Author Topic: iStockChart no longer public? (Read 12172 times)

RT · « **Reply #25 on:** March 02, 2012, 16:59 »

Quote from: Freedom on March 02, 2012, 15:20

Actually I don't care if anyone prefers to be anonymous or not, I only wish to know my own ranking.

Perhaps a possible solution is, let each user log in and check our own ranking.

Same here and good suggestion.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #26 on:** March 02, 2012, 19:22 »

Quote from: RT on March 02, 2012, 16:59

Quote from: Freedom on March 02, 2012, 15:20
Actually I don't care if anyone prefers to be anonymous or not, I only wish to know my own ranking.

Perhaps a possible solution is, let each user log in and check our own ranking.

Same here and good suggestion.

This is another fine mess we've gotten into!

Suljo · « **Reply #27 on:** March 02, 2012, 23:08 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 29, 2012, 16:28

That is a shame. The charts were useful, even with anonymous users. The name was blocked, but the stats were there.

I really don't get the "quid pro quo" thing. If they wanted to charge a membership fee or get some advertising, that would be fine with me. Nobody asked them to do it for free....

I just want to compare erosion of exclusives from start of the year and 3 months later.
What a shame.
If they claimed that they dont have any payments from they site thats their problem. They even try to ask somebody of us to give them few cents for that. (iSnt iStock born in same way when first owner of IS cant pay bandwith for free photosharing).
I just think that they sold this site to Gredy how Gredydaddy can hide unwanted stinky PR data which more and more comes to surface under they policy how to erode and exploit contributors.
Or they are sold to much cheeper, someone like incompetent short blinded careerist EG Kelly Konjson or other creatures there how they can hide they inability from public...
Any how did anybody try to contact real person of this site, if there are any on Whois or other service?!

scottdunlap · « **Reply #28 on:** March 03, 2012, 08:28 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 02, 2012, 15:15

Quote from: scottdunlap on March 01, 2012, 15:06
I wasn't calling you selfish Lisa. You're anything but. It just seemed from your original post you didn't get their explanation. Wasn't passing judgement, I haven't visited the site lately and I didn't even realize you were anonymous.

Oh, sorry Scott. Although I was replying to your post, I never did think you were saying the anonymous folks were selfish. You were just helpfully clarifying the policy.

I should have been clearer that it was the facebook post of the owners that I was offended by. Sort of the tone that anonymous people weren't pulling their weight.

I felt it was important to point out the legitimate reasons for anonymity, along with the fact that our stats are still available for comparison, just without names.

OK, good to hear. And I know first-hand about "inspiring" people, so I definitely get the reason for anonymity!