Author Topic: Istock F5 epic fail (Read 268373 times)

KB · « **Reply #825 on:** March 06, 2011, 17:55 »

Quote from: stockastic on March 06, 2011, 12:42

Quote from: Sadstock on March 06, 2011, 12:14
I've been told in private conversations with inspectors that Istock knows the human inspection process is inconsistent. A resubmitted image is flagged for closer inspection since one inspector found at least 1 flaw with it before. They know a "new" submission without that previous submission history is a lot more likely to get accepted even if the original flaw is not fixed.

That's what I suspected and leads to the maddening situation of new problems being flagged on resubmission. Sorry but I don't see the logic of the statement that "a "new" submission without that previous submission history is a lot more likely to get accepted even if the original flaw is not fixed." The inspection criteria are the same, the inspectors are all equal, the photo has the same chance on a second submission.

The real problem is that their submission system - i.e. their software - can apparently only report one flaw back to the contributor.

I've had far too many rejections with multiple reasons so I know that is not the case. (I think my record was 4, but maybe it just felt like it -- I know I've gotten 3 several times.) It is probably true that some inspectors do stop at one reason, but from my (unfortunate) experience, many do not. Maybe if your submissions were worse you'd encounter it, too.

I'm pretty sure Sadstock has it exactly right. I've recently had a couple of rejections ("no resubmits") that I suspect if I could run them through the inspection process a second time, some would get accepted. If I could then run the new rejections through a third time, more would. iStock's inspectors are (IMO) better than most, but they are still human and still make mistakes (mostly whenever they reject mine

).

But I will also say that it seems to me that resubmits are sometimes inspected more quickly than new ones, and it's quite rare that mine are rejected a second time for a different reason. (I have had a few rejected again for the same reason, unfortunately, where the second inspector didn't think I solved the problem, even though I did think so.)

ShadySue · « **Reply #826 on:** March 07, 2011, 15:32 »

Maybe not iSTock's fault, but still embarrassing:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311312&page=1

visceralimage · « **Reply #827 on:** March 07, 2011, 16:27 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 07, 2011, 15:32

Maybe not iSTock's fault, but still embarrassing:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311312&page=1

Ooops!

cathyslife · « **Reply #828 on:** March 07, 2011, 16:31 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 07, 2011, 15:32

Maybe not iSTock's fault, but still embarrassing:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311312&page=1

This was the funniest reply in that thread:

one person said:

Quote

I'm not finding excuses, you might have missed I said I think it was unfortunate.
Christine, I understand it was not fun, I am just saying that the site might not work perfectly for teens as contributors.

another person replied:

Quote

I think the general consensus is that the site currently doesn't work perfectly for a lot of people as either contributors or customers, regardless of age. Though, I am glad it got fixed so quickly.

LMAO!

lisafx · « **Reply #829 on:** March 07, 2011, 18:29 »

What a mortifying experience for the OP!

Glad Istock dealt with it. They should really be more careful about what is displayed in promotional areas of the site.

Also, the inspectors drop the ball often on letting nudity, etc. through the content filter. I have the content filter set and I see graphic nudity there on a fairly regular basis.

It really does make the site seem unprofessional. I have models that I am certain would not want to be displayed on a search page with nude people performing sex acts.

Istock has this sort of problem a lot and AFAIK it doesn't seem to happen elsewhere. Content filters on the other sites that accept nudity seem to be working fine.

Suljo · « **Reply #830 on:** March 07, 2011, 19:15 »

what
How my pending videos have few (1-6) views if they are not accepted jet and not visible to buyers?

jen · « **Reply #831 on:** March 07, 2011, 19:19 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 07, 2011, 18:29

What a mortifying experience for the OP!

Glad Istock dealt with it. They should really be more careful about what is displayed in promotional areas of the site.

Also, the inspectors drop the ball often on letting graphic nudity, etc. through the content filter. I have the content filter set and I see nudes etc. there on a fairly regular basis.

It really does make the site seem unprofessional. I have models that I am certain would not want to be displayed on a search page with nude people performing sex acts.

Istock has this sort of problem a lot and AFAIK it doesn't seem to happen elsewhere. Content filters on the other sites that accept nudity seem to be working fine.

But it was an external .jpg that the contributor created to link to a lightbox in the description area. Content filters don't work on those. The contributor could have added the banner after it became the FIOTW.

I think it would be a good idea to not have any free images from contributors who have a lot of NWS images in their portfolio though :\

lisafx · « **Reply #832 on:** March 07, 2011, 19:24 »

Quote from: jen on March 07, 2011, 19:19

But it was an external .jpg that the contributor created to link to a lightbox in the description area. Content filters don't work on those. The contributor could have added the banner after it became the FIOTW.

I think it would be a good idea to not have any free images from contributors who have a lot of NWS images in their portfolio though :\

^^That's one solution.

Don't know if it has been established if that link was there before or not. But I'll stick by my point about images that should be content filtered getting into the regular collection on a very frequent basis. I can see how one might slip through now and then, but I find them all the time, and I don't browse the collection all that often.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #833 on:** March 08, 2011, 01:38 »

Quote from: Suljo on March 07, 2011, 19:15

what
How my pending videos have few (1-6) views if they are not accepted jet and not visible to buyers?

When admins or others view the pending file (most often if there's some sort of problem - stuck in the wrong part of the queue, missing a MR, some other glitch) it registers as a view.

jamirae · « **Reply #834 on:** March 08, 2011, 10:38 »

Quote from: jen on March 07, 2011, 19:19

Quote from: lisafx on March 07, 2011, 18:29
What a mortifying experience for the OP!

Glad Istock dealt with it. They should really be more careful about what is displayed in promotional areas of the site.

Also, the inspectors drop the ball often on letting graphic nudity, etc. through the content filter. I have the content filter set and I see nudes etc. there on a fairly regular basis.

It really does make the site seem unprofessional. I have models that I am certain would not want to be displayed on a search page with nude people performing sex acts.

Istock has this sort of problem a lot and AFAIK it doesn't seem to happen elsewhere. Content filters on the other sites that accept nudity seem to be working fine.

But it was an external .jpg that the contributor created to link to a lightbox in the description area. Content filters don't work on those. The contributor could have added the banner after it became the FIOTW.

I think it would be a good idea to not have any free images from contributors who have a lot of NWS images in their portfolio though :\

I don't know what the final resolution was to this issue (don't have time or inclination to go read thru the posts at iStock) but I would hope that if it was some JPG that the user posted on the page after getting FIOTW that iStock held them accountable in some way. Like a temporary ban or something like that. sadly, I doubt they make a public stand about the repercussions but if they did it would certainly make people think twice before doing this sort of thing.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #835 on:** March 09, 2011, 23:15 »

This afternoon rogermexico announced a bunch of fixes including multi term phrases in search. I just spent a little time going over some of the items I had reported problems with and they're different - not better - and still horribly broken.

I'm just horrified that they pushed such a wreck of a fix. I don't think they even went through and tested the exampled they'd been given in the bug reports in that massive thread (bug fixing 101 is test all the cases in the bug reports to make sure they're fixed).

See my post here describing the broken things I found. rogermexico's post is a couple above mine.

A phrase my Dad liked to use about useless people was "Couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery" (piss up is English slang for lots of drinking)

iStock's software people working on search really deserve that description. How utterly depressing to see many weeks of work producing this.

jamirae · « **Reply #836 on:** March 09, 2011, 23:32 »

Quote from: jsnover on March 09, 2011, 23:15

This afternoon rogermexico announced a bunch of fixes including multi term phrases in search. I just spent a little time going over some of the items I had reported problems with and they're different - not better - and still horribly broken.

I'm just horrified that they pushed such a wreck of a fix. I don't think they even went through and tested the exampled they'd been given in the bug reports in that massive thread (bug fixing 101 is test all the cases in the bug reports to make sure they're fixed).

See my post here describing the broken things I found. rogermexico's post is a couple above mine.

A phrase my Dad liked to use about useless people was "Couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery" (piss up is English slang for lots of drinking)

iStock's software people working on search really deserve that description. How utterly depressing to see many weeks of work producing this.

they have no clue about testing or user interface. ridiculous.

lisafx · « **Reply #837 on:** March 11, 2011, 16:50 »

Looks like Istock's site designers have gotten bored with trying to fix the site and decided to break some more stuff. They have been messing with the blogs. Now my blog that I carefully designed to give buyers and easy time shopping for my images, like this:

Now looks like this:

And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator:

jamirae · « **Reply #838 on:** March 11, 2011, 17:37 »

WOO YAY! That is such an improvement! NOT!

sheesh. when they learn to leave well enough alone?!

cathyslife · « **Reply #839 on:** March 11, 2011, 17:41 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 11, 2011, 16:50

snip
And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator:

Yes, I thought he resigned from istock. Maybe that info has been there a while, from when he was blog administrator? istock never seems to get around to changing errors on their site (understatement). I don't know.

jamirae · « **Reply #840 on:** March 11, 2011, 17:42 »

Quote from: cclapper on March 11, 2011, 17:41

Quote from: lisafx on March 11, 2011, 16:50
snip
And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator:

Yes, I thought he resigned from istock. Maybe that info has been there a while, from when he was blog administrator? istock never seems to get around to changing errors on their site (understatement). I don't know.

true, but you gotta admit they have mastered the art of creating errors on their site!

ShadySue · « **Reply #841 on:** March 11, 2011, 18:04 »

LisaFX:
There's a thread about the lightbox here. My lightboxes seem to be working; so it would seem that it's some sort of issue between IS and DM. Franky has given a way of fixing it towards the end of the thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312172&page=1

lisafx · « **Reply #842 on:** March 11, 2011, 18:08 »

Quote from: cclapper on March 11, 2011, 17:41

Quote from: lisafx on March 11, 2011, 16:50
snip
And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator:

Yes, I thought he resigned from istock. Maybe that info has been there a while, from when he was blog administrator?

Exactly! It's ludicrous.

Quote from: ShadySue on March 11, 2011, 18:04

LisaFX:
There's a thread about the lightbox here. My lightboxes seem to be working; so it would seem that it's some sort of issue between IS and DM. Franky has given a way of fixing it towards the end of the thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312172&page=1

Thanks for the link. Appears it is a widespread problem, not just in the blog, but also in the individual files.

Although I appreciate the link and the suggestion of a fix, I'm just gonna let Istock programmers sort this one out. Or not. Screw it. There is no way I am going to go file-by-file and correct anything.

cathyslife · « **Reply #843 on:** March 11, 2011, 18:15 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 11, 2011, 18:08

Quote from: cclapper on March 11, 2011, 17:41
Quote from: lisafx on March 11, 2011, 16:50
snip
And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator:

Yes, I thought he resigned from istock. Maybe that info has been there a while, from when he was blog administrator?

Exactly! It's ludicrous.

Sorry, I missed your sarcasm the first time around.

My brain is fried today and this IS stuff makes it explode even more.

ShadySue · « **Reply #844 on:** March 11, 2011, 19:46 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 11, 2011, 18:08

Quote from: ShadySue on March 11, 2011, 18:04
LisaFX:
There's a thread about the lightbox here. My lightboxes seem to be working; so it would seem that it's some sort of issue between IS and DM. Franky has given a way of fixing it towards the end of the thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312172&page=1

Thanks for the link. Appears it is a widespread problem, not just in the blog, but also in the individual files.

Although I appreciate the link and the suggestion of a fix, I'm just gonna let Istock programmers sort this one out. Or not. Screw it. There is no way I am going to go file-by-file and correct anything.

Then when/if they 'fixed' it, you'd probably have to fix yours back. Or there would probably be more problems.
Wonder what happened if we all applied to be the elusive person who can break their software?

caspixel · « **Reply #845 on:** March 13, 2011, 13:23 »

Not an epic fail, but still kind of funny (and apparently annoying, LOL)

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313022&page=1

ShadySue · « **Reply #846 on:** March 13, 2011, 13:28 »

Quote from: caspixel on March 13, 2011, 13:23

Not an epic fail, but still kind of funny (and apparently annoying, LOL)

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313022&page=1

They did a little change overnight GMT whereby you can turn it off my clicking the x at the extreme right of the orange strip.
I guess it means they're using some code that doesn't render in IE6. IE6 can be limiting, but obviously they need to support it as so many people must continue to use it if they have no choice at work.

Artemis · « **Reply #847 on:** March 13, 2011, 17:10 »

Something else, mentioned before...
Wow, I knew the search was broken, but i didnt realize HOW broken! Searching anything with more than 1 term is totally screwed up and usually gives just 1 page with results. (for example all my "dog" searches did)
A miracle we even get sales at all...

Rob Sylvan · « **Reply #848 on:** March 13, 2011, 17:20 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 11, 2011, 16:50

And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator:

It took them about 2 years to remove Peebert after he left, so I figure I'll be there until at least 2012. Yes, I have told them about it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #849 on:** March 13, 2011, 17:22 »

Quote from: Artemis on March 13, 2011, 17:10

Something else, mentioned before...
Wow, I knew the search was broken, but i didnt realize HOW broken! Searching anything with more than 1 term is totally screwed up and usually gives just 1 page with results. (for example all my "dog" searches did)
A miracle we even get sales at all...

Oh yes, but it's kinda random.
e.g. I clicked on my BS for 'more like this' (usually many). ATM, it's showing only one image. Not even my alternate image which has the same keywords. Click on the alternate and you get the same one image, not my BS.
But 'more like this' from some of my other pics give the sort of results you'd expect.
Plus random searches giving you instead the keyword 'source', which seems to be all the images in the collection, while other searches take you to the forums ...
Not many buyers are finding me these days. This is my worst week for ages (in a long decline) DESPITE the introduction of editorial (6 editorial dls this week, mostly XSm).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock F5 epic fail (Read 268373 times)

KB

ShadySue

visceralimage

cathyslife

lisafx

Suljo

jen

lisafx

Jo Ann Snover

jamirae

Jo Ann Snover

jamirae

lisafx

jamirae

cathyslife

jamirae

ShadySue

lisafx

cathyslife

ShadySue

caspixel

ShadySue

Artemis

Rob Sylvan

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors