istockphoto / getty has reached new bottom for contributors.... even if your files are online, they aren't searchable through their search engine: http://video-stock.org/istockphoto-getty-images-affecting-search-results-with-only-specific-media/

istockphoto / getty has reached new bottom for contributors.... even if your files are online, they aren't searchable through their search engine: http://video-stock.org/istockphoto-getty-images-affecting-search-results-with-only-specific-media/

That file is perfectly searchable.
I found it, and two sisters by the same contributor, by searching peeling apple.

I see that report was searching for some reason on 'first time peeling apple', which isn't a search someone would use for this file, maybe only for a small child peeling an apple for the first time. It doesn't make any sense in relation to this image, almost certainly an English language problem. I guess they were thinking of the first cut into an apple then peeling from there.
Since at least 2007, files on iStock are not searchable within the site on titles, only on keywords which are in their CV system. 'first time peeling apple' is highly unlikely to be in the CV.

BTW, some of the keywords for this file are totally inappropriate, e.g. "bare tree", "domestic animals", "healthcare and medicine", "table knife", "dieting", and others are very marginal.

Searching was very specific as I would search for something in google... but the search keywords were identical to what the title states. I even tried even searching some other files ...

Google searching should in theory throw up the file on a search on the title. Allegedly even the now-invisible description also counts on Google (even when it showed, it didn't count for the internal search). I didn't do a Google search as I assumed you were talking about searching in the site, as you said "aren't searchable on their search engine".

How about the rest of my earnings once I have no longer access to the site ?

I would also like to know that, so i can plan closing my account. Can anyone share that with us? Thanks!

Just read something interesting on another forum it seems Getty/iStock are inviting
contributors to upload to their site via linkedin.

A contributor said they were invited to upload their entire portfolio and Getty/iStock would do the work for them!

What's the matter boys did too many contributors delete their accounts!

This is great news!! While other agencies have more content than they know what to do with too.

It's not new. A few years back they had a lypse in Paris and they were contacting local non -iS photographers to invite them to take part.

BTW, I hope they're not going to use the same bunch of incompetents that they hired to "improve" the captions and descriptions of naive volunteers a couple of years back. Many of the results would have been hilarious if not maddening and embarrassing.

Quote from: ShadySue on April 08, 2017, 03:44

It's not new. A few years back they had a lypse in Paris and they were contacting local non -iS photographers to invite them to take part.

BTW, I hope they're not going to use the same bunch of incompetents that they hired to "improve" the captions and descriptions of naive volunteers a couple of years back. Many of the results would have been hilarious if not maddening and embarrassing.

All the agencies used to do it. Offering to upload for bigger contributors, financial incentives, better placement, decent referral programs. They haven't had to do it for years, especially the big boys. SS even risked alienating all their big time contributor referral machines by pulling the rug out from under them. Warms my little heart to think IS is back there again.

Didn't SS offer to do it some years back, the last time a goodly number of iS exclusives were thinking of leaving exclusivity? Didn't they say they could send their entire ports, etc?

Quote from: ShadySue on April 08, 2017, 03:44

It's not new. A few years back they had a lypse in Paris and they were contacting local non -iS photographers to invite them to take part.

BTW, I hope they're not going to use the same bunch of incompetents that they hired to "improve" the captions and descriptions of naive volunteers a couple of years back. Many of the results would have been hilarious if not maddening and embarrassing.

All the agencies used to do it. Offering to upload for bigger contributors, financial incentives, better placement, decent referral programs. They haven't had to do it for years, especially the big boys. SS even risked alienating all their big time contributor referral machines by pulling the rug out from under them. Warms my little heart to think IS is back there again.

True.  Envato solicuted me a couple years back and uploaded my whole port for me.  Now they've thrown me off the site even tho I was still a good seller, making  between  $100-200 per month and sometimes more.

At least it was THEIR time wasted putting my port on their site and not mine.  There is NO logic to their recent actions. 

Yeah, I think it was a wrong decision to include the iStock portion of the take in the new reports. When you realize how much you're not getting it's not encouraging.

I closed my IS account last year. I probably did myself out of 20K over the next few years but I just couldn't take the 75c anymore.