Author Topic: Istock F5 epic fail (Read 268810 times)

KarenH · « **Reply #300 on:** December 30, 2010, 11:17 »

Quote from: SK on December 30, 2010, 10:08

What we are experiencing at iStock is incompetence and gross mismanagement. As CEO of a technology company, the Board would fire my as* in a heart beat if I ran the business and produced a website with the magnitude of problems and lack of testing and Q/C we are experiencing. On top of all the issues they close the shop and take a vacation. This is either total incompetence or just plain arrogance. I don't see a long term future with iStock.

This is one of the things that frustrates me the most. Before going into the programming end of development, I spent a few years in QA as a tester and then managing the QA function. I see some of the stuff that gets rolled out here where basically it's the buyers and contributors testing it, and so obviously broken, that I'm just mind-boggled that it got put into production in that shape. It bugs me when people say "well those things will happen in all companies" -- not to this extent and repetition, and not without heads rolling. I'd have been let go in a heartbeat.

ShadySue · « **Reply #301 on:** December 30, 2010, 11:27 »

Quote from: karenhermann on December 30, 2010, 11:17

Quote from: SK on December 30, 2010, 10:08
What we are experiencing at iStock is incompetence and gross mismanagement. As CEO of a technology company, the Board would fire my as* in a heart beat if I ran the business and produced a website with the magnitude of problems and lack of testing and Q/C we are experiencing. On top of all the issues they close the shop and take a vacation. This is either total incompetence or just plain arrogance. I don't see a long term future with iStock.

This is one of the things that frustrates me the most. Before going into the programming end of development, I spent a few years in QA as a tester and then managing the QA function. I see some of the stuff that gets rolled out here where basically it's the buyers and contributors testing it, and so obviously broken, that I'm just mind-boggled that it got put into production in that shape. It bugs me when people say "well those things will happen in all companies" -- not to this extent and repetition, and not without heads rolling. I'd have been let go in a heartbeat.

Oh, who knows, he might be on a big golden goodbye deal like Fred the Shred. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Goodwin
The salient points are:
"Sir Frederick Anderson Goodwin CA, FCIBS, (born 17 August 1958) is a chartered accountant who was formerly chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS).
From 2000 until 2008 he presided over RBS's rapid rise to global prominence as the world's largest company (by assets - £1.9 trillion),and fifth-largest bank by stock market value and its even more rapid fall as RBS was forced into effective nationalisation in 2008.
On October 11, 2008, Goodwin officially announced his resignation as Chief Executive and an early retirement, effective from January 31, 2009 - a month before RBS announced that its 2008 loss totalled £24.1bn, the largest annual loss in UK corporate history. Following the February 2009 disclosure of his approximately £700,000 per year pension award from RBS he was the subject of widespread public, political and media criticism."
and
"...Around this time he gained the moniker "Fred the Shred" from City financiers, reflecting a reputation for ruthlessly generating cost savings and efficiencies"
Basically Fred's in clover and doesn't GAF about the detritus (ordinary bank employees) left in his wake.

helix7 · « **Reply #302 on:** December 30, 2010, 12:12 »

Quote from: SK on December 30, 2010, 10:08

...This is either total incompetence or just plain arrogance...

I'd go with a little bit of both. Incompetence in that they don't properly QA test things before release, and arrogance in that they think that being the current top microstock company grants them permission to do whatever they like. Including taking a company-wide paid vacation just prior to cutting contributor royalty rates. Arrogance at it's best.

Quote from: SK on December 30, 2010, 10:08

...I don't see a long term future with iStock...

Long-term, I agree. But when I say long-term, I'm thinking 10 years from now. istock is one of those companies that has enough staying power from their current loyal customer base. People will stick with istock through a lot, for many years, before we see any real impact from years of bad business practices. This latest fiasco is the perfect example. Look at the buyer mentioned earlier in this thread waiting 3 hours to download the images they needed. There are plenty of other places to buy images, many cheaper and just as good quality as istock's offerings. And yet buyers will still suffer through the problems and keep buying from istock after each and every misstep.

Buyer loyalty will keep istock afloat for a long time. Somewhere down the line, if they keep going in this direction, bad business practices will catch up with them. But it's not going to happen any time soon, not for many years I think.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #303 on:** December 30, 2010, 12:41 »

A buyer who is downloading a significant number of files may already have a layout with proofs approved and thus have no choice but to be patient - either that or tear up the work, look for replacement images and go through the approval procedure again (while trying to explain why). In those circumstances, three hours of hassle would be less trouble than the alternative.

ShadySue · « **Reply #304 on:** December 30, 2010, 13:05 »

Quote from: helix7 on December 30, 2010, 12:12

Look at the buyer mentioned earlier in this thread waiting 3 hours to download the images they needed. There are plenty of other places to buy images, many cheaper and just as good quality as istock's offerings. And yet buyers will still suffer through the problems and keep buying from istock after each and every misstep.

That buyer had already had the images in a lightbox approved by a client, so it wouldn't have been easy to start again looking for images and getting them approved. Maybe there was a deadline. But we don't know that s/he will be a loyal buyer when their image bundle needs renewed.

caspixel · « **Reply #305 on:** December 30, 2010, 13:28 »

I have to say, in light of all that frustration, that buyer was exceedingly polite in their post. I don't know as I would have been.

Allsa · « **Reply #306 on:** December 30, 2010, 13:44 »

I'm beginning to think iStock is the Enron of MicroStock. It starts with a massive money grab, then they jump ship right before it sinks and leave countless ruined victims in their wake. I have no idea how long it will take, or what the repercussions will be for the microstock industry as a whole.

cathyslife · « **Reply #307 on:** December 30, 2010, 14:15 »

Someone at IS sure has a sense of humor. The image displayed on their FB page just changed.

http://www.facebook.com/istock

Too funny!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #308 on:** December 30, 2010, 15:13 »

The superman picture? That's been there for a couple of days at least.

jamirae · « **Reply #309 on:** December 30, 2010, 15:29 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 30, 2010, 15:13

The superman picture? That's been there for a couple of days at least.

that's what I thought, too.

cathyslife · « **Reply #310 on:** December 30, 2010, 16:30 »

Quote from: jamirae on December 30, 2010, 15:29

Quote from: sjlocke on December 30, 2010, 15:13
The superman picture? That's been there for a couple of days at least.

that's what I thought, too.

Hmmm, I was remembering a red reversed IS camera logo there, like on Twitter. Did not notice the superman. Would have been a great icon if F5 had worked as hoped. Oh well, still funny.

caspixel · « **Reply #311 on:** December 30, 2010, 18:23 »

Quote from: Allsa on December 30, 2010, 13:44

I'm beginning to think iStock is the Enron of MicroStock. It starts with a massive money grab, then they jump ship right before it sinks and leave countless ruined victims in their wake.

Yup.

cathyslife · « **Reply #312 on:** December 30, 2010, 18:52 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 30, 2010, 18:23

Quote from: Allsa on December 30, 2010, 13:44
I'm beginning to think iStock is the Enron of MicroStock. It starts with a massive money grab, then they jump ship right before it sinks and leave countless ruined victims in their wake.

Yup.

You mean Yeppers!

disorderly · « **Reply #313 on:** December 30, 2010, 19:19 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 30, 2010, 16:30

Quote from: jamirae on December 30, 2010, 15:29
Quote from: sjlocke on December 30, 2010, 15:13
The superman picture? That's been there for a couple of days at least.

that's what I thought, too.

Hmmm, I was remembering a red reversed IS camera logo there, like on Twitter. Did not notice the superman. Would have been a great icon if F5 had worked as hoped. Oh well, still funny.

But all things considered, don't you think he should be Bizarro Superman?

stockastic · « **Reply #314 on:** December 30, 2010, 19:24 »

Quote from: disorderly on December 30, 2010, 19:19

But all things considered, don't you think he should be Bizarro Superman?

ME NOT LIKE STUPID 404 ERROR! ME AM FIX WEB SITE! [SMASH!!!] [KABOOM!!!]

pet_chia · « **Reply #315 on:** December 30, 2010, 22:50 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 30, 2010, 10:30

This appears to be a workaround Istock implemented to discourage fraudulent buying. Of course, it also discourages legitimate buying. Here's another happy customer

It's been a very frustrating 2 days for me. I finally figured out what the 404 error is for buying stock. They are allowing you to buy/download one photo every 5 minutes. I saved everything I needed to a lightbox and then sat at my computer for 3 hours to download the 40 pix I needed today. Download one, start timer, wait 5 minutes, download the next, start timer, wait 5 minutes. For 3 hours. If you try to download faster than one per 5 minutes, you get the 404 error. I stumbled upon the "workaround" by accident after pulling my hair out for 2 days.

This makes me angry.

Did any of them actually think about what they were doing, or check any logs of legitimate transactions, to see whether buying two images in less than 5 minutes is actually an indicator of suspicious activity? Or did someone just throw this "fix" onto the server and then go back on xmas vacation? Did it ever to occur to anyone at IS that buying a lot of images isn't a sign of theft, but buying a ton of XXXL images is a possible sign of theft ... when ... wait for it ... IT'S A BRAND NEW CUSTOMER. Did they analyze any logs before they did this? Did they stand by checking the transaction logs, reading emails and answering the phone for a good 8-12 hours after they implemented this fix, to find out whether they had inadvertently killed their business? For example, doing a search in the logs for "customers who have been buying for more than 1 year who have been rejected more than twice because of the 5-minute rule." If they did not do any of those things then they need to shake up their management, pronto.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #316 on:** December 31, 2010, 02:53 »

Quote from: pet_chia on December 30, 2010, 22:50

This makes me angry.

Did any of them actually think about what they were doing...

I assume this was a rhetorical question - you know the answer. And as I posted in the other thread and you did above, there are many perfectly serviceable algorithms one could use to limit the purchases that are high risk without burdening masses of legitimate buyers with this idiotic 5 minute rule.

We all make the occasional mistake, but the sustained thoughtlessness demonstrated by the software team at IS is just inexcusable. Going away for a long break and leaving your breakage to get in customers' way is just the icing on the cake.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #317 on:** December 31, 2010, 08:14 »

Quote from: pet_chia on December 30, 2010, 22:50

Did any of them actually think about what they were doing, or check any logs of legitimate transactions, to see whether buying two images in less than 5 minutes is actually an indicator of suspicious activity?

At the speed at which the transactions were occurring, this was a pretty obvious indicator. And it wasn't the first attempt to slow things down - this didn't happen until Sun or Mon, iirc.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #318 on:** December 31, 2010, 09:16 »

The strategy may have worked, if the problem has moved over to Bigstock - as seems to be the case. Is there an endless supply of stolen credit card details? Perhaps Wikileaks has just released the Visa database?

Clivia · « **Reply #319 on:** December 31, 2010, 09:32 »

Watching iStock is like watching a car crash in slow motion. Bits are breaking off and going in all directions. The driver is smiling confidently and assuring his passengers that all is well, and the mechanics are working on it!

SNP · « **Reply #320 on:** January 02, 2011, 14:37 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 31, 2010, 09:16

Perhaps Wikileaks has just released the Visa database?

lol

gostwyck · « **Reply #321 on:** January 03, 2011, 09:05 »

Quote from: Chico on December 22, 2010, 02:34

- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
- Partner Program fiasco. Once you're in you will never get out.
- Support tickets long times to response fiasco.
- Search engine Agency pics fiasco.
- Vector dudes are second rate contributors now fiasco.
- XXXL size removals fiasco.
- Fixes Released Nov 24 fiasco
- Stockys fiasco
- Vetta sale prices for of December with RC bonus. Again, nothing for illustrators.
- New faceted search start fiasco.

Another one for the list ... the "Newly Approved Files and Recent Sales Not Showing Up Fiasco".

I say 'newly approved' and 'recent sales' but it's more like two weeks now. Because the sales aren't showing either it means that newish images which are actually showing are not getting the best match boost their early sales deserve. I've got images uploaded from 17th Dec that were approved ages ago but are still not showing. Pathetic. Is this the service that we are paying up to 85% commission for?

In contrast images that I uploaded to SS yesterday are already available to the search and are selling.

pet_chia · « **Reply #322 on:** January 03, 2011, 11:05 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 03, 2011, 09:05

Another one for the list ... the "Newly Approved Files and Recent Sales Not Showing Up Fiasco".

I say 'newly approved' and 'recent sales' but it's more like two weeks now. Because the sales aren't showing either it means that newish images which are actually showing are not getting the best match boost their early sales deserve. I've got images uploaded from 17th Dec that were approved ages ago but are still not showing. Pathetic. Is this the service that we are paying up to 85% commission for?

In contrast images that I uploaded to SS yesterday are already available to the search and are selling.

Sales not showing? You mean, someone might have recent sales but they haven't shown up in either the DLs column or in the $ balance?

My files uploaded/approved around the middle of December did start showing up in the search/lightbox after a week or so and I had sales right up to and including Xmas day and for a couple of days afterwards, but there have been zero sales reported for the last 5 days.

gostwyck · « **Reply #323 on:** January 03, 2011, 11:10 »

Quote from: pet_chia on January 03, 2011, 11:05

Sales not showing? You mean, someone might have recent sales but they haven't shown up in either the DLs column or in the $ balance?

My files uploaded/approved around the middle of December did start showing up in the search/lightbox after a week or so and I had sales right up to and including Xmas day and for a couple of days afterwards, but there have been zero sales reported for the last 5 days.

No. Sales are showing in the 'My Uploads' column and the $ Balance. However they are not yet being registered on the Image itself for the purpose of it counting towards best match placement, etc.

For example I've got relatively new images that have had sales from a few days ago but if you were to click on them (as a buyer say) then it would still indicate 0 sales.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #324 on:** January 03, 2011, 11:25 »

Quote

I have to say, in light of all that frustration, that buyer was exceedingly polite in their post. I don't know as I would have been.

No kidding, there's a surprise.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock F5 epic fail (Read 268810 times)

KarenH

ShadySue

helix7

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

caspixel

Allsa

cathyslife

Sean Locke Photography

jamirae

cathyslife

caspixel

cathyslife

disorderly

stockastic

pet_chia

Jo Ann Snover

Sean Locke Photography

BaldricksTrousers

Clivia

SNP

gostwyck

pet_chia

gostwyck

vlad_the_imp

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors