I'm sure it has or will have some influence on best match, otherwise, what's the point?  And the point is obviously to boost some contributors over others.  It certainly isn't applied per image as our Vetta friend OJO+ shows.

However, it's surprising they unveiled it with zero explanation.  To me, it's another attempt to copy something from stocksy.

I'm sure it has or will have some influence on best match, otherwise, what's the point?  And the point is obviously to boost some contributors over others.  It certainly isn't applied per image as our Vetta friend OJO+ shows.

However, it's surprising they unveiled it with zero explanation.  To me, it's another attempt to copy something from stocksy.

Alamy had editors pick long before Stocksy.

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2012/10/29/5241.aspx

29 October 2012

AFAICS, Editor's Pick = Vetta.
Maybe I haven't looked extensively enough.
So you get wondrous things like a full frame of grass as an Editor's Pick because it's an ingested Vetta.
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25324187-grass-full-frame.php?st=0edf79f

Quote from: ShadySue on July 05, 2013, 11:45

AFAICS, Editor's Pick = Vetta.
Maybe I haven't looked extensively enough.
So you get wondrous things like a full frame of grass as an Editor's Pick because it's an ingested Vetta.
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25324187-grass-full-frame.php?st=0edf79f

No, some S+ is also marked as editor's pick.

Right, thanks.
Is there any way to see only Editor's Pick in a search?

[

Quote from: Ron on July 05, 2013, 08:33

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 05, 2013, 08:19

I'm sure it has or will have some influence on best match, otherwise, what's the point?  And the point is obviously to boost some contributors over others.  It certainly isn't applied per image as our Vetta friend OJO+ shows.

However, it's surprising they unveiled it with zero explanation.  To me, it's another attempt to copy something from stocksy.

Alamy had editors pick long before Stocksy.

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2012/10/29/5241.aspx

29 October 2012

Exactly.  And Dreamstime's had Editor's Picks for as long as I can remember - certainly quite a number of years.

Oh, I wasn't saying they came up with it.  Just that the timing seemed quite ... coincidental, going along with the new aesthetic ... "freedom" from technical requirements.

That's true but "$$-$$$" doesn't have the same ring to it as "editor's pick", just guessing they'll do both like with "Vetta" and "$$$".   Some people want to search by price others want to see a curated collection.

Guess they'll have to go elsewhere for that .

[

[

At the London iStockalypse Kelly said editors putting images in the collection of their choice was the long term goal, so presumably this has been in the works for a long time.

Quote from: fotoVoyager on July 05, 2013, 15:47

At the London iStockalypse Kelly said editors putting images in the collection of their choice was the long term goal, so presumably this has been in the works for a long time.

Correct.

It's really great that the grass fanatic gets his say. 

Quote from: tickstock on July 05, 2013, 15:18

I was talking about the collection changes, integration with Getty, and Istock picking where files belong.  I don't think they are lowering their standards in order to be more like Stocksy but I don't really look at that site.

I didn't say they were lowering standards to be like Stocksy - I said they were trying to achieve a new "aesthetic freedom" to compete with Stocksy, and their solution was to lower technical requirements, which, as we've seen, have been lowered to the floor.

And no, I don't really recall any indication in the past that they wanted to pick where files belong.

getty trying to compete with stocksy??? LOL.

[

Quote from: shudderstok on July 06, 2013, 21:34

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 05, 2013, 15:42

Quote from: tickstock on July 05, 2013, 15:18

I was talking about the collection changes, integration with Getty, and Istock picking where files belong.  I don't think they are lowering their standards in order to be more like Stocksy but I don't really look at that site.

I didn't say they were lowering standards to be like Stocksy - I said they were trying to achieve a new "aesthetic freedom" to compete with Stocksy, and their solution was to lower technical requirements, which, as we've seen, have been lowered to the floor.

And no, I don't really recall any indication in the past that they wanted to pick where files belong.

getty trying to compete with stocksy??? LOL.

That was my attempt at some humour.

i was referring to seans quote. which i find cute. it's official, istock has lowered it's standards to compete with stocksy.

either way, it's funny how istock is doing what they can to try and compete with stocksy according to the world's foremost expert on all things stocksy, IS, and Getty... stocksy who?

perhaps a new microstock agency that can do everything correct, we could call it Accord...

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 05, 2013, 12:26

Oh, I wasn't saying they came up with it.  Just that the timing seemed quite ... coincidental, going along with the new aesthetic ... "freedom" from technical requirements.

Ah.  Have to agree with you there.  Seems like there have been a lot of changes whose timing is "coincidental" with Stocksy's introduction...

Sorry, but there are things in the world that have nothing to do with Stocksy (is Stocksy the new cult, like Yuri used to be before he jumped ship?).  The way to compete with Stocksy would not be to reduce standards and cut prices. The changes seem to be about money (what a surprise!) and trying to get more of it as quickly as possible.

Cutting prices for a lot of the collection is obviously intended to lure more customers in, while eliminating the smallest credit package means that they will pay a larger lump sum up-front. It looks like a tactic designed to meet a funding shortfall and really leaves me wondering whether Gettyimages has turned itself into the Greece of the stock world - you know, caught in a cash shortage, over-borrowed and struggling to put together the money to pay the next instalment to its creditors, forced to follow an austerity plan laid down by its bankers. That's pure speculation, of course, but when companies take measures that look like losing money down the line but might put something in the till in the short term, and when payments to creditors get lost in the post .... sorry, become subject to a computer code malfunction, are delayed by accidental book-keeping errors etc. etc. I do start to wonder.

I recall that the last owners mortgaged Gettyimages in order to pay back to themselves what they had put into it, before selling it on at a high prices to the current owners.  I don't know if it is still heavily borrowed against expectations of future growth or not.  I recall expressing surprise at the time H&F sold it that another asset stripper investment vehicle would think there was anything left worth having - let alone that it was worth more than it had been three years earlier.

As for editor's pick - there has always been cronyism at iStock, with some people getting preferential approvals and possibly secret ranking advantages. This just sounds like another example.

Is there no quality control manager or something who checks that stuff? Why on earth would IS let that stuff be marked editors pick. Its making a fool out of them. Why do they do that? What could be the reasoning behind it?

Quote from: Ron on July 08, 2013, 11:20

Is there no quality control manager or something who checks that stuff? Why on earth would IS let that stuff be marked editors pick. Its making a fool out of them. Why do they do that? What could be the reasoning behind it?

It must be the deal they make with certain ingested exclusives and faux-exclusives that all their files will be sold as Vetta.

Indeed that does seem to be the case. Looks like it's more by photographer than by image. Now we've got proof that they play favorites. Suspected it for a long time but never wanted to quite believe it.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355134&page=1

Quote from: jsmithzz on July 20, 2013, 19:27

Quote from: ShadySue on July 08, 2013, 11:45

Quote from: Ron on July 08, 2013, 11:20

Is there no quality control manager or something who checks that stuff? Why on earth would IS let that stuff be marked editors pick. Its making a fool out of them. Why do they do that? What could be the reasoning behind it?

It must be the deal they make with certain ingested exclusives and faux-exclusives that all their files will be sold as Vetta.

Indeed that does seem to be the case. Looks like it's more by photographer than by image. Now we've got proof that they play favorites. Suspected it for a long time but never wanted to quite believe it. Makes me wonder how they sleep at night.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355134&page=1

I don't see any proof in that link.   It's not just getty stuff that got editors pick, I think they'll probably fix it to be s+ and vetta in the future.

It's pretty clear that multiple photos (whether good or bad) in certain contributors portfolios are getting the Editors Pick designation while other contributors whose work is outstanding have absolutely ZERO chosen. It's even more telling that the admins have not come out with exactly how Editors Picks are chosen. If Editors Pick has any impact on best match (which I imagine it does), I think this is a very significant issue. 

buyers aren't stupid, they'll work out it's cronyism and it will just annoy them.

That IS coffin has a lot of nails already, but its never the last nail.... IS keeps plodding on. I dont see any signals of their demise. Contributors keep submitting, and buyers keep buying.

Quote from: jsmithzz on July 20, 2013, 21:31

Quote from: tickstock on July 20, 2013, 21:16

Quote from: jsmithzz on July 20, 2013, 19:27

Quote from: ShadySue on July 08, 2013, 11:45

Quote from: Ron on July 08, 2013, 11:20

Is there no quality control manager or something who checks that stuff? Why on earth would IS let that stuff be marked editors pick. Its making a fool out of them. Why do they do that? What could be the reasoning behind it?

It must be the deal they make with certain ingested exclusives and faux-exclusives that all their files will be sold as Vetta.

Indeed that does seem to be the case. Looks like it's more by photographer than by image. Now we've got proof that they play favorites. Suspected it for a long time but never wanted to quite believe it. Makes me wonder how they sleep at night.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355134&page=1

I don't see any proof in that link.   It's not just getty stuff that got editors pick, I think they'll probably fix it to be s+ and vetta in the future.

It's pretty clear that multiple photos (whether good or bad) in certain contributors portfolios are getting the Editors Pick designation while other contributors whose work is outstanding have absolutely ZERO chosen. It's even more telling that the admins have not come out with exactly how Editors Picks are chosen. If Editors Pick has any impact on best match (which I imagine it does), I think this is a very significant issue.

I wouldn't call it proof because no admin has commented on it, seems like that's clearly a lack of proof.  They said there are more changes coming I expect that to be one of them.  My guess all s+ and vetta gets the little ribbon.

Historically, admins have instantly jumped in to deny that sort of allegation, even if it then turned out to be true or was about to be true in a few days or weeks. So the lack of a denial can be taken as 'strong evidence', even if not concrete proof.

There's a lot of cronyism going on, e.g. the thing I pointed out last weekend that four of the five featured 'top ratings' files (which can only be IRs ATM) was one series of a dog with a wall eye. Were there really no equally good files uploaded in the previous week, from anyone?

It would be nice if they had true editors picks...like the Apple App Store...where the inspectors had a chance to tag their faves...otherwise it's a pure smokescreen to the buyers

... They said there are more changes coming I expect that to be one of them.  My guess all s+ and vetta gets the little ribbon.

In which case, Editor's Pick will go from 'Huh  ' to 'Expensive  '.

That IS coffin has a lot of nails already, but its never the last nail.... IS keeps plodding on. I dont see any signals of their demise. Contributors keep submitting, and buyers keep buying.

Our company no longer submits or purchases from IS. We openly expose clients to all other agencies and explain to them why IS isn't a good option for THEM as well as the photographers who contribute to stock sites. It's not a lot on Getty-Scale, but it cuts about $25K - $30K annually from their pockets. Do not assist thieves.