Quote from: michealo on May 04, 2010, 08:24

..
I would suggest Scout and or contributor relations. Any of the IS inspectors I know are highly skilled and competent.

I personally have been waiting for Scout response for 31 days now.
Image was rejected because of use of the old MR, but the picture was taken in July 2009 so the old MR should be accepted.
I added the shoot date to the description field with: "..so the old MR is used and should be accepted". But no..
This is annoying because i have several images of the same batch waiting to be uploaded, but i don't want to waste my time for getting all of those accepted via Scout.

case solved (they must be reading this forum ). \o/

They (IS) just rejected an image (no complete reupload just requesting new MR).
+++photographer information missing++
Incomplete information (addresses, phone numbers etc.) Please have a new release filled out and uploaded.

These fields are not existing anymore even on their own release form LOL.

They (IS) just rejected an image (no complete reupload just requesting new MR).
+++photographer information missing++
Incomplete information (addresses, phone numbers etc.) Please have a new release filled out and uploaded.

These fields are not existing anymore even on their own release form LOL.

I just uploaded an MR last week and the photographer info is at the bottom of the left column. Not sure what you mean.

Sorry about that, I see what you mean now.

I used the same MR you linked to and did not get a reject...just another mis-rejection from IS, I guess. It is getting old, isn't it?

How they even can call them 'MAJOR' stock site when they can't overwhelm Shutterstock?
What is so 'MAJOR' there? Number of contributors? Well... I think Not. 55000 - 60000 is so small number! Shutterstock has almost 5 times more contributors and still makes better for all than iStock.
Is iStock 'MAJOR' for exclusives? Well - that was true in the past. Now they are merely covering 30% of market.
Their PROFIT? That for sure is MAJOR.

Well... I won't upload there, but I will be interested in shares of iStockPhoto for sure!

Why bother with them anyway?

p.s.  i feel your pain on the keyword rejection...  we have all suffered that one.  I had a picture of the mountain  Half Dome in Yosemite Natn'l Park...   it was rejected because the words half dome were not relevant.

I agree it's really annoying when that happens, but on a case as clear-cut as this, you can sitemail emyerson or ducksandwich directly to ask for it to be reinstated (much quicker than Scout). With less clear-cut examples, you can post to the keywords forum - Ethan and Duck often look into threads there anyway.
You have to remember that inspectors are from all over the world, and although Half Dome might be iconic for Americans, it may be unheard of elsewhere. Many of the inspectors are mainly studio workers, with no interest in landscape photography. I'm sure I'd never have heard of Half Dome if it weren't for reading Ansel Adams books.

Ok who are these "emyerson or ducksandwich" guys and how is a contributor supposed to know about them?

They're the members of Team Metadata who post most often on the Keywords forum, which is the place to hang out if you're having keywording issues.

"Team Metadata"?  Huh?

Why can't IS just be a straightforward business instead of ... never mind.  Obviously some people there enjoy all these games.

Seriously, though, if you have issues with keywording at iStock, wouldn't it make more sense to spend your time posting on iStock's keywording forum, which was set up especially for that purpose, than posting here, where you can vent, but can't achieve anything useful, like getting your keywords reinstated if appropriate or at least getting an explanation of why you're not getting them reinstated (and even then, you still have recourse to Scout).
Your shout, of course. ;-)

[wouldn't it make more sense to spend your time posting on iStock's keywording forum...

Yeah but first you have to know about all these mysterious "players", and forums where you you're supposed to "hang out" etc.    Why can't it just be between contributor and reviewer?

Quote from: ShadySue on May 08, 2010, 17:43

[wouldn't it make more sense to spend your time posting on iStock's keywording forum...

Yeah but first you have to know about all these mysterious "players", and forums where you you're supposed to "hang ou" etc.    Why can't it just be between contributor and reviewer?

I guess that would be too personal and open to abuse. Besides,these are the guys with the keywords expertise.
If you can work your way around the msg forums, you can work out the iStock forums too. If you want to. 

Quote from: ShadySue on May 09, 2010, 13:04

Quote from: stockastic on May 09, 2010, 10:11

Quote from: ShadySue on May 08, 2010, 17:43

[wouldn't it make more sense to spend your time posting on iStock's keywording forum...

Yeah but first you have to know about all these mysterious "players", and forums where you you're supposed to "hang ou" etc.    Why can't it just be between contributor and reviewer?

I guess that would be too personal and open to abuse. Besides,these are the guys with the keywords expertise.
If you can work your way around the msg forums, you can work out the iStock forums too. If you want to. 

I'm an exclusive on IS, know my way around the forums and know the people involved but I can see where this user is coming from.
The keywording process is convoluted and suffers from major problems, some of which are even acknowledged by IS including the very existence of the keyword forum and initiatives such as wikiing, and the recent removal of the keyword privileges from some exclusives. And as I recall you yourself have been a critic of keyword spam on many occasions ....

Absolutely and that is still my position; but my point is that it's better to work to try to resolve the problems on iStock than to shout into an effective vacuum here. (Though I know it's good to vent!). I still contend that iStock's search is usually best, but that there's still a way to go. The more I understand the process (and I'm only a smidgen out from the starting post on that), the more I see it would be difficult to get 100% results every time, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to have the best possible search. Personally, I think both the keyword forum and the ability to wiki are extremely positive. There isn't another site I've visited where my wiki finger doesn't constantly twitch with frustration. However, the keywording team is really overworked and don't 'reach' the wikied files as quickly as I would like, but every company has to decide where to prioritise their resources, with every department shouting, "Us, Us ..."

I'd like an article or a wiki entitled "How The Game At IS is Actually Played."  

I was once a cab driver.   A new driver had all the rules and ordinances explained to him by both the company and the city cab inspector. You then went out and followed those rules carefully, and made $2.30 on your first day. You'd spend hours sitting at a lonely stand somewhere, wondering how anyone could make a living as a driver.  After a few 40-hour weeks of no money you began to understand how the game was really played, and that the drivers making the money had thrown most of the rules out the window, and were madly dead-heading around town, running empty out to the airport, then over to the bus station when the bus was arriving from Chicago...   while pretending to be out of range if the dispatcher was trying to sell a grocery run in a poor part of town.