Quote from: Sadstock on March 25, 2011, 13:22

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&messageid=6019582

"While its true that we indeed plan, very thoroughly, future developments and improvements for the year ahead, it's also necessary that we are able to shift our development focus if the need arises. The past year has seen significant changes in iStock (F5 being one of many) in our effort to fortify our position in the marketplace and make things better for everyone, our contributors and customers alike."

Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like the development resources planned to be used to implement the logo program got sucked into F5 and other stuff, and rather than hire more staff, they delayed the logo program.

Then the logo program will never be launched. The site is such a mess I find it hard to believe it would ever get fixed. I wonder how many people are still submitting logos to that dead horse (aside from the few that are still submitting to the challenges).

The other thing about the logos that I've seen that I wonder about is how they are even going to have a market. Some of them are *so* specific that I can't see them fitting too many businesses. I thought the whole point was to create something general.

and very interesting - is this post that refers to a logo design site, Brandstack.com (surprised it hasn't been deleted or edited yet):

Posted By iskenderus:
I'm a graphic designer but especially I'm good at logo design, some of my logo designs are published in Rockports books about logo design. But, I could just upload only one here, then I saw the uploaded logos which contributors placed in this forum. They were I say very bad, its my opinion, if it will go that way my foresight is that iStockLogo will not be famous, because it will sell out of fashion logos which where popular in 2000th, and with quality it will not pass Brandstack.com for example. Thats why I stopped contributing logos, if I'd be wrong I'll start contributing.

they are selling logos there for $250 to $250,000 (USD - not a typo!) and the site only keeps15% while the designer/seller gets 85% of the sales price.  seems like a much better deal than the istock one which will presumably sell for 100 to 1,000 credits - though I'm not clear what the percentage of that is for the designer with all the royalty changes lately, but I am pretty sure there is a snowball's chance in hell that it will be 85%.

they are selling logos there for $250 to $250,000 (USD - not a typo!) and the site only keeps15% while the designer/seller gets 85% of the sales price.  seems like a much better deal than the istock one which will presumably sell for 100 to 1,000 credits - though I'm not clear what the percentage of that is for the designer with all the royalty changes lately, but I am pretty sure there is a snowball's chance in hell that it will be 85%.

I don't think the BrandStock logos sell all that much. I see pretty much the same logos on there every time I go to that site. Besides, who would want to buy a stock logo for anything over $500? It's ludicrous to think someone would spend $250k on a STOCK LOGO. For that kind of money, you could most definitely afford the entire process of getting a custom logo.

I think iStock's deal with the logo program is supposed to be 50/50, but I could be wrong. Of course, that will probably be changed if it ever gets launched. If they reduce the commission before then they will completely stop the slow trickle of submissions.

It's a program that should have been shut down long ago, and resources invested elsewhere.

I didn't read this thread for a while, then when I caught up I saw something about links to people's lightboxes not working from their blogs.  So I checked the links to personal lightboxes on my file_closeup pages and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was broken.  Hundreds of files had to be fixed manually, because they changed the way that the text and tags in the description are translated into HTML.

Oh wow.  Are they going to put in a fix, or are they really expecting us to go in and fix them ourselves?  I might fix the dozen or so on the blog page, but not on 6k+ files. 

FWIW, my older links, that were linked to search terms instead of lightboxes are all working.  Guess I will go back to linking that way on newly uploaded files.

...
Oh wow.  Are they going to put in a fix, or are they really expecting us to go in and fix them ourselves?  I might fix the dozen or so on the blog page, but not on 6k+ files. 
...

6k files ... good gravy.

The way they messed up the links is bizarre ... it looks like they tried to insert an HTML line break tag in the middle of the thumbnail image location when they generated HTML from the file description code "(url)lightbox_link(img)lightbox_thumbnail(/img)(/url)"  The whole thing is wrapped in "div" tags that I'm not sure were there before and which frankly I don't understand.

The result is a broken image icon but with a functioning link (not that anyone would click on a broken-looking link, especially if the words "more like this" were in the image).

I fixed it by removing the line breaks from within the construction "(url)lightbox_link(img)lightbox_thumbnail(/img)(/url)".  If the whole construction is entered as one continuous line then it appears to be OK (until the next time they take a whack at "fixing" their code).  This is obviously a nightmare to fix manually when you have 1000s of files.  Probably half a day's work at least, and not very pleasant work either.

But would that not mean Paulywood would be out of a job. He seems like a nice guy who is just trying to tow the company line. It took almost a week for him to answer in the thread about what is taking so long.

LOL. He was probably trying to get a straight answer from someone at HQ. I feel bad for him. Every day he must wonder if this is the day he is going to be out of a job. He does seem like a nice guy and he's obviously trying his best to keep the enthusiasm going, but iStock's given him an impossible task, like so many of the other lackeys.

Looks like Customer Service are far too busy to bother themselves ... with servicing those annoying customers;

"hi! 3 days ago I wanted to purchase 600 credits, but instead bought 1200. The receipt stated that I have the right to a full refund within 14 days if I haven't used any of the credits. I immediately sent a tickets requesting a refund, a 3 comments to that ticket since then, but no one has got back to me in three days.

What do you think, are Istockphoto guys ever going to respond to my ticket? I cannot wait like this forever!

Has anyone has a similar experience? This is really unfair and unprofessional from them!!"

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=318222&page=1

Hmmm, that is bad. For years after I started, there was always a note on the 'contact us' saying tickets could take four days, and to phone for quick assistance. I see the note is gone now, so they could expect a quicker answer - although the 'contact us' page does say to take out a ticket out of office hours, so the suggestion is still there that they should phone for an immediate reply during office hours.
IME, only a few companies get back on emails right away: some never.

"Calm down, it's the weekend"?

Seriously?

Don't they realise that with commission cuts many of us have to work seven days a week just to keep afloat? 

Quote from: caspixel on March 26, 2011, 09:32

"Calm down, it's the weekend"?

Seriously?

Don't they realise that with commission cuts many of us have to work seven days a week just to keep afloat? 

I guess if HQ can take the weekend off they think everyone else can too.

I go to check out a fellow contributor's portfolio, and what do I see but naked women all over the place.  Since my content filter has been on for YEARS, my first thought was that these had slipped through the cracks (pardon the pun).  But there were so many I figured I better check the content filter. 

Somewhere in the F5 fiasco, the content filter was defaulted back to "Show adult content".  Just lovely.   

Unbelievable. It does seem that everytime they try to 'fix' one thing they end up breaking two other functions in the process.

I wonder just how long the 'Epic Fail' list would be by now if anyone had had the energy and marathon-like stamina required to maintain it. Tolstoy's 'War and Peace' would look like a pamphlet in comparison.

I go to check out a fellow contributor's portfolio, and what do I see but naked women all over the place.  Since my content filter has been on for YEARS, my first thought was that these had slipped through the cracks (pardon the pun).  But there were so many I figured I better check the content filter.  

Somewhere in the F5 fiasco, the content filter was defaulted back to "Show adult content".  Just lovely.  

And before anyone jumps down my throat for being a prude:  I have a lot of kids in my portfolio, and they and their parents often drop by the site to check on how their images are selling.  

LOL, you "crack" me up, Lisa!  

edit: I just checked my preferences at IS...yep, it was changed to "show adult content". Magically changes, like the opt-out button. Losers.

Quote from: cclapper on March 27, 2011, 13:27

LOL, you "crack" me up, Lisa!  

Would the plumber's "crack" fall under adult content?

I'm always happy when I can make someone laugh. Back at'cha.