Author Topic: Istock F5 epic fail (Read 267834 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #125 on:** December 16, 2010, 15:49 »

Here's another buyer. 'Profiledesign' is not a happy bear;

"Back for third day now... still the same disaster. See that big button at the top of the page marked SEARCH? It does not work. At all. The only way i can get to find pics to buy is through a goggle image search. I'm on Safari 5. Sort it out!"

... and then, a few hours later, was back to sling a bit more about;

"Hello again. I cleared my cache (again), dumped cookies (again), logged out, quit safari, came back in again... and the search button actually worked for the first time in 3 days. But it BLOODY STOPPED WORKING AGAIN for the very next thing I tried to search for! If you think I'm going through this rigmarole every time I want to search for something new, you are very wrong."

cathyslife · « **Reply #126 on:** December 16, 2010, 15:52 »

Quote from: nruboc on December 16, 2010, 15:20

snip
Quotes from two buyers in a row on IStock forum (posting here for SNP and loop)

"As a buyer, I see this new search as another step in a long, long trend here at iStock to continually increase the hostility of the user experience.

Can you post a link to where this is in the IS forum? I looked, but have no clue where it's at. Everything is buried in pages long threads about all the search problems...

edit: never mind, I found some in the 20 page long bug fix thread.

cathyslife · « **Reply #127 on:** December 16, 2010, 16:03 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 16, 2010, 15:49

Here's another buyer. 'Profiledesign' is not a happy bear;

"Back for third day now... still the same disaster. See that big button at the top of the page marked SEARCH? It does not work. At all. The only way i can get to find pics to buy is through a goggle image search. I'm on Safari 5. Sort it out!"

... and then, a few hours later, was back to sling a bit more about;

"Hello again. I cleared my cache (again), dumped cookies (again), logged out, quit safari, came back in again... and the search button actually worked for the first time in 3 days. But it BLOODY STOPPED WORKING AGAIN for the very next thing I tried to search for! If you think I'm going through this rigmarole every time I want to search for something new, you are very wrong."

It seems the solution to the bugs is to tell the buyers/contributors to use another browser or use google search.

A list of supported browsers was posted, but most of the problems are being reported by people using those supported browsers.

When a buyer complained of the search not working (early in the thread), someone suggested they use a different browser. I said that when I went to a site that didn't work and was told to use a different browser, I kept the browser and used a different site.

Chico · « **Reply #128 on:** December 16, 2010, 17:07 »

This start of new search are the biggest fiasco of all listed. Total FAIL. Nothing works.

Allsa · « **Reply #129 on:** December 16, 2010, 18:21 »

Maybe I've been listening to too many conspiracy theories lately, but I'm beginning to wonder if Getty actually wants iStock to fail. I find it hard to believe that they're as incompetent and uncaring as they appear to be. Maybe part of their overall business strategy is to sink iStock, perhaps there are tax advantages in it for them. Who knows?

lisafx · « **Reply #130 on:** December 16, 2010, 18:44 »

Quote from: Allsa on December 16, 2010, 18:21

Maybe I've been listening to too many conspiracy theories lately, but I'm beginning to wonder if Getty actually wants iStock to fail. I find it hard to believe that they're as incompetent and uncaring as they appear to be. Maybe part of their overall business strategy is to sink iStock, perhaps there are tax advantages in it for them. Who knows?

I can sure see why it looks that way. But I really don't think Getty's goal is to destroy Istock. They just don't care if they destroy Istock. Getty is lining its owners pockets and pumping up its balance sheet as fast as it can in 2010 for a sale in 2011 (my opinion). Istock is just collateral damage.

loop · « **Reply #131 on:** December 16, 2010, 18:52 »

Quotes from two buyers in a row on IStock forum (posting here for SNP and loop)

Keep me out of your obsessions, please. Thanks.

cathyslife · « **Reply #132 on:** December 16, 2010, 19:07 »

Quote from: Allsa on December 16, 2010, 18:21

Maybe I've been listening to too many conspiracy theories lately, but I'm beginning to wonder if Getty actually wants iStock to fail. I find it hard to believe that they're as incompetent and uncaring as they appear to be. Maybe part of their overall business strategy is to sink iStock, perhaps there are tax advantages in it for them. Who knows?

Yeah, I totally get what you're saying and it sure seems that way. I, too, find the extreme incompetencies regarding the function of the website very weird.

I also remember reading or hearing something about how companies keep promoting the people who actually do the work up into management, until there's really nobody left to do the actual work. I am thinking the conversation was about istock.

ShadySue · « **Reply #133 on:** December 16, 2010, 19:09 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 16, 2010, 19:07

Yeah, I totally get what you're saying and it sure seems that way. I, too, find the extreme incompetencies regarding the function of the website very weird.
I also remember reading or hearing something about how companies keep promoting the people who actually do the work up into management, until there's really nobody left to do the actual work. I am thinking the conversation was about istock.

My husband says that people get promoted to the level of their incompetence.

cathyslife · « **Reply #134 on:** December 16, 2010, 19:25 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 16, 2010, 19:09

Quote from: cclapper on December 16, 2010, 19:07
Yeah, I totally get what you're saying and it sure seems that way. I, too, find the extreme incompetencies regarding the function of the website very weird.
I also remember reading or hearing something about how companies keep promoting the people who actually do the work up into management, until there's really nobody left to do the actual work. I am thinking the conversation was about istock.
My husband says that people get promoted to the level of their incompetence.

Yep, that's what it was!

edit: The Peter Principle

disorderly · « **Reply #135 on:** December 16, 2010, 19:54 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 16, 2010, 19:25

edit: The Peter Principle

Contrast with the Dilbert Principle, in which the truly incompetent are promoted into management, since that's where they can do the least damage.

I've experienced examples of both.

cathyslife · « **Reply #136 on:** December 16, 2010, 20:20 »

Quote from: disorderly on December 16, 2010, 19:54

Quote from: cclapper on December 16, 2010, 19:25
edit: The Peter Principle

Contrast with the Dilbert Principle, in which the truly incompetent are promoted into management, since that's where they can do the least damage.

I've experienced examples of both.

Me too.

pet_chia · « **Reply #137 on:** December 16, 2010, 20:21 »

My impression is that IS's success was based on (a) crowd sourcing (b) low prices, (c) simple and easy to use for customers. These basic factors are a large part of the success of other new companies like Amazon and Ebay. It's a winning formula.

Getty acquired it because they were impressed as heck with the financial results of this model. But they must have never bothered to try to understand the pillars of its success, because they're trying as hard as they can to make it (a) elitist, (b) high priced, (c) confusing and unreliable for customers.

Maybe it's not deliberate sabotage, but it does sometimes seem like they're being willfully ignorant and careless with their prize.

An alternative theory may also be valid - that the high-ups know exactly what they're doing, namely, pump and dump. Pump up the financials by the maximum amount into the shortest possible period of time so they can dump their shares in the company for as much money as possible. This is a variant of Greater Fool theory - that you can escape the consequences of bad business decisions as long as you can find someone dumber than you who will take your mistakes off your hands for a juicy price.

lisafx · « **Reply #138 on:** December 17, 2010, 09:48 »

Quote from: pet_chia on December 16, 2010, 20:21

My impression is that IS's success was based on (a) crowd sourcing (b) low prices, (c) simple and easy to use for customers.
SNIP
...they're trying as hard as they can to make it (a) elitist, (b) high priced, (c) confusing and unreliable for customers.

Very well stated! I never thought about it quite like that, but you are right!

I don't think pump and dump is an alternate theory BTW. They seem to be doing both simultaneously.

jamirae · « **Reply #139 on:** December 17, 2010, 10:13 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 17, 2010, 09:48

Quote from: pet_chia on December 16, 2010, 20:21
My impression is that IS's success was based on (a) crowd sourcing (b) low prices, (c) simple and easy to use for customers.
SNIP
...they're trying as hard as they can to make it (a) elitist, (b) high priced, (c) confusing and unreliable for customers.

Very well stated! I never thought about it quite like that, but you are right!

I don't think pump and dump is an alternate theory BTW. They seem to be doing both simultaneously.

yep, I was thinking the same thing! +1

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #140 on:** December 17, 2010, 10:42 »

Quote from: pet_chia on December 16, 2010, 20:21

...Maybe it's not deliberate sabotage, but it does sometimes seem like they're being willfully ignorant and careless with their prize.

An alternative theory may also be valid - that the high-ups know exactly what they're doing, namely, pump and dump. ...

I don't know what the heck management is thinking, and I have seen lots of indicators that long term success is being sacrificed for 2010 profits, however...

This search fiasco just doesn't fit the cash grab model. Why would Getty/H&F authorize spending on new search if they were just profit taking? I wouldn't unless it enabled some new cash-grabbing feature and I haven't seen that so far.

Also, given iStock's terrible track record with software - I don't think they've ever rolled out anything new that worked respectably out of the gate - why would anyone let them hose sales at a busy time of the year? It would have been so simple to wait until early January to totally eff up search with the new code and it'd probably have been fixed by March when the next busy patch typically occurs.

caspixel · « **Reply #141 on:** December 17, 2010, 10:44 »

They probably *thought* it was going to boost sales.

cathyslife · « **Reply #142 on:** December 17, 2010, 10:48 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 17, 2010, 10:42

Quote from: pet_chia on December 16, 2010, 20:21

...Maybe it's not deliberate sabotage, but it does sometimes seem like they're being willfully ignorant and careless with their prize.

An alternative theory may also be valid - that the high-ups know exactly what they're doing, namely, pump and dump. ...

I don't know what the heck management is thinking, and I have seen lots of indicators that long term success is being sacrificed for 2010 profits, however...

This search fiasco just doesn't fit the cash grab model. Why would Getty/H&F authorize spending on new search if they were just profit taking? I wouldn't unless it enabled some new cash-grabbing feature and I haven't seen that so far.

Also, given iStock's terrible track record with software - I don't think they've ever rolled out anything new that worked respectably out of the gate - why would anyone let them hose sales at a busy time of the year? It would have been so simple to wait until early January to totally eff up search with the new code and it'd probably have been fixed by March when the next busy patch typically occurs.

It all fit a pump and dump theory until this search fiasco. This is actually taking away from their 2010 bottom line by hosing potential sales right at the end of the year. Seems counterproductive...announce a Vetta sale and then hose the search mechanism.

pet_chia · « **Reply #143 on:** December 17, 2010, 11:02 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 17, 2010, 10:48

...

It all fit a pump and dump theory until this search fiasco. This is actually taking away from their 2010 bottom line by hosing potential sales right at the end of the year. Seems counterproductive...announce a Vetta sale and then hose the search mechanism.

It could have been a collision between 2 different pump and dump strategies - (1) cut overhead by reducing or capping money spent on IT - (2) fiddle with software to enhance sales of premium products.

Imagine that a 5 and dime store wants to introduce a new line of expensive, premium products in order to pump up revenues for a quick sale. But they also want to cut expenses so they send their clerk to stock the shelves and put price tags on the goods with a shaky, old chair instead of a ladder. The chair collapses and the shelves come crashing down, right in the holiday season when they were hoping to make most of their money for the year.

Just speculating.

cathyslife · « **Reply #144 on:** December 17, 2010, 11:15 »

Quote from: pet_chia on December 17, 2010, 11:02

Quote from: cclapper on December 17, 2010, 10:48
...

It all fit a pump and dump theory until this search fiasco. This is actually taking away from their 2010 bottom line by hosing potential sales right at the end of the year. Seems counterproductive...announce a Vetta sale and then hose the search mechanism.

It could have been a collision between 2 different pump and dump strategies - (1) cut overhead by reducing or capping money spent on IT - (2) fiddle with software to enhance sales of premium products.

Imagine that a 5 and dime store wants to introduce a new line of expensive, premium products in order to pump up revenues for a quick sale. But they also want to cut expenses so they send their clerk to stock the shelves and put price tags on the goods with a shaky, old chair instead of a ladder. The chair collapses and the shelves come crashing down, right in the holiday season when they were hoping to make most of their money for the year.

Just speculating.

We're all speculating, but it sounds plausible.

lisafx · « **Reply #145 on:** December 17, 2010, 16:50 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 17, 2010, 10:42

This search fiasco just doesn't fit the cash grab model. Why would Getty/H&F authorize spending on new search if they were just profit taking? I wouldn't unless it enabled some new cash-grabbing feature and I haven't seen that so far.

Well, it sort of does, IMO. They have effectively forced their most expensive collections in front of buyers at a very busy time of year when they are most likely to be short on the time it would take to search further back in the library for cheaper images.

Yes, they are losing some price sensitive buyers in the process, but again, that doesn't matter in a pump and dump scheme. Most of the buyers already have credits, are short on time, and will buy what's showing up in the searches. I am certain that sales of Vetta and Agency files have skyrocketed since the search fiasco was implemented(broken).

ETA: Pet Chia has it right again. As usual

gostwyck · « **Reply #146 on:** December 17, 2010, 18:52 »

Buyer 'Spyplane' not happy;

"Doesn't Anyone Test This Stuff?

I see there are many, many problems with the newly fixed up web site. Did no one think to test things before going live?

It's a major problem that when I add a photo to a lightbox, and then want to add another photo to a lightbox, I have to scroll all the way through my list of lightboxes to select the lightbox again. Your system used to "remember" this...now it doesn't..and it's a major slowdown for me. Every time I want to add a photo to the lighbox I have to go through the entire procedure all over again. It's ridiculous.

Can you please fix it ASAP?

iStockphoto used to be reasonably nice, but you have become very unfriendly to your paying customers over the last two years or so, and this is just one more example of that.

If your web site crew can't do things right, please get a new bunch to work on it. You're charging enough for everything...so please spend some of your money and stop messing things up while saying everything is an "improvement" which it is not."

gostwyck · « **Reply #147 on:** December 17, 2010, 18:54 »

Another buyer, srjmarketing, chipping in too;

"Your search bar has not worked for me all week. It's utterly useless on Safari 5 for Mac. I'm running Leopard 10.5.8 on PPC Mac with Safari 5.0.3 and all cookies enabled. I can't for the life of me reason why more thorough testing was not done beforehand. Even the font size in this feedback area is ridiculously small. You guys really need a major site overhaul. AGAIN."

What a fiasco.

caspixel · « **Reply #148 on:** December 18, 2010, 20:58 »

Well, it looks like the EL fix is a fiasco. Some people still not paid when they were supposed to be and no emails sent out about the paid out 10% either.

Sadstock · « **Reply #149 on:** December 18, 2010, 21:35 »

Quote from: pet_chia on December 17, 2010, 11:02

Quote from: cclapper on December 17, 2010, 10:48
...

It all fit a pump and dump theory until this search fiasco. This is actually taking away from their 2010 bottom line by hosing potential sales right at the end of the year. Seems counterproductive...announce a Vetta sale and then hose the search mechanism.

It could have been a collision between 2 different pump and dump strategies - (1) cut overhead by reducing or capping money spent on IT - (2) fiddle with software to enhance sales of premium products.

Imagine that a 5 and dime store wants to introduce a new line of expensive, premium products in order to pump up revenues for a quick sale. But they also want to cut expenses so they send their clerk to stock the shelves and put price tags on the goods with a shaky, old chair instead of a ladder. The chair collapses and the shelves come crashing down, right in the holiday season when they were hoping to make most of their money for the year.

Just speculating.

---------------------
Could also be the result of uncoordinated strategies directed at different levels. I think the site redesign was organized within Istock by the people who's job it is to manage the interface, probably a year or more ago. They set the thing in motion and it worked its way (poorly) into implementation.

Separately people outside/above Istock management decided they need to increase the Istock/getty bottom line, first with the proposed canister change then the RC change. The pressure to generate more revenue was more urgent (pump and dump perhaps) at the time of the RC change, as they couldn't even wait until the end of the year to jack up the vetta prices.

Since the work for the refresh had been under way for a while, most of the costs for the refresh (paying the programmers) was already incurred, there there was no need to stop it. Istock executed its refresh as well as it executes just about anything new and you have the mess you have today.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock F5 epic fail (Read 267834 times)

gostwyck

cathyslife

cathyslife

Chico

Allsa

lisafx

loop

cathyslife

ShadySue

cathyslife

disorderly

cathyslife

pet_chia

lisafx

jamirae

Jo Ann Snover

caspixel

cathyslife

pet_chia

cathyslife

lisafx

gostwyck

gostwyck

caspixel

Sadstock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors