MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Does anyone have a good word to say about istock?  (Read 22998 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« Reply #125 on: August 01, 2011, 18:49 »
0
Okay, so now I feel like a jerk.  Suljo, sorry if I hurt your feelings. 

I absolutely understand why you are angry at Istock.  A lot of people are similarly angry at them, and that often includes me. 

I don't object to complaining about any agency.  Just got tired of hearing the SAME joke repeated in nearly every post.  Maybe your more recent posts have been more constructive.  I hope so.

I don't know anyone here as a person, just as a forum persona.  Sometimes a particular persona will get on my nerves.  From the popularity of the "ignore" button, it seems I am not alone in feeling that way.  The ten members who have me on ignore would obviously agree :)

No point in taking the ignores too personally.  If someone eggs your house of burns a bag of doggie doo on your porch, then you should maybe be offended. ;)


« Reply #126 on: August 01, 2011, 19:50 »
0
I find Suljo's rages in themselves funny (like black comedy) it's his/her grammar, syntax and spelling that really bug me. If he/she is not a native English speaker I will give it a bit more leeway, but come on.

Anyhoo to answer the OP
IS positive: I earn the most money from them
IS negatives: they tell half-truths a lot and Lobo

« Reply #127 on: August 01, 2011, 21:58 »
0
Just got tired of hearing the SAME joke repeated in nearly every post. 
Shhh, Lisa, it is not a joke anymore, and for not noticing it so we both should be kicking our heads on the wall. :D

grp_photo

« Reply #128 on: August 01, 2011, 23:37 »
0
Look Lisa
After all iStock/CATTLE/LIVESTOCK isnt joke at all. It just what they name means in my language, and sweetest thing is that they behave like that see below.

S T O K A

Seams that Leaf put automatic filter when I type S T O K A filter automatically translate this to iStock so try this

and in translation field enter S T O K A without spaces

A few years ago when iStock started with their greedy games I had perhaps the sharpest expression, sometime it was to rude, while contributors (especially exclusives) are flooded with Woyay threads and been blind at that time. I have been interested how far iStock will go with it, and it seems to me there is no end. Now I do not care what they do because I do not expect anything positive from them in the future.
Now as I see more and more negative/sharp/rude opinions from people who were in Woyay club have bigger moans and conspiracy theories about iStock than me ever.
For me now it is just sweet when I opening iStock site (if smacks are online  ;D ) and just say for myself: "Lest see what Cat..e is doing/inventing how to screw all of us more"
How do you dont understand Lisa. This word is just Disambiguation of original meaning in my language.

Let's say you were a waitress and had a boss who is harassed or mistreated you and other workers, and who had a funny name or surname that reflected his behavior and that became his nickname.
Is that so hard to figure out.

Any how Cat..e is to soft(drink) and wrong word for iSotck what they are. More appropriate description for them will be GRDY ARGNT BSTRDS but I unfortunately I dont call them like that in most my posts, even they deserve it
PERIOD

For me is funny English word CowBoy - if it is translated in my language it seams that mother of this Boy is Cow
or word CockPit of airplane seams you can see by youre self...
There lots of more ambiguous words but I can not remember right now...

 ---------------------------------

Can somebody quote this jabbering how can Lisa could read this with her hearing thirsty eyes on her avatar.

THNX
Suljo

Sorry for double post

on a special wish but now I'm on ignore too so maybe someone other have to quote it :-)

« Reply #129 on: August 02, 2011, 08:06 »
0
Just got tired of hearing the SAME joke repeated in nearly every post. 
Shhh, Lisa, it is not a joke anymore, and for not noticing it so we both should be kicking our heads on the wall. :D

Girls, girls calm down.
Saddest thing is that we fight and bully and ignoring each other When a major cause of infectious diseases is far from us. In Calgary.

lagereek

« Reply #130 on: August 03, 2011, 04:35 »
0
I do actually! and in spite of all flaming,  Ive had a great 5 years there, cant say anything else. They were once a powerhouse of a site, thats for sure. This exclusivity business is nothing new, the old trad-agencies were all person exclusivity geared but managed in a differant way.
If all this was just down to IS, etc, I would persevere, upload and everything but its not. Getty rules it with an iron fist and thats that. If Getty has problems with the micro, RF and contributors, well, thats nothing, just a spit in the ocean compared with the problems of financiers, debts and all and frankly, I dont think the Getty as we know it, will be around for too long, they have had their time, 20 years and its time to move over really.

rubyroo

« Reply #131 on: August 03, 2011, 06:08 »
0
I have two good words to say about iStock.

"Rob Sylvan"

He was great, and so helpful.  If it hadn't been for iStock, I'd never have come across him.

« Reply #132 on: August 03, 2011, 17:14 »
0
Girls, girls calm down.
Saddest thing is that we fight and bully and ignoring each other When a major cause of infectious diseases is far from us. In Calgary.

I will take your statement as a metaphor and agree with you wholeheartedly.  :)

« Reply #133 on: August 03, 2011, 21:12 »
0
I have two good words to say about iStock.

"Rob Sylvan"

He was great, and so helpful.  If it hadn't been for iStock, I'd never have come across him.

I absolutely echo your positive thoughts about the hunk in boots - he did an amazing job of being their public face in the forums. Firm, calm and always treated everyone with respect. I know he worked trade shows for them, and I expect he was equally good at that.

However Rob is no longer with iStock and so I'd disqualify the comment in that we're not talking about all the things that used to be good in the past, but things that are good now. Unfortunately for us and for iStock, Rob is not currently part of their team.

traveler1116

« Reply #134 on: August 03, 2011, 21:28 »
0
I have two good words to say about iStock.

"Rob Sylvan"

He was great, and so helpful.  If it hadn't been for iStock, I'd never have come across him.

I absolutely echo your positive thoughts about the hunk in boots - he did an amazing job of being their public face in the forums. Firm, calm and always treated everyone with respect. I know he worked trade shows for them, and I expect he was equally good at that.

However Rob is no longer with iStock and so I'd disqualify the comment in that we're not talking about all the things that used to be good in the past, but things that are good now. Unfortunately for us and for iStock, Rob is not currently part of their team.

He's doing a training at the Utah lypse.

« Reply #135 on: August 04, 2011, 11:03 »
0
I dont' have too much to complain about IS, except for the Redeemed Credits.
Recently SS is really bothering me with nonsense rejections, while IS continues to accept my photos (and sell them). In these months I'm more against SS than with IS.

« Reply #136 on: August 04, 2011, 15:03 »
0
While there's been a lot to be mad at regarding iStock over the past year, the site seems to have settled down a bit over the summer.  I was pleased to see that they are advertising on the TV Guide channel website.  Hey, it's something...

 :D
« Last Edit: August 04, 2011, 15:18 by Sedge »

« Reply #137 on: August 04, 2011, 18:29 »
0
Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.

You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?

Lol, you can try to spin it that way, but obviously that was not the intended meaning of the OP:
' Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think.  Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised....'

Well, Let's ask the OP...That's fair enough I suspect.

« Reply #138 on: August 04, 2011, 18:37 »
0
'1.  If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?'

You didn't ask for 'balanced'.  You asked for positive.  

And if you're looking for 'positive' and you believe #2, then you would want to hear from exclusives, definitely.

A better title might be 'Are any independents having any positive thoughts about IS'.

"Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think.  Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised...."

I think he was pretty clear in his initial statement that he was more interested in the non exclusive opinion.  "Institutionalized" simply implies that he understands that exclusives will have a more emotional, defensive response.  Both you and SNP have emphasized the reasoning as to why he used this term by your very responses.

It takes a fair degree of spin to characterise the OP as anything other than giving a negative connotation to IS exclusivity.

Funnily enough I'm far less emotional than when it seemed like I was getting regular cuts in commissions or there was some other bad news that applied to me whenever I opened this forum. Sadly the days where SS gave regular increases are a distant memory, as are things like upload incentives from FT (remember those!).

Since then we've had:
- Dreamstime rate cut round 1 (50-30% for base images)
- Dreamstime rate cut round 2 (30-25% for "level 0")
- Dreamstime image culls for "similars"
- Crestock.
- Fotolia V2 (not intentional but what a disaster that was for many)
- Fotolia rate cut round 1
- Fotlia increase to goalposts round 1
- Fotolia (the never-ever subs site) introducing subscriptions
- Fotolias rate constant rate cuts by stealth as the value of the US$ diminishes
- Fotolia rate cut round 2
- iStock rate cut & RC introduction
- SS starts requiring withholding tax being paid
- Lucky Oliver closing
- StockXpert being sold to Jupiter & introducing commissions
- StockXpert being closed
- Jupiter being sold to Getty @ a fire sale
- Snapvillage being closed
- Zymetrical being closed
- Albumo.com being closed
(I'm sure I'm missing some of the low-lights reel of course)

Throw in the experience of images going through a gauntlet of 10+ sets of different reviewers mostly with varying degrees of competence or standards that they apply, and with the sum total I'm surprised not more of us are institutionalised.

Through that time the only 2 sites where I personally saw a consistent increase in both income and $ per download were IS and SS. The problem with both was that downloads were dropping at a rate that meant income was only barely rising. With IS I couldn't add enough images due to upload restrictions, with SS, the influx is so great that its a constant job of "feeding the beast".

That wasn't his question.  It was simply "is there anyone non-exclusive that has anything good to say about Istock".  The point I am making is that a lot of people posting in this particular thread have taken a pragmatically inferred question and made it their own.  Op didn't ask about any other site...just IS.  Now, I cannot speak for the OP on his particular definition.  Websters #1 definition of this word is: "to incorporate into a structured and often highly formalized system"....need I say ISTOCK.  At least this was my personal interpretation of the OP...maybe I am * nuts. ::)

« Reply #139 on: August 04, 2011, 19:02 »
0
He is merely asking for feedback from non exclusives in his OP.  You've spun it. And so has Sean.

I didn't spin anything.  By the phrasing, it was what it was.

Institutionalized: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system.

You DO know that that are multiple definitions of institutionalized, correct?

The point I am making is that a lot of people posting in this particular thread have taken a pragmatically inferred question and made it their own.  Now, I cannot speak for the OP on his particular definition but, using common sense,  Websters #1 definition of this word is: "to incorporate into a structured and often highly formalized system"....need I say ISTOCK.  At least this was my personal interpretation of the OP.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1536 Views
Last post March 23, 2009, 20:07
by vonkara
27 Replies
5645 Views
Last post September 26, 2011, 21:23
by velocicarpo
3 Replies
2477 Views
Last post January 28, 2013, 20:32
by Suljo
22 Replies
2861 Views
Last post June 25, 2013, 13:12
by cobalt
18 Replies
2787 Views
Last post March 21, 2019, 11:23
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results