MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: istock organises conference call with selected few  (Read 82114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #325 on: March 16, 2011, 16:18 »
0

Now we need a campaign to get jsnover in on that call, get them to admit how the voting went!


While I completely agree I would have liked to see her on that call, I think it is a waste of time to campaign for her.  Our time would be better spent organizing an audit.  The whole phone call thing is an intentional distraction.


Agreed. Let's see what the call produces and then move forward from there.

I guess honesty about ambivalence makes one a little less exclusive than the rest (All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others). As long as they keep paying me, they can be as rude about me as they like :)


« Reply #326 on: March 16, 2011, 16:28 »
0
There was a post asking if the votes would be posted for us to see, and wondering why jsnover wasn't one of the 5.

A post that has gone mysteriously absent. Hmmmm.

Typical iStock transparency.

The question posed was fair. Why delete it?

Exactly.

And on a related note, I wonder if they've muzzled Lobo because they know that his tone would only fuel the fire. Not that the other admin don't do a fine job of that, themselves.

« Reply #327 on: March 16, 2011, 16:51 »
0
This is interesting and I'm surprised it's still up (moderators on a break? close to quitting time?):

Good choices, except for istock's refusal to deal with independents. If the tone of the email I received this morning from contributor relations in response to my outraged email last week is anything to go by, they can expect to meet self defensiveness, statements of the Bleeding Obvious and not a single tiny hint of apology or even regret that our intellectual property was stolen.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45

Thinking it's going to be yet another iStock Epic Fail.

« Reply #328 on: March 16, 2011, 16:52 »
0
This is interesting and I'm surprised it's still up (moderators on a break? close to quitting time?):

Good choices, except for istock's refusal to deal with independents. If the tone of the email I received this morning from contributor relations in response to my outraged email last week is anything to go by, they can expect to meet self defensiveness, statements of the Bleeding Obvious and not a single tiny hint of apology or even regret that our intellectual property was stolen.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45

Thinking it's going to be yet another iStock Epic Fail.


I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo  that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 16:56 by Susan S. »

« Reply #329 on: March 16, 2011, 17:15 »
0

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.

I used to have that talent, too. And then, the wolf turned on me  :D

« Reply #330 on: March 16, 2011, 17:40 »
0

I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo  that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.

Curt Pickens seems to get away with a lot too. He's said way worse stuff than I ever did and he still has his posting privileges. And when he was threatening to leave exclusivity, Lobo even contacted him directly and talked him down. It is interesting to see how far some people can push it (and how some people get special treatment as well). BTW, Susan, I am glad you can still post. You crack me up.

« Reply #331 on: March 16, 2011, 17:43 »
0
Hmm. People are pointing out SimonKR has been excluded as well. He got a lot of votes. Wonder why.

lisafx

« Reply #332 on: March 16, 2011, 17:48 »
0
This is interesting and I'm surprised it's still up (moderators on a break? close to quitting time?):

Good choices, except for istock's refusal to deal with independents. If the tone of the email I received this morning from contributor relations in response to my outraged email last week is anything to go by, they can expect to meet self defensiveness, statements of the Bleeding Obvious and not a single tiny hint of apology or even regret that our intellectual property was stolen.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45

Thinking it's going to be yet another iStock Epic Fail.


I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo  that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.


Really very well stated Liz.  Glad your voice is still part of this discussion :)

« Reply #333 on: March 16, 2011, 18:03 »
0
This is interesting and I'm surprised it's still up (moderators on a break? close to quitting time?):

Good choices, except for istock's refusal to deal with independents. If the tone of the email I received this morning from contributor relations in response to my outraged email last week is anything to go by, they can expect to meet self defensiveness, statements of the Bleeding Obvious and not a single tiny hint of apology or even regret that our intellectual property was stolen.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45

Thinking it's going to be yet another iStock Epic Fail.


I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo  that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.


Really very well stated Liz.  Glad your voice is still part of this discussion :)


I'm really Susan! It's  the other Sue that is Liz...!

« Reply #334 on: March 16, 2011, 18:36 »
0
Way to be transparent about the selection process, iStock:

Why was jjneff added to make 6? I went through that all 46 pages of this thread and he was only nominated once on page 5, seems like there many more people who had more votes.


Of course, the post will probably disappear as well:  http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=46#post6106002

« Reply #335 on: March 16, 2011, 18:39 »
0
Kk original post said 5 but with a question mark so i figured it could be more or less.  Also, they never said our nominations are votes did they?  I thought they were just suggestions not votes.

Nice diversion. At least istock can do something right these days. :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #336 on: March 16, 2011, 18:47 »
0
Way to be transparent about the selection process, iStock:

Why was jjneff added to make 6? I went through that all 46 pages of this thread and he was only nominated once on page 5, seems like there many more people who had more votes.


Of course, the post will probably disappear as well:  http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=46#post6106002

Simonkr repsonded:
well, maybe those, who count votes at HQ, count is their own numeric system, unknown to us...
Liz (the Real One)

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #337 on: March 16, 2011, 18:56 »
0
Patrick's at Fotolia, right?

Geez guys, chill out a bit.  Everyone's all "they never tell us anything", and here they are going to tell us something, and then it's all "it's a conspiracy", "they're going to lie", "why do they hate independents", "they're going to gag everyone with this NDA", "istock sux", rhetorical example this that and the other.  Why not just relax and see what the outcome is?

I actually heard that in your best valley girl...good post and glad you said it

« Reply #338 on: March 16, 2011, 18:59 »
0

I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo  that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.

Curt Pickens seems to get away with a lot too. He's said way worse stuff than I ever did and he still has his posting privileges. And when he was threatening to leave exclusivity, Lobo even contacted him directly and talked him down. It is interesting to see how far some people can push it (and how some people get special treatment as well). BTW, Susan, I am glad you can still post. You crack me up.
That also speaks volumes to how the entire organization is run. Rules aren't applied evenly, and people who clearly aren't capable of running things are still there as a result. While this may work for a while, it usually leads to more trouble.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #339 on: March 16, 2011, 18:59 »
0

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.

I used to have that talent, too. And then, the wolf turned on me  :D

I think in his case lobo refers to a character from a comic....Omega men or something or other. even though I too have always used lobo in reference to wolves.

« Reply #340 on: March 16, 2011, 21:06 »
0
Frick! Curt_Pickens just nailed their asses to the wall and JJ actually responded, with a warning. But * if I got it copy/pasted in time. Now it too is gone.

« Reply #341 on: March 16, 2011, 21:28 »
0
Yep they banned Me. Oh well. Sometimes the truth hurts. Time for a break and off to find other avenues.
Yes it's me .

Curt Pickens.

« Reply #342 on: March 16, 2011, 21:30 »
0
Welcome aboard. Sorry I missed the post. Care to share here?

« Reply #343 on: March 16, 2011, 21:34 »
0
More or less told them (Getty Employees)  they are full of BS. Not transparent. All talked the company line. And hope their conscious would eat their hearts out.  Nothing to bad really !! :)  Anyway JJRD banned me. Maybe best. I was getting way to attached to the crap they fed people and, I never was one to hold my tongue. And never will be. So, off to my next venture.

« Reply #344 on: March 16, 2011, 21:35 »
0
Good luck and enjoy your new ride!

« Reply #345 on: March 16, 2011, 21:39 »
0

I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo  that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.

Curt Pickens seems to get away with a lot too. He's said way worse stuff than I ever did and he still has his posting privileges. And when he was threatening to leave exclusivity, Lobo even contacted him directly and talked him down. It is interesting to see how far some people can push it (and how some people get special treatment as well). BTW, Susan, I am glad you can still post. You crack me up.

Cas, no worries. Lobo did not contact me directly. I contacted him. We had a discussion and Lobo being Lobo calmed me down. I relented. Tried being a good boy. But he didn't give me any preferential treatment in any way shape or form. I hope he is still there honestly. I do think he has left. Just wanted to set that part of the story straight.  Best of luck to you.
Curt

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #346 on: March 16, 2011, 21:46 »
0
As JoAnn has said before that she's considered/considering going independent again, I think it is what Rob said yesterday, the belief that independents can't be trusted.

And that would be absolute crap to use that reason.  There is only 30 days standing between exclusivity and independance.   What rubbish to use that excuse!!!

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #347 on: March 16, 2011, 21:50 »
0
Welcome to the 'club' Curt  ;D

« Reply #348 on: March 16, 2011, 21:53 »
0

I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo  that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.

Curt Pickens seems to get away with a lot too. He's said way worse stuff than I ever did and he still has his posting privileges. And when he was threatening to leave exclusivity, Lobo even contacted him directly and talked him down. It is interesting to see how far some people can push it (and how some people get special treatment as well). BTW, Susan, I am glad you can still post. You crack me up.

Cas, no worries. Lobo did not contact me directly. I contacted him. We had a discussion and Lobo being Lobo calmed me down. I relented. Tried being a good boy. But he didn't give me any preferential treatment in any way shape or form. I hope he is still there honestly. I do think he has left. Just wanted to set that part of the story straight.  Best of luck to you.
Curt

LOL. Lobo has a very different effect on you than on me! Our last sitemail exchange was anything but calm. Well, I'm sorry they banned you, because you did speak the truth, and they can't handle the truth! It's just a shame so many good people are getting hurt because of their corporate dishonesty.

« Reply #349 on: March 16, 2011, 22:05 »
0
More or less told them (Getty Employees)  they are full of BS. Not transparent. All talked the company line. And hope their conscious would eat their hearts out.  Nothing to bad really !! :)  Anyway JJRD banned me. Maybe best. I was getting way to attached to the crap they fed people and, I never was one to hold my tongue. And never will be. So, off to my next venture.

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

I think folks here are a bit more willing to embrace the truth.  ::)  Welcome aboard. 

When you say off to your next venture are you getting out of stock?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4431 Views
Last post April 07, 2011, 21:28
by madelaide
58 Replies
18047 Views
Last post May 04, 2011, 16:23
by donding
5 Replies
3203 Views
Last post May 06, 2011, 13:09
by caspixel
0 Replies
1917 Views
Last post August 07, 2013, 19:25
by WarrenPrice
1 Replies
3839 Views
Last post April 28, 2017, 11:27
by Niakris

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors