Author Topic: What's up with editiorial queue at IStock (Read 4626 times)

whimsikewl · « **on:** July 11, 2012, 21:47 »

What is the deal with the Editorial queue at Istock? It is so slow. They said they hired two new full time inspectors but nothing has improved. My files are almost two weeks in the queue, while the commercial stuff is being inspected in 8 to 48 hours. Even more annoying for me as an exclusive is that the non exclusive stuff appears to be inspected almost as fast as mine. I saw new non exclusive stuff today uploaded on 6-25, while exclusive stuff was coming in uploaded on 6-25 to 6-28.

I normally check the newest editorial uploads everyday just to see what is coming through and how old it is. Usually there are only 100 to 300 new files before I see the stuff from the previous day. Today I think there were about 180 new files. What's the deal? A good inspector should be able to do about that many on their lunch hour and still have the rest of the day to work on their own portfolio. There are two new full time inspectors plus how many of the old ones and they can only do 200 - 300 files a day. That is pitiful.

Also, whenever anyone complains about the slow queue time, they come up with the totally bogus response that they are being overwhelmed by the heavy uploads quantities. There are not that many people uploading editorial because the returns are low, the queue time is slow, the policies are inconsistent and confusing, the captioning process is time consuming, and there are no options for extra income from the partner program or the new Getty E+ sales. They are just not putting any resources into this program. Like I said before I think they are just happy to have their 120,000 + Edstock files getting new sales and all the rest is window dressing.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** July 11, 2012, 22:30 »

They probably discovered there's no money in people's shots of stores and strangers and random stuff they find, so they put it on the back burner.

oxman · « **Reply #2 on:** July 11, 2012, 22:52 »

last summer IS was turning around images in 24 hours -- even just a few months ago. Now editorial takes weeks and my exclusive shots inspection times are lagging. it's like they cut staff.

antistock · « **Reply #3 on:** July 12, 2012, 00:00 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 11, 2012, 22:30

They probably discovered there's no money in people's shots of stores and strangers and random stuff they find, so they put it on the back burner.

exactly ! shots of markets with people are often my best sellers in RM agencies, but they sell near zero on micros and it's a waste of time for them and for me, there's just no demand for these things, micros should just stick to RF stuff or pricing editorial a lot higher than RF because as it is now it's financially unsustainable for editorial photographers.

we can all say that some buyers like "real" shots but in the end they're not buying them and they stick with the typical shiny overphotoshopped corny stock images RF, fact !

antistock · « **Reply #4 on:** July 12, 2012, 00:05 »

Quote from: whimsikewl on July 11, 2012, 21:47

They said they hired two new full time inspectors but nothing has improved.

they must have hired yet another young MBA guy who started ranting about "optimization" of the workflow and the human resources, that means firing 10-20% of the workforce and enslaving the one left even more than before.... work smarter not harder .. and bla bla bla bla ... he got the bonus and the others got the boot.

it's a shame 99% of the good companies end up this way as soon as they make some money.

management just live in a bubble, they've no idea what's really going on, what clients want, what contributors want, they all think to know better and the results are here for all to see .. istock's marketshare nosediving and SS booming and going public soon.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** July 12, 2012, 08:21 »

Quote from: whimsikewl on July 11, 2012, 21:47

What is the deal with the Editorial queue at Istock? It is so slow. They said they hired two new full time inspectors but nothing has improved. t

The new guys are still being trained, according to Subman in the editorial forum.

Poncke · « **Reply #6 on:** July 12, 2012, 15:02 »

SS same deal, editorial takes over a week. Would editorial of USA related images sell better on Alamy than on micros? Make more money RPI?

bunhill · « **Reply #7 on:** July 12, 2012, 15:17 »

Quote from: antistock on July 12, 2012, 00:05

and SS booming and going public soon.

Is that definite still ?

whimsikewl · « **Reply #8 on:** July 12, 2012, 21:38 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 12, 2012, 08:21

Quote from: whimsikewl on July 11, 2012, 21:47
What is the deal with the Editorial queue at Istock? It is so slow. They said they hired two new full time inspectors but nothing has improved. t
The new guys are still being trained, according to Subman in the editorial forum.

That hiring was announced at the end of May. It can't take more than a few days to train people in the rules and guidelines and another week or so to get up to speed. (I mean there is no lack of material to practice on). Plus, with the old inspectors already trained over the past year, is the best they can do only 100-300 approvals per day? I realize there are an additional x number of rejections, but still it doesn't seem like a good effort.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** July 13, 2012, 04:15 »

Quote from: whimsikewl on July 12, 2012, 21:38

Quote from: ShadySue on July 12, 2012, 08:21
Quote from: whimsikewl on July 11, 2012, 21:47
What is the deal with the Editorial queue at Istock? It is so slow. They said they hired two new full time inspectors but nothing has improved. t

The new guys are still being trained, according to Subman in the editorial forum.

That hiring was announced at the end of May. It can't take more than a few days to train people in the rules and guidelines and another week or so to get up to speed. (I mean there is no lack of material to practice on).

It takes weeks to train a regular inspector, why would it be less for editorial. I have no idea whether they've recruited these new editorial inspectors from the ranks or are 'converting' regular inspectors.
This is the thread where Subman, on July 5th, said, "We're still in the process of training new guys".
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343929&page=1#post6704279

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #10 on:** July 13, 2012, 13:54 »

Not submitting editorial to iS but just noticed that my uploads at iS are getting faster reviews than at SS.
It's all just a big puzzle -- no rhyme nor reason; just a frustrating guessing game.

whimsikewl · « **Reply #11 on:** July 14, 2012, 14:29 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on July 13, 2012, 13:54

Not submitting editorial to iS but just noticed that my uploads at iS are getting faster reviews than at SS.
It's all just a big puzzle -- no rhyme nor reason; just a frustrating guessing game.

Regular exclusive files are being approved between 4 and 24 hours for the past couple months at least. There are no complaints there.

Today's newly approved editorial files were less than a 100 before I saw files from yesterday. Seems the editorial team is already on vacation. Or perhaps they are using them for deactivations. Someone said the Iwo Jima memorial is now banned in addition to the MLK memorial. I searched for it and, sure enough, there are about 40 images that now say - "Image not available for download, please contact CR for info." So they are culling the collection almost as fast as they are adding to it.

BTW, both Iwo Jima Memorial and MLK memorial are available as editorial on the main Getty site. Alamy must be making out like a bandit as well, since they have hundreds and hundreds of images of both memorials.

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** July 14, 2012, 14:56 »

Quote from: whimsikewl on July 14, 2012, 14:29

BTW, both Iwo Jima Memorial and MLK memorial are available as editorial on the main Getty site. Alamy must be making out like a bandit as well, since they have hundreds and hundreds of images of both memorials.

There are loads of images on Getty which are not allowable on iStock. Some of them may even have releases.

whimsikewl · « **Reply #13 on:** July 15, 2012, 09:40 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2012, 14:56

Quote from: whimsikewl on July 14, 2012, 14:29
BTW, both Iwo Jima Memorial and MLK memorial are available as editorial on the main Getty site. Alamy must be making out like a bandit as well, since they have hundreds and hundreds of images of both memorials.
There are loads of images on Getty which are not allowable on iStock. Some of them may even have releases.

Thank you, that's exactly what I said. Although its extremely unlikely that even a tiny percentage of those shots have releases.

My point was that if it is OK for Getty or Alamy to sell these images as editorial, apparently without any legal risk, why is Istock making out like it is a crime? Its like the IStock IPR lawyers are feeding out of a completely different thinktank.

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** July 15, 2012, 10:27 »

Quote from: whimsikewl on July 15, 2012, 09:40

Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2012, 14:56
Quote from: whimsikewl on July 14, 2012, 14:29
BTW, both Iwo Jima Memorial and MLK memorial are available as editorial on the main Getty site. Alamy must be making out like a bandit as well, since they have hundreds and hundreds of images of both memorials.
There are loads of images on Getty which are not allowable on iStock. Some of them may even have releases.

Thank you, that's exactly what I said. Although its extremely unlikely that even a tiny percentage of those shots have releases.

My point was that if it is OK for Getty or Alamy to sell these images as editorial, apparently without any legal risk, why is Istock making out like it is a crime? Its like the IStock IPR lawyers are feeding out of a completely different thinktank.

There are some subjects that iStock don't want to compete with Getty. E.g. they iStock won't accept photos of celebrities as they say we need special permissions, but if we had the permissions we should load to Getty. Try that with your few photos.

But in the UK, anyone can take a photo of a celebrity from a public place and sell it as editorial. I submitted some photos which they said were 'professional sports', but they weren't, they were amateur sports and held in a public place. I pointed this out and they said I'd need permission. As it happens, I know one of the senior organisers, who assured me I didn't need permission; but I asked what sort of permission I needed and was told that iStock regarded it as 'professional sport' (for no imaginable reason) therefore they wouldn't accept the images.
Also there appear to be some subjects that are legal to upload/upload for editorial in some countries, but not others; and I expect it would be too expensive to have the inspectors going off and researching every photo that came in; cheaper to have a blanket ban.
If iStock don't want them, send them to Alamy. Don't sweat the small stuff.

whimsikewl · « **Reply #15 on:** July 15, 2012, 11:50 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 15, 2012, 10:27

Quote from: whimsikewl on July 15, 2012, 09:40
Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2012, 14:56
Quote from: whimsikewl on July 14, 2012, 14:29
BTW, both Iwo Jima Memorial and MLK memorial are available as editorial on the main Getty site. Alamy must be making out like a bandit as well, since they have hundreds and hundreds of images of both memorials.
There are loads of images on Getty which are not allowable on iStock. Some of them may even have releases.

Thank you, that's exactly what I said. Although its extremely unlikely that even a tiny percentage of those shots have releases.

My point was that if it is OK for Getty or Alamy to sell these images as editorial, apparently without any legal risk, why is Istock making out like it is a crime? Its like the IStock IPR lawyers are feeding out of a completely different thinktank.

If iStock don't want them, send them to Alamy. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Hey, I'm not sweating. I don't even have any MLK or IJM pictures. I just threw that out in my post above about the slow editorial queue in an attempt at humor: Gag line: entire IS editorial team approves less than 100 images overnight. Meanwhile, IS editorial deactivation team culls 40 editorial images. Yuk yuk. Sorry my attempt at humor failed. I need to use more smilely faces.

As for Alamy, my portfolio there is pitiful in size and even more so in downloads, so it is hard for me, personally, to get excited about uploading Istock banned subjects to their 30 million plus collection. Others will undoubtedly have different opinions.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What's up with editiorial queue at IStock (Read 4626 times)

whimsikewl

Sean Locke Photography

oxman

antistock

antistock

ShadySue

Poncke

bunhill

whimsikewl

ShadySue

WarrenPrice

whimsikewl

ShadySue

whimsikewl

ShadySue

whimsikewl

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors