MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Image Deactivation Tally for iStockPhoto  (Read 61385 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #375 on: February 02, 2013, 23:32 »
+12

537 total today (a little over 50% of my port), feeling proud!


« Reply #376 on: February 03, 2013, 00:03 »
+8
For instant I removed only 15. I dropped my crown few days ago and thinking about long term strategy, if I remove only some categories of images or the whole portfolio.

« Reply #377 on: February 03, 2013, 00:35 »
+11
I deactivated a total of 505 images today.... I stopped uploading a year ago.

« Reply #378 on: February 03, 2013, 01:01 »
+12
As previously pledged:  126 files deactivated.   My entire port except (2) files for account maintenance purposes.  Sad day - first time I have pulled my port from somewhere.   

« Reply #379 on: February 03, 2013, 02:47 »
+11
I deactivated 26 yesterday, bringing my total up to 200.

Though I do it for different reasons than many here, I think it's important to show a coordinated effort of contributors is possible.

Poncke

« Reply #380 on: February 03, 2013, 03:20 »
+8
They have broken the stats link, they dont want us to see the numbers. Wow, they really are doing everything to deceive people.

« Reply #381 on: February 03, 2013, 03:26 »
+2
They have broken the stats link, they dont want us to see the numbers. Wow, they really are doing everything to deceive people.

It works for me
Total files 12691070
Waiting approval 63580

Which is about 10,000 fewer than a day ago. Presumably several thousand have also been approved during that period, so a little over 0.1% of the collection was probably deleted yesterday and maybe a similar proportion in the run-up to the protest. Then you need to factor in how much of iStock is now composed of files carted in from elsewhere. At a rough guess, one contributors file in ever 300 has been pulled.

Poncke

« Reply #382 on: February 03, 2013, 03:30 »
0
Ok this was 8 hours ago, not much difference

Quote
Total files 12691392
Waiting approval 63951

00:20 GMT 3 feb 2013

« Reply #383 on: February 03, 2013, 04:15 »
0
They have broken the stats link, they dont want us to see the numbers. Wow, they really are doing everything to deceive people.

I think it only works if you are logged in to the site?!?

Microbius

« Reply #384 on: February 03, 2013, 04:24 »
0
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350913&page=20
Quote from Lobo
"And that's that. Feb 3."

Could he be anymore antagonistic and dismissive?

Anyway, assuming "that's" not"that" what now? Continue to deactivate or suspend further deactivation for another week with the demand of an opt out of further give away deals? 

« Reply #385 on: February 03, 2013, 04:38 »
+2
Everything is fine! Without the deactivated pics, the agency earns fewer money! I think they earns so much fewer money, what the have earned from google for the pics, they have sold.

If istock and getty not concern i will delete my port.

« Reply #386 on: February 03, 2013, 05:00 »
+13
I don't think we should be thinking about the numbers or what Getty think about this.  What matters is that lots of buyers are made aware of how little Getty/istock respect us, how low our commissions are and that non-exclusives have much bigger portfolios on other sites.  Hopefully more and more of them will at least get a second account and only use istock to buy from exclusives.

There's a lot more we can do but I think we should wait and see what effect D-Day has had before planning another group action.  It was great to take part in this and see so many joining in.  It's made me think that perhaps we do have some power.

« Reply #387 on: February 03, 2013, 05:12 »
+5
I don't think we should be thinking about the numbers or what Getty think about this.  What matters is that lots of buyers are made aware of how little Getty/istock respect us, how low our commissions are and that non-exclusives have much bigger portfolios on other sites.  Hopefully more and more of them will at least get a second account and only use istock to buy from exclusives.

There's a lot more we can do but I think we should wait and see what effect D-Day has had before planning another group action.  It was great to take part in this and see so many joining in.  It's made me think that perhaps we do have some power.

I think that is about right.  Wait a while but let it be known (especially to buyers) and organize for:

D-Day2
« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 05:15 by etienjones »

« Reply #388 on: February 03, 2013, 05:15 »
0
I don't think we should be thinking about the numbers or what Getty think about this.  What matters is that lots of buyers are made aware of how little Getty/istock respect us, how low our commissions are and that non-exclusives have much bigger portfolios on other sites.  Hopefully more and more of them will at least get a second account and only use istock to buy from exclusives.

There's a lot more we can do but I think we should wait and see what effect D-Day has had before planning another group action.  It was great to take part in this and see so many joining in.  It's made me think that perhaps we do have some power.

I think that is about right.  Wait a while but let it be known and organize for:

D-Day2

IS won't have any files left!

ShadySue

« Reply #389 on: February 03, 2013, 07:05 »
+2
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350913&page=20
Quote from Lobo
"And that's that. Feb 3."

Could he be anymore antagonistic and dismissive?



He obviously shows few symptoms of a mental disorder. But, in the same time he must be a very capable person if he does the same work since 2000.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=341795

Oh, and note the use of iStock time:
"Lobo and the rest of our forum moderator team (more on them soon)" in a post dated on March 12th last year.
They definitely have a "new meaning of 'soon'" to repurpose a famous iStock idiom.
Maybe they need to write a special iStock glossary, explaining what they mean by 'trust', 'soon', 'this week', 'this month', 'No', 'Yes' etc.  ...

« Reply #390 on: February 03, 2013, 07:25 »
+3
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350913&page=20
Quote from Lobo
"And that's that. Feb 3."

Could he be anymore antagonistic and dismissive?

Anyway, assuming "that's" not"that" what now? Continue to deactivate or suspend further deactivation for another week with the demand of an opt out of further give away deals?


Could be worse.  Remember Peebert?

« Reply #391 on: February 03, 2013, 08:53 »
0
If we want to encourage buyers to go to other sites, how about removing niche files next? If you have a file that is rare, it may sell only occasionally on IS, but if a buyer needs it they will have to go elsewhere.

In this way you would not lose much income from IS, but buyers who normally only buy at IS (if there are any left) could be gently encouraged to look at what else is out there.

« Reply #392 on: February 03, 2013, 09:23 »
+7
Plus 250 deactivated at noon for the coffee break, I found I've forgotten some files with few downloads, now the 650 files I left have 0 download. Total: 2250 files deactivated.

« Reply #393 on: February 03, 2013, 09:41 »
+15
Deactivated my 2 best sellers of my small portfolio. They had 5500 downloads together.

lisafx

« Reply #394 on: February 03, 2013, 09:58 »
+3
I did 552 more than listed (got carried away).

It's easy to get carried away, right?   Good old Sean made it a breeze.  ;D
He wrote it, but is he using it himself. I remember him saying he wouldnt delete any images?

Sean is in a different position to most of us here.  I suspect he is going another (but possibly even more effective) route.  I do not for a minute think he's sitting back and doing nothing. 

« Reply #395 on: February 03, 2013, 09:59 »
+2
Ok this was 8 hours ago, not much difference

Quote
Total files 12691392
Waiting approval 63951

00:20 GMT 3 feb 2013

Yesterday morning it showed 12706607... so the number dropped by about 15,000...  ???

« Reply #396 on: February 03, 2013, 10:01 »
+16
I did 552 more than listed (got carried away).
It's easy to get carried away, right?   Good old Sean made it a breeze.  ;D
He wrote it, but is he using it himself. I remember him saying he wouldnt delete any images?
Sean is in a different position to most of us here.  I suspect he is going another (but possibly even more effective) route.  I do not for a minute think he's sitting back and doing nothing.

I did take down about 30.  It was fun to use!

lisafx

« Reply #397 on: February 03, 2013, 10:05 »
0

I did take down about 30.  It was fun to use!

Oh, good to know.  :)

It was fun, wasn't it? 

Thank you again for making it so much easier than it could have been! 

« Reply #398 on: February 03, 2013, 10:16 »
+1
If I were in charge at istock I'd have been certain to flood as many Getty images into istock on the 2nd Feb as possible to attempt to negate the contributor deactivations. I wonder if they did..?

« Reply #399 on: February 03, 2013, 10:28 »
+1
If I were in charge at istock I'd have been certain to flood as many Getty images into istock on the 2nd Feb as possible to attempt to negate the contributor deactivations. I wonder if they did..?

I doubt whether they care much what numbers are showing.It's not something the outside world is going to show any interest in.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
7697 Views
Last post June 19, 2008, 02:19
by Perry
13 Replies
5153 Views
Last post November 20, 2010, 09:14
by ShadySue
4 Replies
4807 Views
Last post February 28, 2011, 17:43
by click_click
4 Replies
1913 Views
Last post November 18, 2013, 08:36
by Mantis
8 Replies
2505 Views
Last post January 20, 2017, 09:34
by WorriedIstocker

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results