Quote from: ShadySue on December 26, 2010, 06:31

Quote from: holgs on December 26, 2010, 06:22

Quote from: lisafx on December 24, 2010, 17:32

Crazy!  Seems like if it is a render of a non-specific location it shouldn't be able to use ANY specific locations in the keywords.  

I agree - location keywords are a common problem, both for illustrations and for photos. Just because its a beach doesn't mean its Hawaii.

Its not just a problem at IS though - all the sites have contributors that decide its a good way to rank higher in searches by adding keywords for many popular destinations. The danger is when a buyer uses one mistakenly and gets in trouble for including an image of the Philippines on an advertisement for Hawaii (for example).

In actual (real) photos, iStock says that only the real location can be keyworded, for exactly that reason.
Individual offenders can be wikied, but in the past at least there have been so many that it's worth reporting them for a bulk wiki. In the past, I've suggested e.g. "Caribbean" AND "Mediterranean", (88 have snuck in since the last bulk wiki) but you can substitute just about any similar: Maldives, Seycelles, "Indian Ocean".
256 ATM for Caribbean AND Maldives; 1029 France AND Italy (a few are relevant)
I have also suggested that whenever a bulk wiki is undertaken, note of the offending terms should be circulated to inspectors, but that either hasn't been done or the inspectors are ignoring the notification. (Or, of course, people are sneakily putting the multiple locations in after acceptance, but it's usually obvious when that's been done.)

OMG this so annoys me too. I am a graphic designer for a cruise line and we need images from specific and actual locations. We always have to check the keywords listed and if there is any kind of "multiple location" issue, we just don't download it. The contributor make think this helps their images be seen but it just keeps my company from downloading it (and we buy a lot of travel images). And unless I am in a super hurry I always site for wrong keywords.

---------------------------------------

BK, thanks for taking the time to report the wrong keywords.  Were I a buyer, I would be very tempted to send a site mail to those contributors I had passed over because of the "multiple location" issue to let them know they had lost a sale because of how they keyworded.  Not suggesting that you do so, but wish it would happen.

Looks like we now have the Fraud Fiasco.

and it has now been confirmed to be fraud. 
 

Just freakin incredible.

So someone has "hacked" in, artificially inflating sales of Agency and Vetta files (for the most part), the biggest portion of which has been purchased mostly from one contributor, but sometime after Jan. 1 all the credits will need to be returned (taken back from contributors) and the site will then be secured.    Is it just me, or do I smell fish (not pie)?

well something smells, but I'd have to say it's got something to do with the programmers crapping their pants after finding out this happened. 

all the millions of dollars they make and iStock can't afford to hire a good security analyst to check for holes in their programming code?  I guess I shouldn't be surprised since they can't seem to launch a redesign without rampant bugs in it either.  FAIL

... and the hits just keep on comin'!

I don't see where you're coming up with 'hacked in'.  Anyone can make an account.  How they fund that is where the fraudulent part comes in.

@sean:
So can anyone add "Main" to the list of collections? I thought IS was never going to allow a search to happen that way? And even if they decided they were going to allow a search for the Main collection, I thought it wasn't supposed to happen until after the New Year?

I'm saying "hacked in" because I ran across some weirdness in the way the site was acting yesterday, but you are correct, perhaps it's just one of the many screwups perpetrated by the IT people who are working on the site.

If you read through the thread about the Main collection you'll see that it's only available on certain browsers. It either wasn't supposed to be released yet or the re-design of the search isn't finished and they will be adding an Exclusive button as well. Either way it's another fail on IS's part.

If you read through the thread about the Main collection you'll see that it's only available on certain browsers. It either wasn't supposed to be released yet or the re-design of the search isn't finished and they will be adding an Exclusive button as well. Either way it's another fail on IS's part.

I believe that when Amazon try something new, it's only available on certain servers as they test it, but because there isn't a forum as such, others don't know about it.
However, it's bad enough they already reneged on their word (that there would not be a way of excluding exclusive files, and there is by choosing Vetta and Agency only, excluding Exc and Exc+) and now they're trying out ways of keeping exclusive files out of the 'main' collection. Why on earth suddenly introduce this when there's just about no-one around?
I just don't understand why so many people are leaping up and down and woo-waying about editorial (as if there were no options): is this a company we can fully trust any more?

Oh boy. More reprecussions from a) the staff taking vacation and b) their slow response to the fraud. Poor buyer. Someone should suggest they shop elsewhere. I don't understand why iStock always expects buyers to jump through hoops (ie change browsers because site doesn't work in one) for their eff ups.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286672&page=1

{Added: see note at bottom}
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286742&page=1
In case that gets deleted, an example files the OP mentioned was:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=15017498
which at the time of posting was priced at 1 credit for an XSm -> 10 credits for L.
[Ah, it seems that the contributor has only recently become exclusive, and it's a 'hiccup', not an 'epic fail'.]

Not to mention the current sitemail problem: when you hit 'send mail' you get a 404 message.
I thought I'd suddenly been banned from SM, but it's now been reported on the help forum.
Probably mostly irrelevant to buying/selling, so again, a hiccup, not an 'epic fail'.

OMG, it's like a car driving down the road and as it goes along one part, then another, then another falls out. Pretty soon all the parts will have dropped out the bottom and it'll just stop working.

Looks like another part fell off.    I saw a buyer on twitter report a little while ago that they were trying to buy images, but they're getting a 404 when the download tries to start.  This is all so hard to fathom.  At this point, I can't understand why they don't roll back to a working version of the site.  

Quote from: ShadySue on December 29, 2010, 08:27

Not to mention the current sitemail problem: when you hit 'send mail' you get a 404 message.
I thought I'd suddenly been banned from SM, but it's now been reported on the help forum.
Probably mostly irrelevant to buying/selling, so again, a hiccup, not an 'epic fail'.

It's probably because they are getting bombarded with site mails over all this disastrous current events and the servers can't handle the overload.  

Yeah, they're getting 404s when they raise a support ticket too. Like the SMs, they're probably going through, but the 404 is disconcerting.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286842&page=1