Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 18:49

Quote from: cclapper on December 14, 2010, 15:25

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.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 14, 2010, 17:40

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.

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

Quote from: donding on December 14, 2010, 19:12

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.

Quote from: donding on December 14, 2010, 19:12

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!

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2010, 19:14

Quote from: donding on December 14, 2010, 19:12

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.

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. : >

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 14, 2010, 21:39

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2010, 19:14

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! 

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.

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.

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?"

Wow.  If I were that buyer, I'd cash in my chips at this point.

me too.