way it is __ get over it. There's precious little money to be made in it anyway (at microstock prices) other than using it as a dumping ground for 10K's of ex-newsworthy files, which is of course what they are doing with their own stuff. It is their own agency after all so why shouldn't they utilise it? I don't understand why you people are trying so hard to spend valuable time processing/uploading to a market that hardly exists at all anyway.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
new files and 2.0

Started by yecatsdoherty iStockPhoto.com

6 Replies
3116 Views
Last post March 11, 2009, 10:32
by lisafx
10 Replies
8540 Views
Last post February 02, 2010, 10:45
by Stu49
17 Replies
5759 Views
Last post November 04, 2010, 00:29
by RacePhoto
7 Replies
2604 Views
Last post September 19, 2011, 11:53
by ShadySue
22 Replies
5622 Views
Last post January 15, 2012, 17:47
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle