clipart.com is dreck. Way back when I download the three free files you could have as "samples" to see if you liked what they had to offer - something like 500 files a day for $3.99 a year, which told you all you needed to know about the quality of the files.

Open them in Illustrator and they were rubbish - like terrible autotraces of some badly drawn originals. Stacks of odd shapes piled up; too many points on lines - all the hallmarks of a bad job

Thanks for posting the link or I wouldn't have seen it, but I can't believe Getty's so desperate for a few extra pennies that they're trying to revive this clapped-out old junk

Ah! I knew it... On my quick search there are a little over 36,000 vector files at clipart.com, most of it is just crap. If they think this isn't going to screw up the best match results, they are fooling themselves. Also, I believe Getty Images also owns those "1,000000" and "100000 clip art" books and cd packages that were so popular in the late 1980's. Bet you'll see a massive upload on those as well. Here's how the conversation will go:
Getty: "We're sending you our vector artwork files to be sold on istockphoto"
Istock HQ: "Um, Ok, and once they pass our inspection, we'll..."
Getty: "No inspection, put them all up today. Thanks" Click.

Mmmm The files will go through the normal inspection process and will be subject to all the usual contributor rules such as the weekly upload limits. This way the files won't spam Best Match. from Bortonia's post in the forum.

I thought the weekly exclusive upload limit was maybe 15??? Not sure since I haven't u/l for a long time. But there's 40 files in the new portfolio already.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350915&page=1

They recently raised limits for illustratons for Non-exclusive members to 40 a week.

Mmmm The files will go through the normal inspection process and will be subject to all the usual contributor rules such as the weekly upload limits. This way the files won't spam Best Match. from Bortonia's post in the forum.

Quite honestly: I like this approach. I wish they would have done the same for all the Agency collections, CSA Images and Hulton Archive.

I know right now opinions about iStock/Getty tend to be negative right away (for good reasons) but I think this could actually be a result of people thinking "we have to do it but how can we do this smarter instead of pissing off contributors nor buyers by just adding thousands of images at once".

Agreed Michael - a smarter approach which begs the question why didn't they think of following the upload rules for wholly owned Getty content when they first started ingesting it... would have softened the blow a lot...

They already had a precedent from when they ingested the Hulton Archive. However, the big difference was that the HA didn't tend to overwhelm most searches, a little point that they appear not to have taken into account.

But in fact, we've had the promises before. We were promised that "EdStock"'s images would not dominate best match, but they did for many months, despite the fact that their keywords were often abysmal and bore no relationship to many search terms, apparently because of the different way that Getty keywords editorial images.

Guess we were bound to have our own version of "agency" to deal with. Photographers got theirs a while back, looks like it's our turn now. No doubt this stuff will get pushed to the front of the line, or already is based on Cory's observation.

Oh well. Just yet another reason to have the goal of being "Getty-free in 2013".

I just replied to some questions in the original post when someone sent me a link to this thread, so I figured I'd do double duty and post here too in case you missed my reply on iStock.

I've never posted here so apologies if my quoting is clumsy�

Quote: Hmm. I'm not buying the "tightly curated" part. It looks like it's all from 1995.

That's because most of it probably is. I have no idea how old this stuff is but I did see a few 'anniversary' illustrations there with 1998 as the date, so it's definitely from around that time.

Quote: Open them in Illustrator and they were rubbish - like terrible autotraces of some badly drawn originals.

We're definitely not choosing anything like this. The files we've been looking at are actually quite well constructed, cleanly built with good point placement - The artist(s?) knew what they were doing.

Quote: Also, I believe Getty Images also owns those "1,000000" and "100000 clip art" books and cd packages that were so popular in the late 1980's. Bet you'll see a massive upload on those as well.

Over my dead body

Quote: I thought the weekly exclusive upload limit was maybe 15???

File types each have different upload limits. The weekly limit for a vector contributor with a base canister is currently 40 per week. The vector upload limit numbers were recently posted on the XNet blog if you're interested, I don't know what they are for the other file types though. Last I checked ours were pretty similar to the video limits.

Quote: The work in that port so far is actually not too bad for the most part. I'm surprised.

Yes, there actually are a few gems, they're just been buried for ages. We're only choosing stuff that would have passed our regular inspection process and that we think might sell in the Partner Program. Giving them a second chance, so to speak.

Quote: Looks like they are getting some pretty favorable search placement for files that have never sold. And so it begins.

There is 100% absolutely NO special treatment in best match on these files. They are treated exactly as any other new upload. I don't know anything about best match but from my own recent uploads it does seem to give a bump to new files but it seems to go away pretty quickly. Once the files are in the Value Collection they won't show in searches anymore.

Quote: I posted a few questions there to see if I can get any more info.

I've replied to you, and any other questions that have come up so far If I missed anything just let me know.

Also, I don't come to this site very much so if you have further questions please post them back over on iStock so I can reply more quickly.

I just wanted to post here because it seems like some assumptions are being made that I'd like to address right from the get-go and I'm not sure how regularly you all check the iStock forums.

Also, I don't come to this site very much so if you have further questions please post them back over on iStock so I can reply more quickly.

Jenn, thanks for taking a field trip to make a post here

I know you know what a good illustration is, and I think you'll agree that there is a lot of stuff on clipart.com that doesn't meet that test. And as for asking on the iStock forums, I and a growing number of other iStock contributors cannot do that as we've been banned. Hence lots of the chat happens here

Quote: Why is my vector upload limit 80/week now. Have Istock just increased it so they can ingest the new content quicker while the statement about not giving them any special treatment holds true? Or is this unrelated?

Limits were raised because vector inspection turnaround is so fast and we've brought on some new team members. They have been raised twice in the past few months, before this project started: They're totally unrelated.

Quote: Why is my vector upload limit 80/week now. Have Istock just increased it so they can ingest the new content quicker while the statement about not giving them any special treatment holds true? Or is this unrelated?

Limits were raised because vector inspection turnaround is so fast and we've brought on some new team members. They have been raised twice in the past few months, before this project started: They're totally unrelated.

Thanks for clearing that up.

.

Quote: from Suljo: I just watching What a pile of crap from you mouth is slightly increased from page to page on this forum.
I dont want to be clairvoyant but if I take look at this crappy thread after two days I will see eg. that upload limit of 160/week will be normal as is. > end quote >

Again, apologies that I can't check in here more often, but I do promise I'll follow up as much as I can.

I find suljo's post a bit confusing but I'll do the best I can here. Again, apologies if I'm missing the main message: Feel free to email me if I'm having translation issues and missing the real problems! I'll do my best to clarify

Suljo, the weekly upload limit for vectors on iStock currently starts at 40 uploads per week. I know our uploads have been posted here already but you can view them on the Xnet blog on iStock if you're interested in how they increase by canister.

Not really sure where '160/week' comes from. So to reply to your post: No, two days (or in this case two weeks) in, the numbers aren't 4x what we originally announced.

If they change, I promise I will do my best to post them here. But for now the weekly limits for a new contributor are indeed 40 a week, NOT 160 as Suljo posted. I hope this helps, and hopefully reduces confusion for newbies here. I'd hate for new contributors to think they were given 160 upload slots per week based on this post!