MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387938 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #700 on: December 14, 2010, 18:58 »
0
I think iStock is kinda shooting their selves in the foot over all this. It's bad enough that they have twice (as far as we know) insulted a buyer like that and they turn around and insult them as an exclusive contributor as well. It shouldn't make a difference rather you are a buyer and seller. No where does it say it's illegal to do both on that site. That contributor may have a small port but could be a big buyer. The way they make it sound is like they are criminals and are being charged for treason. How stupid is that?? Personally if that was me I would be hitting the door on both ends...buyer as well as seller. It looks like they are trying to make all the negativity lye solely on the contributors, even if it is coming from a buyer. I really hope there are a lot of their buyers reading those posts and realize what is really going on there. It's so bizarre.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #701 on: December 14, 2010, 19:00 »
0
I just got back to my desk and saw that the thread had been locked. I was thinking "thank goodness Lobo stepped in and stopped the verbal abuse" but no, he just added to it by pulling the old buyer/contributor/worthlessness card out of his sleeve and locked the thread in his usual cowardly way.

Just freakin incredible. I wonder how many times I have said that in the last few weeks about IS.
I am totally incandescent about this. Totally. I will refrain from saying more here. I have SMd Lobo directly.

How can you be blocked from posting and still have access to sitemail? I thought the two were intertwined.
I've only been banned from the forums.

« Reply #702 on: December 14, 2010, 19:04 »
0
Are you an iStock employee, Sean? I thought it was just an agency representing you.

Lobo's response was unforgivably rude. Instead of addressing the issue he just chose to insult the customer on what appears to be a false premise. Even if he was right about the dual account, that is not relevant to the complaint.

I'm not commenting on the response.  I just saying I understand the rationale behind being concerned about that.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #703 on: December 14, 2010, 19:06 »
0
Are you an iStock employee, Sean? I thought it was just an agency representing you.

Lobo's response was unforgivably rude. Instead of addressing the issue he just chose to insult the customer on what appears to be a false premise. Even if he was right about the dual account, that is not relevant to the complaint.

I'm not commenting on the response.  I just saying I understand the rationale behind being concerned about that.
I don't. So can you please explain?
Added: sorry, I saw you did. I'll respectfully agree to differ with your take on this.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2010, 19:23 by ShadySue »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #704 on: December 14, 2010, 19:12 »
0
Are you an iStock employee, Sean? I thought it was just an agency representing you.

Lobo's response was unforgivably rude. Instead of addressing the issue he just chose to insult the customer on what appears to be a false premise. Even if he was right about the dual account, that is not relevant to the complaint.

I'm not commenting on the response.  I just saying I understand the rationale behind being concerned about that.
I don't. So can you please explain?
+1

I don't see what difference it makes rather the buyer was also a contributor. If he's looking for a image and has a budget in mind...he's not going to be looking for his image but someone else s at the price within his budget. If he wanted to use his own it could be free. He's venting as a buyer, not a contributor.

lisafx

« Reply #705 on: December 14, 2010, 19:14 »
0
I don't see what difference it makes rather the buyer was also a contributor. If he's looking for a image and has a budget in mind...he's not going to be looking for his image but someone else s at the price within his budget. If he wanted to use his own it could be free. He's venting as a buyer, not a contributor.

I believe the implication is that being a disgruntled contributor might color her impressions as a buyer.  Personally, I don't think that invalidates the buyer's opinion at all.  But I believe that is the thinking behind bringing it up.  

Edited to change his/her to her.  Guess it's safe to assume Lizzielou is a woman :)
« Last Edit: December 14, 2010, 19:26 by lisafx »

« Reply #706 on: December 14, 2010, 19:29 »
0

How can you be blocked from posting and still have access to sitemail? I thought the two were intertwined.
I've only been banned from the forums.

Interesting. I guess they used to be intertwined but aren't anymore. How silly then. There was no reason to ban me from sitemail. I actually wasn't even using it that much. Oh well, hurts them more than me in the long run. :D

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #707 on: December 14, 2010, 19:55 »
0
I don't see what difference it makes rather the buyer was also a contributor. If he's looking for a image and has a budget in mind...he's not going to be looking for his image but someone else s at the price within his budget. If he wanted to use his own it could be free. He's venting as a buyer, not a contributor.

I believe the implication is that being a disgruntled contributor might color her impressions as a buyer.  Personally, I don't think that invalidates the buyer's opinion at all.  But I believe that is the thinking behind bringing it up.  

Edited to change his/her to her.  Guess it's safe to assume Lizzielou is a woman :)

I see the point now. It's being found guilty before innocent. It's their way of justifying the actions of the buyer so it appears the real reason is because they are also a contributor. I guess I could see the reasoning behind that, but when their are many other buyer saying basically the same thing, it really doesn't justify the attitude.

jbarber873

« Reply #708 on: December 14, 2010, 20:21 »
0

How can you be blocked from posting and still have access to sitemail? I thought the two were intertwined.
I've only been banned from the forums.

Interesting. I guess they used to be intertwined but aren't anymore. How silly then. There was no reason to ban me from sitemail. I actually wasn't even using it that much. Oh well, hurts them more than me in the long run. :D

  Gee, they banned me from both too. Do you think it was something I said?

« Reply #709 on: December 14, 2010, 21:39 »
0
I don't see what difference it makes rather the buyer was also a contributor. If he's looking for a image and has a budget in mind...he's not going to be looking for his image but someone else s at the price within his budget. If he wanted to use his own it could be free. He's venting as a buyer, not a contributor.

I believe the implication is that being a disgruntled contributor might color her impressions as a buyer.  Personally, I don't think that invalidates the buyer's opinion at all.  But I believe that is the thinking behind bringing it up.  

Edited to change his/her to her.  Guess it's safe to assume Lizzielou is a woman :)

So if you are already disgruntled you are not allowed an opinion if they mess you about some more? Or maybe everybody is lying when they say they have deadlines and the search is a mess? The search is actually perfect, the roll-out was flawless, there are no bugs anywhere on the site and the only problem at iStock is that it is full of people who are irrational, upset and trying to pretend that things are less than perfect. Got it. No wonder they are being rude to these subversives!

« Reply #710 on: December 15, 2010, 01:55 »
0

How can you be blocked from posting and still have access to sitemail? I thought the two were intertwined.
I've only been banned from the forums.

Interesting. I guess they used to be intertwined but aren't anymore. How silly then. There was no reason to ban me from sitemail. I actually wasn't even using it that much. Oh well, hurts them more than me in the long run. :D

  Gee, they banned me from both too. Do you think it was something I said?

One can only hope, right? :D

« Reply #711 on: December 15, 2010, 07:36 »
0
I don't see what difference it makes rather the buyer was also a contributor. If he's looking for a image and has a budget in mind...he's not going to be looking for his image but someone else s at the price within his budget. If he wanted to use his own it could be free. He's venting as a buyer, not a contributor.

I believe the implication is that being a disgruntled contributor might color her impressions as a buyer.  Personally, I don't think that invalidates the buyer's opinion at all.  But I believe that is the thinking behind bringing it up.  

Edited to change his/her to her.  Guess it's safe to assume Lizzielou is a woman :)

So if you are already disgruntled you are not allowed an opinion if they mess you about some more? Or maybe everybody is lying when they say they have deadlines and the search is a mess? The search is actually perfect, the roll-out was flawless, there are no bugs anywhere on the site and the only problem at iStock is that it is full of people who are irrational, upset and trying to pretend that things are less than perfect. Got it. No wonder they are being rude to these subversives!

Exactly. As long as you preface your report of a bug or criticism with "you guys are the best ever" and end your post with a "wooyay, F5!" you are good. Don't get frustrated and/or mad and post, otherwise whatever you say is only coming from a deceitful, disgruntled nobody, who happens to be both a buyer and contributor.

I can't even imagine working for a company who has me on a tight deadline for a huge project, only a few days before Christmas vacation, only having an account at IS to buy images, and having to wade through all of those bug posts just to find out how to use the freakin search tool and find something to use for the project. Some of these people who work at IS apparently have no clue how the real working world works.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #712 on: December 15, 2010, 07:45 »
0
That whole fiasco could have been avoided if only her first question had been properly answered, rather than locked and referred to a totally irrelevant thread on another forum. We all make mistakes, but it could have been sorted if the admin who locked it had, when I SMd him on the loupe issue, had opened the thread again and cleared up that point. Now lizzielou and malamus are so angry they're digging themselves in really deep.
When I taught, we were always told to try to diffuse situations, to try to avoid a situation from escalating.
Looks like some admins deliberately fanned the fire from the very beginning on this one.
(Get down, conspiracy theorist - I was even beginning to wonder if there was a 'back story.)
« Last Edit: December 15, 2010, 12:30 by ShadySue »

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #713 on: December 15, 2010, 11:22 »
0
they put up a new search engine without testing? Nice : >> I can't even remember when I last heard about that level of dilettantism even from semi-serious net corp. : >

lisafx

« Reply #714 on: December 15, 2010, 12:25 »
0

I believe the implication is that being a disgruntled contributor might color her impressions as a buyer.  Personally, I don't think that invalidates the buyer's opinion at all.  But I believe that is the thinking behind bringing it up.  

Edited to change his/her to her.  Guess it's safe to assume Lizzielou is a woman :)

So if you are already disgruntled you are not allowed an opinion if they mess you about some more? Or maybe everybody is lying when they say they have deadlines and the search is a mess? The search is actually perfect, the roll-out was flawless, there are no bugs anywhere on the site and the only problem at iStock is that it is full of people who are irrational, upset and trying to pretend that things are less than perfect. Got it. No wonder they are being rude to these subversives!

Very well summed up Balderick!

Hopefully it was clear that I was not agreeing with Istock's stance?! 

« Reply #715 on: December 15, 2010, 12:34 »
0

I believe the implication is that being a disgruntled contributor might color her impressions as a buyer.  Personally, I don't think that invalidates the buyer's opinion at all.  But I believe that is the thinking behind bringing it up.  

Edited to change his/her to her.  Guess it's safe to assume Lizzielou is a woman :)

So if you are already disgruntled you are not allowed an opinion if they mess you about some more? Or maybe everybody is lying when they say they have deadlines and the search is a mess? The search is actually perfect, the roll-out was flawless, there are no bugs anywhere on the site and the only problem at iStock is that it is full of people who are irrational, upset and trying to pretend that things are less than perfect. Got it. No wonder they are being rude to these subversives!

Very well summed up Balderick!

Hopefully it was clear that I was not agreeing with Istock's stance?! 

It was clear to me. I thought you were just trying to state the rationale behind the admin's rudeness and locking of threads. And I agree, I disagree!  :)

lisafx

« Reply #716 on: December 15, 2010, 13:00 »
0

It was clear to me. I thought you were just trying to state the rationale behind the admin's rudeness and locking of threads. And I agree, I disagree!  :)

Hee, hee.  Good, we agree on what we disagree with ;D

« Reply #717 on: December 15, 2010, 13:40 »
0
I am utterly lost as to why a buyer complaint isn't equally valid whether the buyer only purchases, or contributes as well. I don't always agree with what's done by admins in the forums, but I usually at least get it. This one I don't get.

Typically, ad hominem attacks surface when you can't attack on the issues - i.e. they're almost always a sign of a weak case.

I can see why IS is defensive, given that they have effed up the search changes - both in how broken search is and in once again delivering new code at a truly terrible time. Not the absolute worst time - that would have been in early November - but early December (typically a very busy time in my years there) and on a weekday, not a weekend.

If they could put some of the energy into working on fixes (i.e. not just going home at 5pm and leaving the buggy search and no admins to respond) that they do into insulting buyers, we'd all be better off.

« Reply #718 on: December 15, 2010, 14:14 »
0
I am utterly lost as to why a buyer complaint isn't equally valid whether the buyer only purchases, or contributes as well. I don't always agree with what's done by admins in the forums, but I usually at least get it. This one I don't get.

Typically, ad hominem attacks surface when you can't attack on the issues - i.e. they're almost always a sign of a weak case.

I can see why IS is defensive, given that they have effed up the search changes - both in how broken search is and in once again delivering new code at a truly terrible time. Not the absolute worst time - that would have been in early November - but early December (typically a very busy time in my years there) and on a weekday, not a weekend.

If they could put some of the energy into working on fixes (i.e. not just going home at 5pm and leaving the buggy search and no admins to respond) that they do into insulting buyers, we'd all be better off.

I don't either.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #719 on: December 15, 2010, 14:17 »
0

If they could put some of the energy into working on fixes (i.e. not just going home at 5pm and leaving the buggy search and no admins to respond) that they do into insulting buyers, we'd all be better off.
Ay, there's the rub.

« Reply #720 on: December 15, 2010, 14:50 »
0
Hopefully it was clear that I was not agreeing with Istock's stance?! 

Quite clear, I was just trying to work out what the admin's attitude meant.

« Reply #721 on: December 29, 2010, 14:47 »
0
One more happy punter (from the 404 thread):

"Your website is so bug ridden you should have ORKIN as a sponsor. I just bought $350 worth of credit and nearly every photo I've included in my album that the client signed off on gets me a 404 error when attempting to order? (Of course no 404 error when taking my money) WTH? Your customer service number cycles me through in seconds and than hangs up? Can you really call it customer support when someone phones you, tweets you, posts on Facebook, emails you, and now posts on your forum and you don't adequately responds?"

rubyroo

« Reply #722 on: December 29, 2010, 14:49 »
0
Wow.  If I were that buyer, I'd cash in my chips at this point.

« Reply #723 on: December 29, 2010, 14:53 »
0
Wow.  If I were that buyer, I'd cash in my chips at this point.

me too. 

« Reply #724 on: December 29, 2010, 15:52 »
0
this person on twitter has been not happy about the 404 errors on lack of customer service from istock.. I think someone posted part of his tweets already, but here's the latest:

Quote
tweet by Vonster: @iStock You guys really need to email your user base once the problem is fixed.  Telling us to keep trying is not good customer service.

and then iStock's reply:
Quote
Tweet reply by iStock: @Vonster Agree.  Unfortunately emailing that many users isn't a practical option either.  It's the holiday short staffing us that's the prob.

okay, seriously?!  Every other retailer adds additional seasonal staff to help with these sorts of things.  Okay, so maybe it's different for an online company, but I would guess that Amazon most certainly beefed up their staff for the holiday sales. 

I kind of feel sorry for whoever is responding on the twitter account as they seem to be one of the few people working, and they really can't fix anything, just respond to complaints/tweets and notify someone on staff who may actually be working.  404 errors for customers trying to buy istock items is competely UNSATisfactory. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17301 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5820 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
33346 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
7327 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
4679 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors