...that the new search allows buyers to exclude all regular collections (Main, E, E+), but not to exclude Vetta or Agency?

In the F5 thread it was said that this would only be temporary, but there is also a hint that it might be permanent, since apparently the Advanced Search feature to exclude the premium collections was seldom used.  It was also made clear that any ability to exclude V&A would be thoroughly tested and nothing would be done in a hurry - surely as strong a hint as they could make.

What do you all think of that?  Are you happy with this development, that buyers must always see at least one premium collection, but can hide most, if not all, of your work?

If they can exclude my photos will they do that or not? I suppose I'll need to wait at least till February or March 2011 before making any conclusions about "new istock".

Quote from: ffNixx on December 14, 2010, 09:07
...that the new search allows buyers to exclude all regular collections (Main, E, E+), but not to exclude Vetta or Agency?

In the F5 thread it was said that this would only be temporary, but there is also a hint that it might be permanent, since apparently the Advanced Search feature to exclude the premium collections was seldom used.  It was also made clear that any ability to exclude V&A would be thoroughly tested and nothing would be done in a hurry - surely as strong a hint as they could make.

What do you all think of that?  Are you happy with this development, that buyers must always see at least one premium collection, but can hide most, if not all, of your work?

If this is maintained it will be yet another broken promise - in this case that exclusive files would never be hidden.
Maybe the advanced search feature was seldom used because a 'significant number' of buyers didn't know it was there.

From a buyer right now:

"Istock is officially no longer a micro stock site. With price hikes it was debateable, but now there is no way to turn off the vetta and agency Istock is doing me a mass disservice.

I, like thousands of other buyers, will not be buying vetta and agency simply because they are the first images to display in a search. We must now WASTE valuble time skipping the said "collection" making it an unviable service.

I will be purchasing my next stock credits at another site so see if it saves production time.

Shame really as IS was good"

Quote from: Chico on December 14, 2010, 11:35
From a buyer right now:

"Istock is officially no longer a micro stock site. With price hikes it was debateable, but now there is no way to turn off the vetta and agency Istock is doing me a mass disservice.

I, like thousands of other buyers, will not be buying vetta and agency simply because they are the first images to display in a search. We must now WASTE valuble time skipping the said "collection" making it an unviable service.

I will be purchasing my next stock credits at another site so see if it saves production time.

Shame really as IS was good"

Unfortunately, that buyer has been getting the runaround this morning. I've been SMing her trying to help (as I'm banned) but the idea that a buyer should go clicking on links and wading through long threads (instead of giving a straight answer to questions she correctly addressed to the Help forum) to find out what she needs to know is ridiculous.

In this case, evilclown did answer correctly, it just looks like he was in a hurry and skipped the first post about the loupe.

"Oh come on... where . is the view 200 images at a time option and the "sort by"
I'm getting really FED UP"

"The sort options are now right above the search results. More information here."

Which is correct.

Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2010, 11:52
In this case, evilclown did answer correctly, it just looks like he was in a hurry and skipped the first post about the loupe.

"Oh come on... where . is the view 200 images at a time option and the "sort by"
I'm getting really FED UP"

"The sort options are now right above the search results. More information here."

Which is correct.

The post about the loupe was the second post.
So it wasn't answered and locked so no-one else could help.
No-one in the forums has suggested to that buyer that she could sort by other than best match. I did SM her about that, but it seems she's pretty hacked off about her treatment in the forums, and I don't blame her.
How often do people post a question in Discussion and get told it should be in Help? She had a help question and was half-helped then referred to a thread in the discussion forum and the thread was locked. That is a great way to make a buyer feel that her concerns are being taken seriously and sympathetically.
I understand about being in a hurry and making a mistake. (t may be that evilclown has SMd to apologise. I suspect it's the same problem that affects some Support communications, whereby you explain the background to a problem before stating your question, and they see a 'trigger word' in the background preamble and send out a pre-packaged reply to that and don't actually get to your problem.
Doing it the other way round and stating your problem first, then your specific background leads to a cookie cutter response to the actual question without considering the particular information about your situation.
Not meant to be a rant against Support. Twice they've helped me when I didn't even know I had an issue (i.e. they contacted me out of the blue!) and I know that skim-reading for 'trigger words' is taught in other companies.

OT, but tangentially relevant:
H*ck, I tried to alert Virgin Mobile about a reseller chain which was actively taking customers out of their services and the reply I got was, "Sorry you had an issue buying our products, have your tried out shop", when I had explained that I had walked out of the reseller and gone to their shop, which was well out of my way, to get what I wanted - and tried a different branch of the reseller as an experiment. They had presumably only read the first paragraph.

But we've wandered off the OP and the broken promise from JJRD that it would never be possible to turn off exclusive files. Never means 'never', it doesn't mean 'sometimes'.

Quote from: ffNixx on December 14, 2010, 09:07
...that the new search allows buyers to exclude all regular collections (Main, E, E+), but not to exclude Vetta or Agency?

In the F5 thread it was said that this would only be temporary, but there is also a hint that it might be permanent, since apparently the Advanced Search feature to exclude the premium collections was seldom used.  It was also made clear that any ability to exclude V&A would be thoroughly tested and nothing would be done in a hurry - surely as strong a hint as they could make.

What do you all think of that?  Are you happy with this development, that buyers must always see at least one premium collection, but can hide most, if not all, of your work?

It bothers me big-time, but I expected it to come. I appreciate the fact that Getty is trying elevate commissions. But they are only trying to do that for a select number of contributors. This will all be ok for some buyers, but a select number of buyers. There was a market for microstock a few years back, and there still is, even more so today. Do I wish commissions would go up? Of course. Do I think prices are going to be hiked everywhere? Of course. We shall see which agencies will do both at the same time instead of being greedy and taking all the money for themselves.

Just one sale so far today - worse than the average sunday - is that something to do with this new search?

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 12:10
But we've wandered off the OP and the broken promise from JJRD that it would never be possible to turn off exclusive files. Never means 'never', it doesn't mean 'sometimes'.

The minute Getty bought istock, the whole notion of "never" went right out the window. When you've got a company like Getty calling the shots, promises made when istock was still istock are no longer promises that anyone could realistically expect them to keep.

The Agency/Vetta search option filter removal isn't all that surprising, either. There's been a lot of hinting in recent years that istock was making moves towards a different pricing model. This just supports that theory. I guess Vetta has done well enough that they can justify making the move to a more Vetta-centric pricing structure. Microstock is now just the cheaper option beneath the Vetta and Agency offerings that are being pushed to the front, which it seems now are the primary focus of istock and the product they intend to really push on the buyer.

Quote from: helix7 on December 14, 2010, 15:29

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 12:10
But we've wandered off the OP and the broken promise from JJRD that it would never be possible to turn off exclusive files. Never means 'never', it doesn't mean 'sometimes'.

The minute Getty bought istock, the whole notion of "never" went right out the window. When you've got a company like Getty calling the shots, promises made when istock was still istock are no longer promises that anyone could realistically expect them to keep.

iStock was already owned by Getty when I joined and when that promise was made.
But as you say, no promise made by iStock is believable for more than the next few days or weeks. I am prepared to accept that it's not iStock's fault, it's the puppeteers pulling the strings.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 15:31
I am prepared to accept that it's not iStock's fault, it's the puppeteers pulling the strings.

How do you draw such a distinction? Istock is company that acts in accordance with the directives of its owners. Or is there some Platonic Ideal iStock existing in an ethereal sphere which behaves quite differently from the flawed Earthly istock?

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 14, 2010, 16:51

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 15:31
I am prepared to accept that it's not iStock's fault, it's the puppeteers pulling the strings.

How do you draw such a distinction? Istock is company that acts in accordance with the directives of its owners. Or is there some Platonic Ideal iStock existing in an ethereal sphere which behaves quite differently from the flawed Earthly istock?

I'm trying to 'make allowances'.
Wouldn't want to be toooooooo negative!

Wow, just searcher for 'animal', and first page results:

First Page:

Vetta: 40
Agency: 7
Regular: 3

Second Page:

Vetta: 40
Agency: 4
Regular: 6


With no option to turn off, no wonder buyers are pissed

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 12:10
But we've wandered off the OP and the broken promise from JJRD that it would never be possible to turn off exclusive files. Never means 'never', it doesn't mean 'sometimes'.

I knew it would happen (especially after I became exclusive!). 

Never in Gettyspeak means "until we change our mind".

Quote from: helix7 on December 14, 2010, 15:29
When you've got a company like Getty calling the shots, promises made when istock was still istock are no longer promises that anyone could realistically expect them to keep.

This "promise" was made, IIRC, about one year ago, when exclusive image prices were changed to be more expensive than non-exclusive. In the long, long thread that ensued, at some point, JJRD said clearly and emphatically that it would never be possible to exclude exclusive images from any search.

Quote from: nruboc on December 14, 2010, 17:16
Wow, just searcher for 'animal', and first page results:

First Page:

Vetta: 40
Agency: 7
Regular: 3

Second Page:

Vetta: 40
Agency: 4
Regular: 6


With no option to turn off, no wonder buyers are pissed

the fact you can't turn them off, like the agency sticking "bug", seems to point to a desperate end of year cash grab.  I have never for a second believed the agency issue was really a bug; and I don't believe the site couldn't be fixed (very easily) to exclude agency and vetta.

Ummm ....

How exactly can exclusive images be filtered out?

I tried, and the only option I found was to exclude non-exclusive images (i.e., show "Exclusive Only").

I don't have a problem with that, but I'm not sure there are many buyers who would find that useful.

Quote from: KB on December 14, 2010, 17:34

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 12:10
But we've wandered off the OP and the broken promise from JJRD that it would never be possible to turn off exclusive files. Never means 'never', it doesn't mean 'sometimes'.

I knew it would happen (especially after I became exclusive!). 

Never in Gettyspeak means "until we change our mind".

If I was still exclusive, I'd be royally pissed.  If this doesn't push some exclusives over the edge to drop their crown, not sure what will.  I have a feeling there will be some major upheavals in the first few months of 2011 for iStock.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 14, 2010, 16:51

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 15:31
I am prepared to accept that it's not iStock's fault, it's the puppeteers pulling the strings.

How do you draw such a distinction? Istock is company that acts in accordance with the directives of its owners. Or is there some Platonic Ideal iStock existing in an ethereal sphere which behaves quite differently from the flawed Earthly istock?

  That would be over in the Land of Wishful Thinking...

Quote from: ffNixx on December 14, 2010, 09:07
...that the new search allows buyers to exclude all regular collections (Main, E, E+), but not to exclude Vetta or Agency?

In the F5 thread it was said that this would only be temporary, but there is also a hint that it might be permanent, since apparently the Advanced Search feature to exclude the premium collections was seldom used.  It was also made clear that any ability to exclude V&A would be thoroughly tested and nothing would be done in a hurry - surely as strong a hint as they could make.

What do you all think of that?  Are you happy with this development, that buyers must always see at least one premium collection, but can hide most, if not all, of your work?

you're correct, though you've said it kind of wrong. buyers initially receive best match results or whatever sort preference they've selected from the drop down. in the second level of search, they have the option of checking Vetta & Agency to drill down into those collections. Savvy buyers with bigger budgets will use this functionality. 'regular' buyers will probably search within the results without checking these boxes. I don't see a major issue here or a broken promise. I don't have lots of Vetta or Agency, and I'm not overly concerned about this.

if higher end buyers want to search only Vetta, they were already able to do that.

Quote from: KB on December 14, 2010, 17:47
Ummm ....

How exactly can exclusive images be filtered out?

I tried, and the only option I found was to exclude non-exclusive images (i.e., show "Exclusive Only").

I don't have a problem with that, but I'm not sure there are many buyers who would find that useful.

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.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 15, 2010, 00:06
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.

Not (yet?) what I feared, though. I fear exclusive files being completely filtered out, for those price-sensitive buyers who wish to see only the least expensive images available.

best match already does a pretty good job of filtering out non-Vetta & non-Agency files (at least at the front of the search), so adding this option doesn't cause me much grief. 

^ 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.