Author Topic: Has anyone noticed... (Read 14700 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #25 on:** December 14, 2010, 20:08 »

Quote from: SNP on December 14, 2010, 20:05

^ that's not what's happening. buyers can filter to view only the MOST expensive collections (Vetta & Agency), but not the reverse. I don't see the broken promise, nor an issue with that functionality. using this example as ammo in the 'iStock are liars arsenal' is silly.

The promise was that exclusive files would never be filterable out. That's a broken promise. Not quite the same as lying. Just making a promise that they couldn't keep.

donding · « **Reply #26 on:** December 14, 2010, 20:21 »

Ummm....wasn't the issue with the fact that they couldn't filter out the Vetta/Agency collection so they wouldn't have to dig to find the cheeper images??
The way it is they can filter out the cheeper images but not the Vetta/Agency. So basically what they did was not address the problem of filtering out the Vetta/Agency

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #27 on:** December 14, 2010, 20:33 »

But the Vetta only filter has been in advanced search since the start of Vetta. I don't much mind about that migrating to somewhere easier to see as it should avoid buyers leaving that checked inadvertently.

Any buyer who wants to look only at Agency & Vetta should be able to do so - and they probably won't be all that interested in the rest of the collection anyway. Selecting only the dollar bin has been possible for ages too, so I'd like to see that added to the collections choices once they finish coding this stuff.

The biggie is separating out exclusive from independent in the main collection - that's the one that caused all the fuss when exclusive prices went up and exclusives were concerned they'd be at a disadvantage. I don't expect that to happen even if IS allows Vetta & Agency to be excluded again. Given the massive price difference between those and the other stuff, I honestly don't think they have a choice. Buyers will eventually make them see sense on that one.

ShadySue · « **Reply #28 on:** December 14, 2010, 20:37 »

Quote from: donding on December 14, 2010, 20:21

Ummm....wasn't the issue with the fact that they couldn't filter out the Vetta/Agency collection so they wouldn't have to dig to find the cheeper images??
The way it is they can filter out the cheeper images but not the Vetta/Agency. So basically what they did was not address the problem of filtering out the Vetta/Agency

Well, yes, but that's a different issue.

corepics · « **Reply #29 on:** December 14, 2010, 20:40 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 19:06

Do a search.
Now look in the left-hand column, under the five check boxes list.
Click on Photo and illustration filters.
You can then click on Vetta and Agency filters, effectively filtering out 'normal' Exclusive and Exc+ files as well as non-exclusive files.
Even if only one or two buyers use this, a promise is a promise.
Unless it's a piecrust.

They must've "pushed through" another "fix". It seems that, clicking on "Collections", you're able to opt out of any exclusive or non-exclusive normal image, and select Vetta, Agency or Pump Audio collection files only.

Not that it changes a lot - I think they should at least consider exclusives, as well as non-exclusives as a separate collection, too.

As side note: Although I wholeheartedly agree iStock utterly disrespects contributors and buyers alike, they continue to perform pretty nicely for us - sales wise, as well as revenue wise (the latter at least until the end of this month) Bashing iStock for its recent attitude is justifiably understandable, yet should stay factual. Despite the flaws in the new search semantics, I'm pretty pleased with finding a few of our recent uploads as non-exclusive within the first 50. It also seems the iStock's (alledged) preference towards "Collections" are now more evenly spread over the pages.

donding · « **Reply #30 on:** December 14, 2010, 21:02 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 14, 2010, 20:33

But the Vetta only filter has been in advanced search since the start of Vetta. I don't much mind about that migrating to somewhere easier to see as it should avoid buyers leaving that checked inadvertently.

Any buyer who wants to look only at Agency & Vetta should be able to do so - and they probably won't be all that interested in the rest of the collection anyway. Selecting only the dollar bin has been possible for ages too, so I'd like to see that added to the collections choices once they finish coding this stuff.

The biggie is separating out exclusive from independent in the main collection - that's the one that caused all the fuss when exclusive prices went up and exclusives were concerned they'd be at a disadvantage. I don't expect that to happen even if IS allows Vetta & Agency to be excluded again. Given the massive price difference between those and the other stuff, I honestly don't think they have a choice. Buyers will eventually make them see sense on that one.

Thanks for explaining that. It just always seems one fix is fixing this problem that is caused by this fix that was created to fix the other fix for the first fix. I need a fix to figure it all out...

ShadySue · « **Reply #31 on:** December 14, 2010, 21:09 »

Quote from: corepics on December 14, 2010, 20:40

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 19:06
Do a search.
Now look in the left-hand column, under the five check boxes list.
Click on Photo and illustration filters.
You can then click on Vetta and Agency filters, effectively filtering out 'normal' Exclusive and Exc+ files as well as non-exclusive files.
Even if only one or two buyers use this, a promise is a promise.
Unless it's a piecrust.

They must've "pushed through" another "fix". It seems that, clicking on "Collections", you're able to opt out of any exclusive or non-exclusive normal image, and select Vetta, Agency or Pump Audio collection files only.

Yes, sorry - totally my mistake. It's 'Collections' you need to click on, not 'Photo and illustration filters'.
BTW, shouldn't they just have separated these. It's just confusing to have them lumped together.
BTW[2] I see someone quoted KKT as saying, "I do want to point out some important omissions. Due to some technical issues behind the scenes, we won’t be including searches based on Color, Copyspace or Collections until shortly into the new year. So this means you will not be able to search on color, copyspace or filter only the standard collections. Again, this is temporary."
If that's a true quote, how come is that the search on the Vetta and/or Agency collection has been included.
And I know you can search DB only, though I can't see how to find that.
And although last night I found DB images at the end of a search of only 13 results, I haven't been able to replicate that today. Probably one of the least important bugs to fix.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #32 on:** December 14, 2010, 21:10 »

Quote from: SNP on December 14, 2010, 20:05

^ that's not what's happening. buyers can filter to view only the MOST expensive collections (Vetta & Agency), but not the reverse. I don't see the broken promise, nor an issue with that functionality. using this example as ammo in the 'iStock are liars arsenal' is silly.

Yeah, sorry. Besides, you could do that before the release.

SNP · « **Reply #33 on:** December 14, 2010, 21:32 »

I think you're agreeing with me? can't tell from your tone. FWIW I also said above that we've always been able to search Vetta only.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #34 on:** December 14, 2010, 21:55 »

Yes, agreeing.

SNP · « **Reply #35 on:** December 14, 2010, 21:57 »

you'd think by now I would speak fluent 'Locke Talk'....lol

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #36 on:** December 14, 2010, 22:05 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 21:09

BTW[2] I see someone quoted KKT as saying, "I do want to point out some important omissions. Due to some technical issues behind the scenes, we won’t be including searches based on Color, Copyspace or Collections until shortly into the new year. So this means you will not be able to search on color, copyspace or filter only the standard collections. Again, this is temporary."
If that's a true quote, how come is that the search on the Vetta and/or Agency collection has been included.

Presumably he means being able to filter out the high-priced collections. But why was it easy to filter out the cheap stuff but not the expensive stuff? Could it be a test to see if buyers will spend big time instead of walking away if they can't find budget-price files?
It looks as if they may have succeeded in slashing my sales by up to half with the new search. That will add nicely to the 15% drop in commissions next month.

a1bercik · « **Reply #37 on:** December 15, 2010, 01:51 »

Do you really care? Exclusives should be happy, Non-exclusives (like me) should enjoy better sales elsewhere. This game is not about quality, great owners, successful or not PR campaign, gadgets, but about prices (as Yuri discovered recently). And the winners is...?

Pav

ffNixx · « **Reply #38 on:** December 15, 2010, 03:37 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 20:37

Quote from: donding on December 14, 2010, 20:21
Ummm....wasn't the issue with the fact that they couldn't filter out the Vetta/Agency collection so they wouldn't have to dig to find the cheeper images??
The way it is they can filter out the cheeper images but not the Vetta/Agency. So basically what they did was not address the problem of filtering out the Vetta/Agency
Well, yes, but that's a different issue.

No, it is not a different issue at all.

The issue is one of "quid pro quo", of treating all contributors fairly. Those with Vetta/Agency files will be served nicely by their buyers having a faster way of drilling down their searches, but contributors depending on sales in regular collections have to contend with *their* buyers not being able to do likewise with the regular collections. It's the inequality of opportunity that I suspect bothers many of the non-V&A contributors.

That said, it has been interesting reading the variety of responses here, thank you all. What I get out of it is that there are enough contributors supporting V&A to ensure iStock is going to win this over the wishes of most contributors and buyers, and will not bring back the ability to filter down to regular collections only.

lisafx · « **Reply #39 on:** December 15, 2010, 11:58 »

Quote from: ffNixx on December 15, 2010, 03:37

The issue is one of "quid pro quo", of treating all contributors fairly. Those with Vetta/Agency files will be served nicely by their buyers having a faster way of drilling down their searches, but contributors depending on sales in regular collections have to contend with *their* buyers not being able to do likewise with the regular collections. It's the inequality of opportunity that I suspect bothers many of the non-V&A contributors.

That said, it has been interesting reading the variety of responses here, thank you all. What I get out of it is that there are enough contributors supporting V&A to ensure iStock is going to win this over the wishes of most contributors and buyers, and will not bring back the ability to filter down to regular collections only.

I agree with you that what's most upsetting to contributors is the unfairness of the V/A files being pushed, at the expense of our regular collection stuff. But Getty/Istock have proven time and again over the past several months that contributor concerns are no longer of much importance. What SHOULD matter to them is the inconvenience this causes buyers. Hopefully after the new year (if not sooner) there will be some ability for price sensitive buyers to filter out the high cost collections.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Has anyone noticed... (Read 14700 times)

ShadySue

donding

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

corepics

donding

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

SNP

Sean Locke Photography

SNP

BaldricksTrousers

a1bercik

ffNixx

lisafx

Related Topics