Author Topic: iStockphoto Inspection Preferential Lane (Read 16817 times)

Saska · « **on:** September 16, 2010, 16:37 »

I don't know if it's common knowledge that admins' and inspectors' files are inspected the same day as they are uploaded. What maybe no one noticed is that the photos of one of the top seller are also approved as soon as uploaded. They always show up in the *latest uploads* page in the same bunch of the admins' & inspectors' files.

An example from today:
newbielink:http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14252406-christmas-presents.php [nonactive]

cathyslife · « **Reply #1 on:** September 16, 2010, 16:54 »

Quote from: Saska on September 16, 2010, 16:37

I don't know if it's common knowledge that admins' and inspectors' files are inspected the same day as they are uploaded. What maybe no one noticed is that the photos of one of the top seller are also approved as soon as uploaded. They always show up in the *latest uploads* page in the same bunch of the admins' & inspectors' files.

An example from today:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14252406-christmas-presents.php

I thought that exclusives' files get inspected the same day they are uploaded too.

Graffoto · « **Reply #2 on:** September 16, 2010, 16:57 »

No, they don't.
I am an exclusive & it can take several days to get inpected.

But then again, I am not a BD exclusive.

cathyslife · « **Reply #3 on:** September 16, 2010, 17:00 »

Quote from: nosaya on September 16, 2010, 16:57

No, they don't.
I am an exclusive & it can take several days to get inpected.

But then again, I am not a BD exclusive.

Interesting, I thought that was one of the perks...I must be remembering wrong. I could swear one of my exclusive friends was gloating about how fast his images got reviewed when he first went exclusive.

What is a BD exclusive?

rubyroo · « **Reply #4 on:** September 16, 2010, 17:02 »

BD = Black Diamond

Saska · « **Reply #5 on:** September 16, 2010, 17:05 »

I've been observing this over the last two weeks and all the other exclusives had a delay of a few days, up to a week.

This makes you think of what other undeclared preferences, like best match, some members may have.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 16, 2010, 17:07 »

uploading to IS? yeh maybe later!

lisafx · « **Reply #7 on:** September 16, 2010, 17:09 »

Quote from: rubyroo on September 16, 2010, 17:02

BD = Black Diamond

I thought it was a Big Deal when I became a BD. Now, with my royalty rate reduction, it feels more like BFD

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** September 16, 2010, 17:10 »

Quote from: Saska on September 16, 2010, 17:05

I've been observing this over the last two weeks and all the other exclusives had a delay of a few days, up to a week.

This makes you think of what other undeclared preferences, like best match, some members may have.

One admin seems never to have his keywords checked. And they're really bad.

Saska · « **Reply #9 on:** September 16, 2010, 17:16 »

Every other exclusive BD I saw had been in the Q for days.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #10 on:** September 16, 2010, 17:30 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 16, 2010, 17:10

Quote from: Saska on September 16, 2010, 17:05
I've been observing this over the last two weeks and all the other exclusives had a delay of a few days, up to a week.

This makes you think of what other undeclared preferences, like best match, some members may have.
One admin seems never to have his keywords checked. And they're really bad.

Maybe his images always appear on the first page anyway, so he doesn't really have to check keywords

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** September 16, 2010, 17:32 »

Quote from: Dreamframer on September 16, 2010, 17:30

Quote from: ShadySue on September 16, 2010, 17:10
Quote from: Saska on September 16, 2010, 17:05
I've been observing this over the last two weeks and all the other exclusives had a delay of a few days, up to a week.

This makes you think of what other undeclared preferences, like best match, some members may have.
One admin seems never to have his keywords checked. And they're really bad.

Maybe his images always appear on the first page anyway, so he doesn't really have to check keywords

Yup. That's the one.

dgilder · « **Reply #12 on:** September 16, 2010, 17:35 »

Next you guys are going to tell me you guys didn't know that inspectors can self-inspect their images (or at least they used to be able to).

luissantos84 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 16, 2010, 17:48 »

Quote from: dgilder on September 16, 2010, 17:35

Next you guys are going to tell me you guys didn't know that inspectors can self-inspect their images (or at least they used to be able to).

cool feature!

LostOne · « **Reply #14 on:** September 16, 2010, 18:01 »

Quote from: dgilder on September 16, 2010, 17:35

Next you guys are going to tell me you guys didn't know that inspectors can self-inspect their images (or at least they used to be able to).

Dull colors, overexposed, omg what's with the keywords. And this guy wants to put it in Vetta.....

On second though this image looks familiar, where have I seen it before? Oh right, I just uploaded it this morning. Vetta it is!

nruboc · « **Reply #15 on:** September 16, 2010, 18:11 »

Here's my guess what happened, with the site re-architecture they built in the ability to target their "stars" (the exclusives they can't afford to lose), or somehow otherwise rate their exclusives. They knew they was gong to be a big shakeup with commission structures, and they need the ability to target their "stars" for preferential treatment after Jan 1 in case their earnings go down to keep them happy. Come Jan 1, I would pay extra special attention to the best match algorithm to watch for this. This also gives them the ability to give them other perks as mentioned above (same day inspection, etc.) The site re-architecture did not just coincidentally happen before this big shake-up.

cathyslife · « **Reply #16 on:** September 16, 2010, 18:13 »

Quote from: rubyroo on September 16, 2010, 17:02

BD = Black Diamond

duh. sorry. thinking cap off for the rest of the day.

cathyslife · « **Reply #17 on:** September 16, 2010, 18:15 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 16, 2010, 17:09

Quote from: rubyroo on September 16, 2010, 17:02
BD = Black Diamond

I thought it was a Big Deal when I became a BD. Now, with my royalty rate reduction, it feels more like BFD

I know, i went through every word starting with a B and D, thinking it was something like BFD.

slashnburn · « **Reply #18 on:** September 16, 2010, 18:17 »

The real question that should be asked here, are the contributing admin / inspectors drawing cards from the bottom of the deck? When a buyer does a search are they getting preferential treatment? Istock won't allow for anyone to peek behind the curtain and see what the wizard is doing. Do I smell congressional hearing?

Phil · « **Reply #19 on:** September 16, 2010, 18:23 »

Quote from: LostOne on September 16, 2010, 18:01

Quote from: dgilder on September 16, 2010, 17:35
Next you guys are going to tell me you guys didn't know that inspectors can self-inspect their images (or at least they used to be able to).
Dull colors, overexposed, omg what's with the keywords. And this guy wants to put it in Vetta.....

On second though this image looks familiar, where have I seen it before? Oh right, I just uploaded it this morning. Vetta it is!

LOL

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #20 on:** September 16, 2010, 18:49 »

Quote from: Saska on September 16, 2010, 16:37

I don't know if it's common knowledge that admins' and inspectors' files are inspected the same day as they are uploaded. What maybe no one noticed is that the photos of one of the top seller are also approved as soon as uploaded. They always show up in the *latest uploads* page in the same bunch of the admins' & inspectors' files.

An example from today:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14252406-christmas-presents.php

DNY is neither an inspector, nor an admin.

Exclusive queue is running 5-6 days right now.

rubyroo · « **Reply #21 on:** September 16, 2010, 19:02 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 16, 2010, 17:09

[I thought it was a Big Deal when I became a BD. Now, with my royalty rate reduction, it feels more like BFD

RacePhoto · « **Reply #22 on:** September 16, 2010, 21:49 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 16, 2010, 18:49

Quote from: Saska on September 16, 2010, 16:37
I don't know if it's common knowledge that admins' and inspectors' files are inspected the same day as they are uploaded. What maybe no one noticed is that the photos of one of the top seller are also approved as soon as uploaded. They always show up in the *latest uploads* page in the same bunch of the admins' & inspectors' files.

An example from today:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14252406-christmas-presents.php

DNY is neither an inspector, nor an admin.

Exclusive queue is running 5-6 days right now.

Nice work and almost 7000 files. #3 contributor on IS by DLs, #31 for # of files. I'd think that BD and all that might give someone some extra privileges?

SNP · « **Reply #23 on:** September 17, 2010, 00:47 »

you don't know what you are talking about. that contributor is not an admin/inspector. and sometimes exclusives files are approved same day. rarely, but it happens. lately it takes a long time for inspections, who knows why. probably because the agency collection garbage is getting priority. that's a more plausible conspiracy theory. inspectors are generally speaking an awesome group of people. I've never had one issue with an iStock inspector, and many have helped me above and beyond, without even being asked.

michaeldb · « **Reply #24 on:** September 17, 2010, 01:15 »

Quote from: Saska on September 16, 2010, 16:37

An example from today:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14252406-christmas-presents.php

And what a fabulously innovative and creative idea! Taking a photo of Christmas presents! Who would ever have thought of that! No wonder IS wanted to rush it to the head of the line, ahead of all the less creative IS exclusives. Oh, 'less creative IS exclusives,' that's redundant, sorry.

SNP · « **Reply #25 on:** September 17, 2010, 01:20 »

I think it's a nice, useful image. how about we evaluate the originality of one of yours?

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-13292606-internet-arrow-clicks-stick-figure-bulls-eye-target.php

FD · « **Reply #26 on:** September 17, 2010, 01:34 »

A month ago, I came to the conclusion that the best match on iStock is a big prejudiced fake (as I suspected before), based on a little experiment with one shot of my last uploaded batch there (July).
It's not art but it seems to be what microstock customers like, so what the heck. I's simple, cheap to do, and prone to be copied soon.

The relevant search is "hands cards playing" ,and the shot is here. Just this little experiment. All searches were done not logged in and in the main search box on 4 (6) sites.

On Shutterstock it immediately started to sell, and with the relevant search terms, it is on position #6 today.

On iStock with the same search > 972 search results for Human Hand (The Human Body) AND Cards (Leisure Games) it is on the second last page. Actually my 3 photos (on white or at a poker table) with hands holding cards are in the last 2 pages. The two first pages are infested with a considerable part of irrelevant (as to my search subject) images of exclusives and Vetta.

On Dreamstime, It's at position #1 (probably because the default not logged in search engine is "relevance").

On Fotolia it's on page 5 (1819 shots, 38 images per page).

(on StockFresh, it's in position #1 too, not surprisingly since the collection is still small; at Veer, I can't find it back amongst the 582 images, but I noted before that Veer's search engine is defective).

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

What does this little survey mean? Simply that there are a couple of sites (iStock the most, Fotolia less) that take contributor karma (part of it being exclusivity) into account, not the merits of the image by itself. That's not what a buyer wants!
I came to that conclusion already when I started buying a year ago for a media group, finding the shots what I wanted the fastest on Dreamstime, with the worst match on iStock. It was just nice to see this confirmed in this little experiment.

There is a little truth here for some sites: a buyer wants the right shot, he doesn't care what ranking a prima donna exclusive has, how loud he yays at the forums, and whether or not he has to pay his mortgage from it.

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

I didn't mingle in the discussion about iStock's pay cut for independents nor in the cry to stop uploading there, for the simple reason I gave up on them already last August. My upload there last July was the last one and I already uninstalled Deepmeta 2 months ago. As an aggravation, they don't let me out of their PP: the box keeps being ticked. I deleted my iStock link from about 1500 pages all over the net the past week, not out of vengeance but because when I leave, those links are useless anyways.

I'm very grateful to iStock that they added insult to injury with this pay cut, since it made me feel that my decision (not to upload any more) in August was right. As some exclusives stated here, iStock does the independents with their snapshots a big favor since they lose money on them. We can turn this into a win-win situation then. I'm sure iStock will thrive on prime content of German restroom locks and Santas giving the blurred finger. So let's all be happy.

FD · « **Reply #27 on:** September 17, 2010, 01:49 »

Quote from: michaeldb on September 17, 2010, 01:15

Quote from: Saska on September 16, 2010, 16:37
An example from today:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14252406-christmas-presents.php
And what a fabulously innovative and creative idea!

Looking as a buyer, I can't help to observe (what I did many times) that you can find an equally usable "good enough" concept with copyspace on Dreamstime for half the number of credits (smallest size - 480px).
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-christmas-or-new-year-s-ornaments-on-white-image7503104

FD · « **Reply #28 on:** September 17, 2010, 01:52 »

Quote from: hawk_eye on September 17, 2010, 01:20

I think it's a nice, useful image. how about we evaluate the originality of one of yours?

Not everybody is as cowardly as you to hide his profile links.

michaeldb · « **Reply #29 on:** September 17, 2010, 01:58 »

Quote from: FD-regular on September 17, 2010, 01:34

A month ago, I came to the conclusion that the best match on iStock is a big prejudiced fake (as I suspected before), based on a little experiment with one shot of my last uploaded batch there (July).

Is it possible that the rigged best match and all the special privileges for IS's pets are there because those pets could not compete without them?

FD · « **Reply #30 on:** September 17, 2010, 02:47 »

Quote from: michaeldb on September 17, 2010, 01:58

Is it possible that the rigged best match and all the special privileges for IS's pets are there because those pets could not compete without them?

Well most are great photographers so they would probably. As a contributor, I really hope that iStock can keep making them feel special so they don't flood SS and DT.

As a buyer (and the few times I tried there), it just takes much longer on iStock to find the right image by their crooked best match. I should note I'm scouting for daily media, not for commercial or templates, so the extra Editorial on DT is a big asset in this regard. Media don't care.
If for instance they need a typical photo of Prague, they will prefer an editorial shot with lively people and neons over a sterile commercial shot with everything cloned out.

Since we have a time slot of 1hr (in which I have to read the article [Indian designers don't understand Dutch], find the image, pass it, then it gets incorporated), they also don't have time to open illustrations in Illustrator. They want easy to grab rasterized stuff. On all these points, Dreamstime is in the advantage, but not all buyers are created equal. As a rule of thumb, you can say you can find equally good ("good enough") stuff on DT as on IS, just much faster and with more choice, and cheaper.

The crooked best match on IS (with their stupid CV) works also against their own exclusives. A while ago I needed a photo of crew serving food in the interior of an airplane. "airplane serving food" gave just one unusable shot at DT. Looking at IS, also just 1 unusable image. Now I know for sure that SLocke has a marvelous collection of inside shots of an airplane with crew, but I couldn't find them on IS. Same on SS. Changed the terms to "attendant serving food", "stewardess serving food" : nothing, also not on IS. I looked for "Sean Locke" on IS: "0 search results for sean AND Curly Hair". Yeah right. Life can be hard for buyers too.

Well at least you know one of the many holes in the market now... I'm sure you can find this kind of stuff on macro, but that's above my budget.

Caz · « **Reply #31 on:** September 17, 2010, 03:47 »

Caz · « **Reply #32 on:** September 17, 2010, 03:50 »

Quote from: dgilder on September 16, 2010, 17:35

Next you guys are going to tell me you guys didn't know that inspectors can self-inspect their images (or at least they used to be able to).

Completely untrue

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #33 on:** September 17, 2010, 05:07 »

Quote from: FD-regular on September 17, 2010, 02:47

The crooked best match on IS (with their stupid CV) works also against their own exclusives. A while ago I needed a photo of crew serving food in the interior of an airplane. "airplane serving food" gave just one unusable shot at DT. Looking at IS, also just 1 unusable image. Now I know for sure that SLocke has a marvelous collection of inside shots of an airplane with crew, but I couldn't find them on IS. Same on SS. Changed the terms to "attendant serving food", "stewardess serving food" : nothing, also not on IS. I looked for "Sean Locke" on IS: "0 search results for sean AND Curly Hair". Yeah right. Life can be hard for buyers too.

Well it's true there is no way to search on a contributor's real name. Maybe that will change when they roll out the new search interface next month or whenever... BTW, I didn't have "serving" as a keyword. I do now

.

anonymous · « **Reply #34 on:** September 17, 2010, 06:59 »

Quote from: michaeldb on September 17, 2010, 01:15

Quote from: Saska on September 16, 2010, 16:37
An example from today:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14252406-christmas-presents.php

And what a fabulously innovative and creative idea! Taking a photo of Christmas presents! Who would ever have thought of that! No wonder IS wanted to rush it to the head of the line, ahead of all the less creative IS exclusives. Oh, 'less creative IS exclusives,' that's redundant, sorry.

2 years ago, i had (basically) the exact same shot rejected for copyright (wrapping paper), but it's okay if you're an employee...barf...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #35 on:** September 17, 2010, 07:12 »

Um, again, DNY59 is a regular contributor. Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble.

dgilder · « **Reply #36 on:** September 17, 2010, 09:03 »

Quote from: Caz on September 17, 2010, 03:50

Quote from: dgilder on September 16, 2010, 17:35
Next you guys are going to tell me you guys didn't know that inspectors can self-inspect their images (or at least they used to be able to).

Completely untrue

It is true, I have heard this directly from several inspectors. Maybe they changed the rules at some point, but this is definitely something that used to happen.

LostOne · « **Reply #37 on:** September 17, 2010, 09:42 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 17, 2010, 07:12

Um, again, DNY59 is a regular contributor. Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble.

A user with 790000+ downloads can hardly be called regular contributor

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** September 17, 2010, 10:54 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 17, 2010, 05:07

Well it's true there is no way to search on a contributor's real name. Maybe that will change when they roll out the new search interface next month or whenever... BTW, I didn't have "serving" as a keyword. I do now .

Not through the search box, but you can put www.istockphoto.com/sjlocke in the URI line and get taken to your home page. Then click on view porfolio, then 'search within' from the relevant box in the left hand column.

SNP · « **Reply #39 on:** September 17, 2010, 10:56 »

Quote from: LostOne on September 17, 2010, 09:42

Quote from: sjlocke on September 17, 2010, 07:12
Um, again, DNY59 is a regular contributor. Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble.
A user with 790000+ downloads can hardly be called regular contributor

it's called working hard, some of you around here should try it sometime...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #40 on:** September 17, 2010, 11:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 17, 2010, 10:54

Quote from: sjlocke on September 17, 2010, 05:07

Well it's true there is no way to search on a contributor's real name. Maybe that will change when they roll out the new search interface next month or whenever... BTW, I didn't have "serving" as a keyword. I do now .

Not through the search box, but you can put www.istockphoto.com/sjlocke in the URI line and get taken to your home page. Then click on view porfolio, then 'search within' from the relevant box in the left hand column.

Oh sure, you can do that in the advanced search too. But if you didn't know me as "sjlocke" then you'd be in trouble. On Getty, you can search my name in quotes.

vonkara · « **Reply #41 on:** September 17, 2010, 11:13 »

Quote from: hawk_eye on September 17, 2010, 10:56

Quote from: LostOne on September 17, 2010, 09:42
Quote from: sjlocke on September 17, 2010, 07:12
Um, again, DNY59 is a regular contributor. Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble.
A user with 790000+ downloads can hardly be called regular contributor

it's called working hard, some of you around here should try it sometime...

Or being the first one in the world to shoot a isolated red apple with a green leaf on top. Sometimes being at the right place at the right time help the "working hard" aspect

SNP · « **Reply #42 on:** September 17, 2010, 11:16 »

sure, but we're talking about apples and oranges anyways, since the point of highlighting this example is the incorrect assumption that this contributor is an admin/inspector/employee. she is none of those things. she is a contributor only, which negates the whole theory behind this thread.

loop · « **Reply #43 on:** September 17, 2010, 11:25 »

Quote from: hawk_eye on September 17, 2010, 11:16

sure, but we're talking about apples and oranges anyways, since the point of highlighting this example is the incorrect assumption that this contributor is an admin/inspector/employee. she is none of those things. she is a contributor only, which negates the whole theory behind this thread.

Se has a lot of very good, very styled and very well pothographed stock work. Simplicity is a tricky word, in this context. All she has just can be reached with cpmpetence and hard work.

vonkara · « **Reply #44 on:** September 17, 2010, 11:31 »

Quote from: hawk_eye on September 17, 2010, 11:16

sure, but we're talking about apples and oranges anyways, since the point of highlighting this example is the incorrect assumption that this contributor is an admin/inspector/employee. she is none of those things. she is a contributor only, which negates the whole theory behind this thread.

I agree, but she still got files inspected in a couple of hours

FD · « **Reply #45 on:** September 17, 2010, 11:38 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 17, 2010, 05:07

BTW, I didn't have "serving" as a keyword. I do now .

At least this post served for something. The CV can be funny. Serving: do you mean move or serve as in sports? I had visions of that male steward throwing food trays through the cabin like tennis balls.

I always suppressed the urge to ask what arrangement you made with the airline, but I know your rule about not enlightening possible competitors.

Yap : this is the one I was looking for.

SNP · « **Reply #46 on:** September 17, 2010, 11:41 »

I've had files turn around in hours. it's a fluke, it happens. many times my files get through in 24 hours. I'm always surprised, since the exclusive inspection queue is more like 3-5 days lately. there is no evidence of anything nefarious in your example.

FD · « **Reply #47 on:** September 17, 2010, 11:48 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 17, 2010, 11:03

Oh sure, you can do that in the advanced search too.

I needed it in a rush. I realize I could have peeked in my Hall of Fame too.

madelaide · « **Reply #48 on:** September 17, 2010, 16:39 »

I have no problems with a site giving preference or being less picky to some members, unless it's about image quality. I only dislike when they deny this happens.

ShadySue · « **Reply #49 on:** September 17, 2010, 16:43 »

Quote from: madelaide on September 17, 2010, 16:39

I have no problems with a site giving preference or being less picky to some members, unless it's about image quality. I only dislike when they deny this happens.

JJRD has said in the forums that a selected few members have expedited acceptance. I don't have the reference handy to link to, but maybe someone else does.

crazychristina · « **Reply #50 on:** September 17, 2010, 16:59 »

I believe istock has given some contributors (not necessarily inspectors) the right to self inspect. Almost certainly based on very high acceptance rate from a large number of images. DNY59 would be a prime example (don't know if she has though).

LostOne · « **Reply #51 on:** September 19, 2010, 06:09 »

Looks like Sean is trying to figure out what's going on. Don't know if it'll work.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #52 on:** September 19, 2010, 06:43 »

^ Yeah, and the thread got locked with Sean getting a slightly nasty "been covered plenty of times" response. Wow, even the big dogs are getting spanked.

ETA: And what's going on with inspections? I noticed exclusive approval times are close to a week and non-exclusives are up to a month. I can't imagine they're being overwhelmed with new submissions. I would think the queue should be close to empty. Inspectors quitting?

gostwyck · « **Reply #53 on:** September 19, 2010, 07:18 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 19, 2010, 06:43

Inspectors quitting?

They certainly appear to be on a go-slow if nothing else. Istock have really opened a can of worms this time!

fullvalue · « **Reply #54 on:** September 19, 2010, 07:21 »

Sorry to be OT but independent's images are taking about a month?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #55 on:** September 19, 2010, 07:29 »

Okay, well it looks like a happened to take a random sample that may have been a scout image or something. I went back and looked at a bunch more and now it looks like both exclusives and non-exclusives are at 5-7 days. So I wonder what happened to the exclusive faster reviews benefit.

ShadySue · « **Reply #56 on:** September 19, 2010, 07:36 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 19, 2010, 07:29

Okay, well it looks like a happened to take a random sample that may have been a scout image or something. I went back and looked at a bunch more and now it looks like both exclusives and non-exclusives are at 5-7 days. So I wonder what happened to the exclusive faster reviews benefit.

It disappears from time to time until enough exclusives get tetchy about it.
The queue is currently standing at 72554, though there have been speculations as to how accurate that is.
Maybe the inspectors are on a go-slow; maybe some have resigned; maybe they're tied up inspecting Agency files.
Who knows?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #57 on:** September 19, 2010, 07:42 »

Where'd you find the queue count? I thought they removed that.

ShadySue · « **Reply #58 on:** September 19, 2010, 07:52 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 19, 2010, 07:42

Where'd you find the queue count? I thought they removed that.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stats

gostwyck · « **Reply #59 on:** September 19, 2010, 08:15 »

Someone mentioned in a post on the 'Where we go from here" thread that inspectors are paid 50c per image. The entire post has since been deleted.

ShadySue · « **Reply #60 on:** September 19, 2010, 08:20 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 19, 2010, 08:15

Someone mentioned in a post on the 'Where we go from here" thread that inspectors are paid 50c per image. The entire post has since been deleted.

However, I couldn't work out whether they were quoting an accurate figure or merely as I might have said something like, "the inspectors get their pittance for inspecting a file ..."
Interesting that they deleted it, though. Maybe it was too near the truth.
Earlier in the week, in reply to posts on the point that unlike selling apples where you have to go and buy another apple wholesale every time you sell one to maintain your stocks, once a file has been inspected it can sell numerous times only 'costing' server space, someone posted that the 'cost' of inspecting a file was $60, which sounded like a bizarre number pulled out of thin air to me, and they didn't make an attempt to justify it.

sharpshot · « **Reply #61 on:** September 19, 2010, 10:52 »

50c seems a lot compared to the amounts I have seen for other sites. Would a site that is about to cut the already lowest commissions for contributors pay lots more to inspectors?

jbarber873 · « **Reply #62 on:** September 19, 2010, 11:04 »

Quote from: hawk_eye on September 17, 2010, 01:20

I think it's a nice, useful image. how about we evaluate the originality of one of yours?

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-13292606-internet-arrow-clicks-stick-figure-bulls-eye-target.php

Meow! I like the image- it's graphic, and right to the point!

gostwyck · « **Reply #63 on:** September 19, 2010, 11:11 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 19, 2010, 10:52

50c seems a lot compared to the amounts I have seen for other sites. Would a site that is about to cut the already lowest commissions for contributors pay lots more to inspectors?

Maybe they're cutting that back too! It is a lot more than other agencies that I know but, to be fair, Istock inspectors are trained to a much higher standard and I'm sure spend far longer examining each image. Very occasionally I've had an image rejected for an issue only viewable at 100% (and somehow missed it myself) but the image passed inspection everywhere else.

ShadySue · « **Reply #64 on:** September 19, 2010, 11:58 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 19, 2010, 10:52

50c seems a lot compared to the amounts I have seen for other sites. Would a site that is about to cut the already lowest commissions for contributors pay lots more to inspectors?

Probably, if for no other reason than they have the legal guarantee and the extended legal guarantee.

djpadavona · « **Reply #65 on:** September 20, 2010, 15:57 »

Quote from: nosaya on September 16, 2010, 16:57

No, they don't.
I am an exclusive & it can take several days to get inpected.

But then again, I am not a BD exclusive.

Haven't uploaded to IS since the expletive hit the fan. But I can tell you it often took 4-6 days to get my exclusive files reviewed. And there have been multiple complaints on the Exclusive forum about the length of review times, and some of those have come from black diamonds.

donding · « **Reply #66 on:** September 20, 2010, 16:06 »

Quote from: djpadavona on September 20, 2010, 15:57

Quote from: nosaya on September 16, 2010, 16:57
No, they don't.
I am an exclusive & it can take several days to get inpected.

But then again, I am not a BD exclusive.

Haven't uploaded to IS since the expletive hit the fan. But I can tell you it often took 4-6 days to get my exclusive files reviewed. And there have been multiple complaints on the Exclusive forum about the length of review times, and some of those have come from black diamonds.

I'm not exclusive and have not uploaded to iStock for a quite a while, but could the delay be due to the inspection's of the "Agency Collection"? Or maybe some of the inspector went on strike...

djpadavona · « **Reply #67 on:** September 20, 2010, 16:07 »

Quote from: Vonkara on September 17, 2010, 11:31

Quote from: hawk_eye on September 17, 2010, 11:16
sure, but we're talking about apples and oranges anyways, since the point of highlighting this example is the incorrect assumption that this contributor is an admin/inspector/employee. she is none of those things. she is a contributor only, which negates the whole theory behind this thread.

I agree, but she still got files inspected in a couple of hours

I've had files inspected in a couple of hours before too. It happens.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStockphoto Inspection Preferential Lane (Read 16817 times)

rubyroo

lisafx

nruboc

rubyroo

RacePhoto

vonkara

vonkara

jbarber873

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors