pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStockphoto Upload Limit  (Read 20519 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vicu

« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2006, 16:27 »
0
It looks like my decision to tell Istock to screw themselves was a good one.  I have not added a single photo in months, nor do I intend to do so in the future. 

THANK YOU! You are setting an example for others who, despite enduring ongoing persecution and maltreatment, continue to expel valuable emotional energy ranting and raving about istock at every opportunity. Yet they keep their portfolios there. I don't get it. Why give them so much power? Why obsess about something you believe to be inherently evil? Isn't that time better spent building your portfolio at the other more perfect stock sites?

So thank you again, for showing us a shining example of how the oppressed should put their focus on greener pastures and not look back at the steaming mass of poo that is istock, lest they turn into a pillar of bitter salt.


Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2006, 17:58 »
0
You may save your sarcasm for someone who gives a rat's ass about it.

It looks like my decision to tell Istock to screw themselves was a good one.  I have not added a single photo in months, nor do I intend to do so in the future.

THANK YOU! You are setting an example for others who, despite enduring ongoing persecution and maltreatment, continue to expel valuable emotional energy ranting and raving about istock at every opportunity. Yet they keep their portfolios there. I don't get it. Why give them so much power? Why obsess about something you believe to be inherently evil? Isn't that time better spent building your portfolio at the other more perfect stock sites?

So thank you again, for showing us a shining example of how the oppressed should put their focus on greener pastures and not look back at the steaming mass of poo that is istock, lest they turn into a pillar of bitter salt.

« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2006, 18:02 »
0
ok, ok, let's try a keep this civil.

i am going to bed now, so don't let things explode while i sleep. :)

if this thread makes a turn for the worse by the morning it will be locked or removed.  I hope we can continue in constructive discussion.

« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2006, 18:11 »
0
Hehe...  ;)

« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2006, 18:37 »
0
Coming back to the main topic, in a sense I really appreciate the upload restriction at this point.  If I would have the choice to upload more than 2 pictures a day with IS with their new keyword system added to the non-FTP upload, I would lose my patience....

« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2006, 18:39 »
0
Just thought I would throw in my own two cents here.
My sales aint great at iStock, but they have gotten better since they revamped the keyword stuff.
My upload limit has been reduced to 15 also but they are also approving alot of my images....
As far as the uploading goes, I now do it exclusively through Aperture. I wish other sites would come up with a plug in like this, it makes it a whole lot easier......

S

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2006, 19:00 »
0
Such a naughty little person  . . .  :D

Hehe...  ;)


« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2006, 03:21 »
0
Personally I think for people starting out or with a large exisiting portfolio 15 would be pretty squeezy. And if I wasn't exclusive I think I'd be somewhat cheesed off - it would have been fairer in appearance if everyone including exclusives had a cut in uploads.

I rather think that in many ways istock have been victims of their own success . Many of their recent problems -poor implementation of the new search and keywording, the dreaded disambiguation, all sort of issues with poor communication, increasing queues all strike me as classic signs of a business which has outgrown its current organisational structure. It's very rapidly gone from a backyard operation to a multi million dollar operation which is a totally different ballgame. Hopefully they will get themselves through it.

 With the queues they are really caught between a rock and a hard place. You can't just magically produce new inspectors - they need training - and poorly trained inspectors reducing the queues quickly with arbitrary decisions would produce more complaints than long queues, I would have thought. So they can either have two or three week or more waiting periods or try to get people to cull their own images by making them think a bit harder about what to upload, by imposing limits. 

« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2006, 06:43 »
0
I've seen people complain not only about the preferential acceptance rates for exclusives but also the order in which photos appear when using their search engine.  They are getting sloppy, even though istock provides about 10 percent of Getty's revenues.  The irony of istock is that their goal-at least as it seems to me-is to create a Micro Ghetto predominantly populated by the exclusives.  At 15 images a week, you have to be very good to reach the exclusive mark of 500 downloads.  Can someone explain disambiguation (I hope I spelled it correctly) concept? 

« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2006, 07:19 »
0
The preferential treatment in teh best match search has apparently ended (it only lasted a weekend). though the ratings gangs still get preference (you need a 5 star rating to be best match).

Getting to exclusive isn't a major - if you upload 15 per week, I would expect you would get their easily in a year.  Get to diamond where it makes sense to be exclusive is a whole different matter.

Do a search on disambiguation or look on the istock forum.  Basically, they have taken you keywords and assigned tags to them.  ie orange can be orange (colour), orange (fruit) or you can tick both.  However, the computer obviously doens't know which so it made a guess. when you disambiguate, you correct the computers errror.

« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2006, 07:31 »
0
Thanks CJ for the explanation.  But, we were required to do that anyways during the uploads.  Ok. sorted.

« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2006, 08:20 »
0
yeah, you are required to disambiguate when you upload but for those with images online before the keyword tags were in place, you can either just let your images 'rot' :) in disambiguation, or you can disambiguate them and hope for the best.

« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2006, 16:12 »
0
I've seen people complain not only about the preferential acceptance rates for exclusives but also the order in which photos appear when using their search engine.  They are getting sloppy, even though istock provides about 10 percent of Getty's revenues.  The irony of istock is that their goal-at least as it seems to me-is to create a Micro Ghetto predominantly populated by the exclusives.  At 15 images a week, you have to be very good to reach the exclusive mark of 500 downloads.  Can someone explain disambiguation (I hope I spelled it correctly) concept? 
well I've only been exclusive for a month, and as I said on another post it's not affected my acceptance rate any. If some exclusives do get accepted at a higher rate then it might just be because they have a better feeling for what istock will accept  as that's all they do (and I'll grant you that rejections aren't always obvious and neither always are acceptances)

It's not particularly hard to make exclusive at istock - it took me about seven months, in two of which I uploaded zero images as I was overseas and only in the first two months did I upload more than about twenty in a month (I have a 200 image portfolio - not a big deal - and it's not a classic stock portfolio either - no business handshakes!)
Disambiguation is a matter of going through exisiting images and making sure that correct meanings are assigned to the keywords (tags as they are now caled) If you leave the old ones undisambiguated then they are likely to drop back in the search a bit. Although now so many peole have disambiguated their files I think the advantage has dropped back  - I got a very nice upload increase when I was one of the few who had done it but that and the last round of changes in the search engine which have deemphasised excllusivenesss and re-emphasised newness of files has slowed things down about 25 per cent in the last couple of weeks.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2006, 16:34 by Susan S. »

« Reply #38 on: December 08, 2006, 16:05 »
0
It is not difficult to get exclusive with this limit. If you provide good, useful pictures, that is. (EDIT: I have just a little over a hundred pictures in my portfolio. Very few, if any of these are of the classic stock-type.)
There is way too much whining about low acceptance rates. Hell yeah, I'm facing rejections all the time just like the rest of you, but most often I learn something from it.

Upload limit: Personally I think it is a good thing, that they decide to concentrate on the already long cue. I guess they are just as interested as the contributors to have a large collection. As some of you might know, Istockphoto actually makes money on selling pictures - Of course they want a big collection! If they feel they are short of inspectors, I'm sure they'll put some new inspectors to training.

« Last Edit: December 08, 2006, 16:11 by meckoy »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
6141 Views
Last post February 25, 2006, 08:59
by leaf
3 Replies
3730 Views
Last post May 03, 2006, 05:33
by leaf
19 Replies
6904 Views
Last post June 01, 2009, 14:47
by leaf
8 Replies
8101 Views
Last post January 23, 2011, 14:32
by aeonf
0 Replies
2162 Views
Last post June 03, 2020, 10:51
by cristianstorto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle