iStockchart asked me for user ID and password when I tried to take a look.

Is it no longer for public view? What happened?

No, they're not, but it had nothing to do with iStock. They posted about it yesterday on Facebook

"we had a small bug last friday where some people which were flagged anonymous showed up at istockcharts over the weekend. so we got several mails that those useres wanted to be anonymous again, which i can perfectly understand!! On the other hand a lot of users who liked to be anonymous by themselfs used and looked into the istockcharts on a regular base. IMHO thats 'unfair'. Transparency for all or nobody. So we don`t have a solution or better concept for a "quid pro quo" solution in place as of today wher "only people which appear on istockcharts with their data, can see the data of the others" a quid-pro-quo concept.... So until we have an idea or a better concept to insure that we keep the site offline. Maybe we find a good idea or not. Anyway we never made any cent out of istockcharts, no google ads etc. so why the h**ck should we keep it up... it`s easier for everybody, welcome to the stock 'dark ages' :-) ... If anybody has 'the idea' how to insure such a "quid pro quo" solution, let us know: [email protected].

So just to clearly point it out (to prevent rumors etc.): istockphoto DIDN`t ask us to shut it down (!)"

Thank you, Jsnover.

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 read that to mean that anonymous contributors were benefitting by seeing the numbers of people that kept their usernames public, but not returning the favor.

"Quid pro quo"... if anonymous contributors can't see the charts, their data and statistics (even without the names) shouldn't be shown too to the other contributors.

Thanks Jo Ann, what a shame that a few would ruin it for everyone else.

It was encouraging to see my progress in the rankings.

Quote from: loop on February 29, 2012, 18:51

"Quid pro quo"... if anonymous contributors can't see the charts, their data and statistics (even without the names) shouldn't be shown too to the other contributors.

All the information is in the public domain, published by Istock on their own site. All 'the charts' were doing was to collate that information into a handy format which was useful, interesting and motivating to most active contributors. I don't think 'the charts' should have permitted anonymity. Any anonymity required by contributors should have been provided by Istock themselves. If Istock insisted that open data was a requirement of the TOS then any contributor that didn't agree with that could choose to leave. Everyone knew the terms when they joined and were most likely motivated by the performances of the stars that went before them.

Sounds right to me too and I'm not anonymous here either.

I read that to mean that anonymous contributors were benefitting by seeing the numbers of people that kept their usernames public, but not returning the favor.

Yes, I read it the same way.  I am one of those that was anonymous, but did check in to see what was going on occasionally.  I don't see that as selfish or "not returning the favor".  My stats were still there for all to see. 

I liked being able to see if I was moving up or down in rank, and it didn't really matter to me if the others around me were anonymous or named.  I can't think of any reason to show the names and portfolio links except to make it easy for copiers. 

I liked being able to see if I was moving up or down in rank.

I lost interest in that once iStock went on to fuzzy figures, so you were in a broad band on iStockcharts.

Quote from: scottdunlap on February 29, 2012, 18:13

I read that to mean that anonymous contributors were benefitting by seeing the numbers of people that kept their usernames public, but not returning the favor.

Yes, I read it the same way.  I am one of those that was anonymous, but did check in to see what was going on occasionally.  I don't see that as selfish or "not returning the favor". 

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.

Quote from: Difydave on March 01, 2012, 09:19

Wouldn't it be easy enough to just not have the anonymous data shown at all?
If you want to see your data, then everyone else can see it too.
Put ads on there too if need be.
It's a shame it's all just gone.

I don't think that would work - pretty soon you'd have someone with 4,000 downloads as the top seller

But wouldn't it work if everyone was anonymous except the person logged in? You'd see your rank and whether you were up or down, you'd see what sort of uploading those above you were doing. The only thing you wouldn't know without a ton of leg work on your part (which should be enough to discourage lazy copiers) is who the various people were.

That sounds like a perfect solution to me. And I don't think anyone would have a problem with ads on the site, definitely think they should be making a quid!

Quote from: Difydave on March 01, 2012, 09:19

Wouldn't it be easy enough to just not have the anonymous data shown at all?
If you want to see your data, then everyone else can see it too.
Put ads on there too if need be.
It's a shame it's all just gone.

I don't think that would work - pretty soon you'd have someone with 4,000 downloads as the top seller

But wouldn't it work if everyone was anonymous except the person logged in? You'd see your rank and whether you were up or down, you'd see what sort of uploading those above you were doing. The only thing you wouldn't know without a ton of leg work on your part (which should be enough to discourage lazy copiers) is who the various people were.

I sort of assumed that they'd keep the ranking, counting the "invisible" contributors. Otherwise, as you say you'd have some weird results!  IIRC anonymous people were in the minority (but I didn't used to look that much, only really to see whether I was going up or down) But yes, logging in would be a better answer.

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.