My question is - but why DeepMeta at all? Why not fix the upload process itself?

I am totally with you on this point. I resisted DeepMeta for 5 years, and finally broke down this year and started using it, but it is really ridiculous to have to have third party software installed just to upload. I too hope they make that a little bit easier in the new version.

I think they will start to implement things in August. Not all things at the same time, but one by one.

I think they will start to implement things in August. Not all things at the same time, but one by one.

Oh good. So they can drag the problems out much longer. 

Quote from: cclapper on July 28, 2010, 15:52

Quote from: Dreamframer on July 28, 2010, 13:47

I think they will start to implement things in August. Not all things at the same time, but one by one.

Oh good. So they can drag the problems out much longer. 

I was just thinking how to stop moaning but as I see Saga will be just begin...
Stay tuned 

Ha ha

I am totally with you on this point. I resisted DeepMeta for 5 years, and finally broke down this year and started using it, but it is really ridiculous to have to have third party software installed just to upload. I too hope they make that a little bit easier in the new version.

Two reasons (but I don't have vectors or sound, just photos):
1 - when the upload fails (very regularly), deepmeta will keep retrying in the background without you having to go thru all the keywords and stuff again. Sometimes, it takes 4 retrys.
2 - when you have a large batch, you can all prepare them in deepmeta, and let them in the queue; whenever there is a free slot, you can just upload with one click.

What iStock should really do is maintain a release library. Think of all the lost bandwidth when you have to upload the release every time...

Quote from: FD-regular on July 29, 2010, 14:10

Quote from: cclapper on July 28, 2010, 13:27

I am totally with you on this point. I resisted DeepMeta for 5 years, and finally broke down this year and started using it, but it is really ridiculous to have to have third party software installed just to upload. I too hope they make that a little bit easier in the new version.

Two reasons (but I don't have vectors or sound, just photos):
1 - when the upload fails (very regularly), deepmeta will keep retrying in the background without you having to go thru all the keywords and stuff again. Sometimes, it takes 4 retrys.
2 - when you have a large batch, you can all prepare them in deepmeta, and let them in the queue; whenever there is a free slot, you can just upload with one click.

But if I were uploading directly to their site, would there be a need for retrying? In 6 years of uploading to other sites, I have never had issues uploading (except when the whole site is down).

What iStock should really do is maintain a release library. Think of all the lost bandwidth when you have to upload the release every time...

That's a good point. This would definitely be a good improvement.
[/quote]

That would be a very good point in earlier times
Now, you have to upload new model release for every new photo session, which means, you can't use model releases remembered in any kind of MR library (Unless you produce hundreds of images of the same session that could use one MR which you could upload and associate it with that exact session)
For people like me, who have only few images from every, so called "photo session", it doesn't make any difference if there is MR library or not.

I'll try to explain more precisely what Suljo means when he says "iStock" instead of Istock.
I think the best comparison in English would be "*insult removed*".
I mean, when we say for someone that he is "iStock", that means he is the most primitive, rude, not always stupid, but mean person without any feelings for people around him.

I hope the term "iStock" is more clear to everybody here now.

Obviously Suljo, you really hate Istock. I always wondered why you hate them so much? Is it because of rejection rate, or something else? Do they reject your images mostly because of keywords or not?
It confuses me a bit that you have decent sales there, and yet you are very angry at them. Maybe you explained in some thread why you feel that way, but I missed it.

I will try to explain it but my forum skills are not good enough to quote all "dilemma" about my "adoration" and explanation what my famous iStock site means to me and where are I see me in they hierarchy.
So lets start in this way.

I don't think Suljo hates IStock.
If he truly did, he would have stopped uploading.
I think he likes complaining, he's very vocal, and gets irritated by some of IStock's policies.
And he's right. I do too.
To keep it in a nutshell, everything about IStock is overly complicated.

I dont hate them (little bit of course when reject my image or illusrtation) because of they nonconsitanceand and nonobjectively policy, iStock wants from non exclusives flat dull images and flat illustrations which not pick stick in eye of wanabee buyer designers (after that they send you "lets say gentle explanation how they "wanabee" "Designers" like it just flat how they to this image they own crappy filters, while they accept exclusive image which was over saturated, over manipulated and over and over of everything???
I understand that is they primitive way to put away our images from buyers + they best match strategy.
Illustrations are story for lobotomy there too.
For even better image they incriminate you in first place that you copy that from someone image for which you dont have copyright and dont have image shotted by youself???
Of course that I dont have that because I draw it from my head.
How I can tell them that I am not naive and that I dont need to sketch something on paper and draw it under this fckin sketch?!?

@Suljo:
If you'd ever shown a potential (albeit probably small, but steady) buyer iStock, and let them search to see how it worked, and the search result (because of poor keywording) was so bad they were calling their colleagues over for a laugh, you'd wish that everyone who spammed their keywords would have a six-month ban.
Of course, that was before BM2, which has obviated some of the worst excesses.
But then came Vetta, where a lot of the keywording is poor, but it dominates the search results.
 :'(

PS: granted that keywording if your own language isn't one of the supported languages must be a real nightmare.

You are right for bad keywords, they are real nightmare. I also buy images from time to time but form DT mostly (in principle way I DONT WANT TO BUY/CONVERT by earnings from iStock even they have eg "better" search engine for exclusive image which I DONT WANT in same reason mentioned above.

Yes Lisa,
Basic meaning of the term "iStock" is a livestock. People are using the term normally when they talk about domestic animals like cows, pigs etc.
But when you say that someone is "iStock" that means what I said before. Someone who is "iStock" probably acts like a pig.

Heh Ivan
In our language it is more clear what iStock is but for meanings what iStock is deserves better explanation.
When I talk with my stock friends on coffee/beer on our language in our we omit letter "i" and after that is word STOcK and thru our declinations iStock eg. (iStock mi opet odkantala fotku/ilistraciju/iStock again reject my image/illustration)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyhow this post above is my interpretation of meaning/s of what iStock is. But somehow I watch Mad Max 1, 2, 3 again and try to compare it in my vision how it works in my perspective.

Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome Battle

During and after watching I somehow recognize that Tina Turner is "Daddy Getty", Midget MasterBlaster is "iStock", Ugly Blaster is/are "reviewer/s", public behind are iStock exclusives on they forum and we nonexclusives are not Mel Gibson but we are representing all what Ugly Blaster kills before his advent.
Only if we keep our mouth shut we can be in they *insult removed* arena...

From my degenerative optics sweetest part of movie is when they lift down Midget (iStock) to pigs (lets say us ... 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So from different perspectives iSTOCK or iStock doesn't necessary means that they are Cattle or Livestock, anyhow they are not cruel *insult removed* in other way like some kind of introduction of Frantz Kafka mentioned in his PROCESS but *insult removed* are lets say Ok muvie...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My conclusion anyhow if I am rude or whatever is they not evaluate same work in same manner, and that is well of injustice which is presented all time which I spend with them.
The movie has multiple layers and in some times I wonder that I am pig while they drop lifting "Midget Master Blaster" to us (contributors)
Njamyyyyyy......

Just don't touch anything...

Quote from: FD-regular on July 29, 2010, 14:10

What iStock should really do is maintain a release library. Think of all the lost bandwidth when you have to upload the release every time...

so why did you say it? 

Because I do have many shots from the same session. I don't do many sessions and if I have to organize one, I take full advantage. It's not like IS needs a release for every day. I had a shoot last year with people coming in from further away and it took 3 days. It was clearly mentioned in the shoot description, and they accepted it.
It's also eating reviewer's time Doesn't it mean that reviewers have to examine every release over and over again when you upload mixed shoot sessions?

So far I like it.

It's a beauty, it's a gem of modern design!
It's the first time I saw an absolute toolbar (contributor, at the bottom) that doesn't hurt the eyes. It's much more buyer oriented while the contributor still can see all vital info at the bottom. The monochrome fluid width designs seems to be in (123RF, BigStock). DT (frontpage) and FT start to look old-fashioned.

CTOMAN: use CTRL+ in your browser to magnify the fonts temporarily.

is it just me or is the download date column missing from the details page? 

is it just me or is the download date column missing from the details page? 

I think it's you...

I see it as well with all the dates - unfortunately not too many from today