there's a new guy in the house http://www.istockphoto.com/edstock2

His images might all be in the Dollar Bin.  The number of files stated on the profile page does match the number of files within the main portfolio.  It includes Dollar Bin files, which aren't visible in the main portfolio.

Go to the photos landing page (link up top) and then you'll see the dollar bin link on the right under the Browse heading

It's possible that the 15 files are newly approved and not yet indexed. In the dollar bin, I'm not sure how to search for a user name. I did try edstock2 in the refine search box on the left and got four images!! None of them from edstock2 - the Woodstock seems to be what the search in its wisdom matched edstock2 with.

Yes, I got the same four images. I guess you're right: the images haven't come through yet. I think I saw a post saying Sunday's acceptances were in but not yesterday's.

Found this through google
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18884692-rick-santorum.php

Uploaded January 9, 2012.

So what's the point of edstock2? Why have two accounts not one?

And as far as broken promises, it'd be easier to list the ones they've kept, on the other hand the weasel words of "...there is no plan..." are the alert that they reserve the right to do whatever they want at any time. We have only ourselves to blame if we choose to believe anything said by a demonstrated snake oil salesman. They can't be trusted to do much except screw up every software release or new feature

Quote from: Sadstock on January 11, 2012, 09:46

Found this through google
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18884692-rick-santorum.php

Uploaded January 9, 2012.

Ah yes, thanks:  the 15 pics seem to be in there now.
Pity they weren't a couple of days earlier: Wozza was in the news yesterday.

EdStock (1) photos can't be uploaded for 180 days: the first of these photos was taken last week.
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18888652-hmv-store-glasgow-scotland.php?st=5ba5c7e

So, another iStock promise sneakily broken.  

From Joyze:
"There is still no plan to get into current, timely news � none of the new content we are adding will be more recent than 180 days. "
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330294&page=1

---------------------------------
The date the Santorum image shot is reported to be March 7, 2011, so it meets the 180 day requirement.  Image turns out to still be quite relevant.

Unjustified comment snipped. Sorry - my mistake. 

Oh, and that Ed2 Glasgow shot was taken on 5th Jan and is already in his port.
I've got one in the editorial queue which was uploaded on 10th Dec an has only been locked for a couple of hours.
It's NOT an even playing field.

It's 2012 now.

like Edstock, what really gets me is what garbage the files are. I'd be okay with it I guess if they admitted they were just sloppy seconds from past Getty assignment series, but new editorial shooters are supposed to look to some of this stuff as an example of what to do. I wouldn't even have given most of those shots to editors. I guess the Nelson Mandela shot is okay, but there's certainly no story to it.

in any case, I don't think Edstock poses a sales threat. it is the principle of it, and the double standards that really irk me.

Quote from: jsnover on January 11, 2012, 10:40

So what's the point of edstock2? Why have two accounts not one?

And as far as broken promises, it'd be easier to list the ones they've kept, on the other hand the weasel words of "...there is no plan..." are the alert that they reserve the right to do whatever they want at any time. We have only ourselves to blame if we choose to believe anything said by a demonstrated snake oil salesman. They can't be trusted to do much except screw up every software release or new feature

My conspiracy theories on "The point of edstock2"

1) The site code probably can't handle a single contributor having more than 90,000 images without crashing
2) There must be a limit to how many photos a single contributor can have upfront on any single search. spreading them across multiple accounts means they can provide the customers with even more horrible photos and push indies even futher backwards.

---------------------------
Both sound entirely reasonable to me. 

Quote from: qwerty on January 12, 2012, 02:27

Quote from: jsnover on January 11, 2012, 10:40

So what's the point of edstock2? Why have two accounts not one?
...

My conspiracy theories on "The point of edstock2"

1) The site code probably can't handle a single contributor having more than 90,000 images without crashing
2) There must be a limit to how many photos a single contributor can have upfront on any single search. spreading them across multiple accounts means they can provide the customers with even more horrible photos and push indies even futher backwards.

As edstock is now at 104,213 files (not all of which show up in a search, so some must be very recent), I think reason one is ruled out, which leaves reason 2 as a plausible explanation. There is still the price difference as another differentiator.

Maybe they're experimenting to see which price point does best? Out of Ed2's 15 files at E price point, there are 6 dls showing. That's a better result than Ed (1). Eventually they'll get their calculators out.