MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock F5 epic fail  (Read 266161 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #1000 on: March 27, 2011, 16:22 »
0
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. 

prude.  ;)

(sorry, couldn't resist!)

okay, so I checked and my contributor account was set to show adult content - I fixed that because I'm a prude too.  :) then I logged into my buyer account which I haven't used for awhile--- anyhow I checked that but it was still checked for off.  so that's kind of a weird and random bug if you ask me.


lisafx

« Reply #1001 on: March 27, 2011, 18:19 »
0

okay, so I checked and my contributor account was set to show adult content - I fixed that because I'm a prude too.  :) then I logged into my buyer account which I haven't used for awhile--- anyhow I checked that but it was still checked for off.  so that's kind of a weird and random bug if you ask me.

Oh good, I'm not the only one ;)

Interesting that your buyer account still had it defaulting to ON.  So maybe Cas is right and it is a "feature" after all.  Perhaps looking at nudie pics is a bone (sorry, couldn't resist!) they are throwing contributors to make up for the 5%-25% additional they are taking of our royalties.... ;D

rubyroo

« Reply #1002 on: March 27, 2011, 18:31 »
0
.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2011, 18:48 by rubyroo »

« Reply #1003 on: March 27, 2011, 18:38 »
0
Oh good, I'm not the only one ;)

Interesting that your buyer account still had it defaulting to ON.  So maybe Cas is right and it is a "feature" after all.  Perhaps looking at nudie pics is a bone (sorry, couldn't resist!) they are throwing contributors to make up for the 5%-25% additional they are taking of our royalties.... ;D

LOL! So are there nudie pics of men, or are we only talking women. If there are men, I might go turn that filter back off.  :o

RacePhoto

« Reply #1004 on: March 28, 2011, 00:16 »
0
Oh good, I'm not the only one ;)

Interesting that your buyer account still had it defaulting to ON.  So maybe Cas is right and it is a "feature" after all.  Perhaps looking at nudie pics is a bone (sorry, couldn't resist!) they are throwing contributors to make up for the 5%-25% additional they are taking of our royalties.... ;D

LOL! So are there nudie pics of men, or are we only talking women. If there are men, I might go turn that filter back off.  :o

I'm a none of the above and mine was switched on, when I know I had it turned off. Also, I had been using business name and in the profile it had changed to USer Name.

Not that it's a big deal for me, but for some people it might make a difference? Worth checking preferences.

« Reply #1005 on: March 28, 2011, 10:01 »
0
Way to go with the customer service, iStock. Someone purchased credits a week ago, didn't receive them, and a week later still has not heard from customer support.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=315352&page=1#post6187242

lisafx

« Reply #1006 on: March 28, 2011, 17:47 »
0

LOL! So are there nudie pics of men, or are we only talking women. If there are men, I might go turn that filter back off.  :o

I'm sure there must be, but my bad luck I didn't accidentally happen to run across any of those ;)

nruboc

« Reply #1007 on: March 28, 2011, 18:24 »
0

LOL! So are there nudie pics of men, or are we only talking women. If there are men, I might go turn that filter back off.  :o


I'm sure there must be, but my bad luck I didn't accidentally happen to run across any of those ;)


Here you go, you can thank me later:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14993023-nerd-spa.php?st=719156f

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7008299-fat-in-office.php?st=719156f

« Reply #1008 on: March 28, 2011, 18:34 »
0

LOL! So are there nudie pics of men, or are we only talking women. If there are men, I might go turn that filter back off.  :o


I'm sure there must be, but my bad luck I didn't accidentally happen to run across any of those ;)


Here you go, you can thank me later:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14993023-nerd-spa.php?st=719156f

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7008299-fat-in-office.php?st=719156f


LOL! I could tell by the name of the photo that it wasn't going to be pretty! Thanks for the laugh nruboc!

(not exactly what I meant though  :(  )

lisafx

« Reply #1009 on: March 28, 2011, 19:11 »
0

Here you go, you can thank me later:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14993023-nerd-spa.php?st=719156f

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7008299-fat-in-office.php?st=719156f


ROFL!!  Be still my heart ;D

I actually downloaded one of that hairy guy a year or two ago, where he was wearing a headset.  He's hilarious!

lisafx

« Reply #1010 on: March 29, 2011, 18:47 »
0
Speaking of Blasts From The Past.....

They seem to have added a new term to the CV.  It used to be that "job" offered the choices of "job" and "occupation".  Now they've added "JOB rolling papers".  LOL!! 

Now THAT's a blast from my past ;D

Guess we can thank the addition of editorial for that one...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1011 on: March 30, 2011, 16:19 »
0
Perhaps they became aware how much those targets can tell about the sales performance of the different tiers.
Plus maybe they've realised how demotivating it could be for those who have no hope of rising to the next level, and they may make serious decisions about how they manage their future.
Besides, with the vagaries of the best match and the instability of the site, the unfixed bugs, the regular breaking of things that were working, who really thinks that throwing up another hundred or so images will definitely make a difference? If it was that easy (that they could just go out and shoot guaranteed high-sellers), they'd be doing it anyway, just for the income.

traveler1116

« Reply #1012 on: March 30, 2011, 21:38 »
0
Redeemed Credit levels for next year will not be announced as promised:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=319522&page=1

Very disappointing to say the least.

« Reply #1013 on: March 31, 2011, 04:21 »
0
Yea! I was waiting for it before they postponed it.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1014 on: April 03, 2011, 06:53 »
0
Woot! Someone was in the office over the weekend.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=320632&page=1
(I noticed this without realising it last night UK time when a Vetta suddenly popped into one of my regular searches where I'd not noticed any Vettas before, and assumed it was a new file. Turned out it wasn't, but I should have realised it indicted a huge Vetta drive to the front.
As I've said before, "They've heard of customers, but want no truck with them".
This Vetta/Agency hike only shows with the slider in the middle (default). With the slider at the right, the V/A files are more mixed through, and there is a strong bias towards strong sellers.
Aren't they talking about getting rid of the sliders? (Ludicrous IMO, but seems to be welcomed by other contributors)
f so, buyers and sellers will be totally at the mercy of this sort of idiocy.
They can always opt to sort by 'age', but then they're at the mercy of keywording, which I've noticed has been very slack on new acceptances for about a month. :-(

« Reply #1015 on: April 27, 2011, 16:12 »
0
Redeemed Credit levels for next year will not be announced as promised:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=319522&page=1

Very disappointing to say the least.


Now nearly a month since "the first quarter of 2011" ended ... and still no news on the RC targets. What can be taking so long? Typical Istock fiasco.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #1016 on: April 27, 2011, 16:38 »
0
"Video and Illustration Redeemed Credit targets for 2011 will remain the same as 2010." (Kelly Thompson)
I imagine photo's will be the same.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325962&page=1

« Reply #1017 on: April 27, 2011, 18:02 »
0
"Video and Illustration Redeemed Credit targets for 2011 will remain the same as 2010." (Kelly Thompson)
I imagine photo's will be the same.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325962&page=1


I very much doubt that photos will be the same as for this year.

The deal for video and vector was part of the incentive to get contributors to opt in to Vetta. There is no such deal for photographers. Right now they won't even give us a date for when they'll announce the photo targets.

lisafx

« Reply #1018 on: April 27, 2011, 18:39 »
0

The deal for video and vector was part of the incentive to get contributors to opt in to Vetta. There is no such deal for photographers. Right now they won't even give us a date for when they'll announce the photo targets.

Honestly, I don't see how they could leave the targets the same for photographers.  Downloads seem to be in steep decline there for many, many people. 

« Reply #1019 on: April 28, 2011, 01:52 »
0

The deal for video and vector was part of the incentive to get contributors to opt in to Vetta. There is no such deal for photographers. Right now they won't even give us a date for when they'll announce the photo targets.

Honestly, I don't see how they could leave the targets the same for photographers.  Downloads seem to be in steep decline there for many, many people. 

Sounds perfect - for them.

« Reply #1020 on: April 28, 2011, 06:36 »
0
I think iStock has put themselves in a serious box.  With the instability of the best match and flaky site operations they cannot predict what levels of RC's will work for the year. If they are too high then their best contributors/sellers will be hacked off.  If they set them to low then they give away the farm. They cannot predict when the site will stabalize.  They cannot predict what the next tweek of the best match will do for individual sales levels. The first months of this year are no vauable basis for projections at the contributor level.  They have done it to themselves and are now trying to find a path forward.  I suspect they will drag their feet (and already have) on any photog RC levels announcement as long as they possibly can. [returning to lurk mode]

« Reply #1021 on: April 28, 2011, 09:54 »
0
... If they set them to low then they give away the farm. ...

The only people giving away the farm on a continuing basis are the IS contributors. Nothing short of splitting revenues 50/50 will change that fact.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1022 on: April 28, 2011, 10:04 »
0
... If they set them to low then they give away the farm. ...

The only people giving away the farm on a continuing basis are the IS contributors. Nothing short of splitting revenues 50/50 will change that fact.
Which micros, that actually sell at decent prices and at good volume, split 50-50 or better?

« Reply #1023 on: April 28, 2011, 11:35 »
0
I think iStock has put themselves in a serious box.  With the instability of the best match and flaky site operations they cannot predict what levels of RC's will work for the year. If they are too high then their best contributors/sellers will be hacked off.  If they set them to low then they give away the farm. They cannot predict when the site will stabalize.  They cannot predict what the next tweek of the best match will do for individual sales levels. The first months of this year are no vauable basis for projections at the contributor level.  They have done it to themselves and are now trying to find a path forward.  I suspect they will drag their feet (and already have) on any photog RC levels announcement as long as they possibly can. [returning to lurk mode]

I'd agree. Actually I think they probably can project future sales with some accuracy, it's just that they don't want to want to make that information public. I've got a feeling that they might even abandon the current RC scheme altogether (or at least drastically modify it) so that it will be less transparent regarding the performance of overall sales. Even taking account the commission reduction my own sales are now, month on month, over 20% down compared to 2010. With Vetta/Agency sales the picture may be healthier for exclusives but I doubt it is enough to make up the volume of previous years. Whatever the situation is they're not going to admit it.

« Reply #1024 on: April 28, 2011, 11:41 »
0
... If they set them to low then they give away the farm. ...


The only people giving away the farm on a continuing basis are the IS contributors. Nothing short of splitting revenues 50/50 will change that fact.

Which micros, that actually sell at decent prices and at good volume, split 50-50 or better?


http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/agencies-with-fair-commissions/


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
33 Replies
20671 Views
Last post April 01, 2011, 08:40
by briciola
0 Replies
4341 Views
Last post December 21, 2011, 15:25
by RacePhoto
4 Replies
6370 Views
Last post July 02, 2012, 19:21
by Sadstock
2 Replies
3300 Views
Last post November 20, 2014, 16:56
by DallasP
8 Replies
6915 Views
Last post May 19, 2015, 14:45
by Tryingmybest

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors