MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: ShadySue on December 13, 2012, 18:50
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1)
-
I was about to write that i wondered why I had to scroll down when my screen is wide.
But i couldnt, I found out I was banned.
-
I was about to write that i wondered why I had to scroll down when my screen is wide.
But i couldnt, I found out I was banned.
LOL you will have to learn to conform or you won't have any stock site forums left where you are allowed to write :)
-
I was about to write that i wondered why I had to scroll down when my screen is wide.
But i couldnt, I found out I was banned.
Yeaaaay, join the club. ;D
-
The Fellowship of the Banned...
-
You get exclusive clubs, and excluded clubs, and combinations for both. ;D
-
Looks like GL.
-
"Hello, my name is Helen...."
LOL, is this how they are going to start all of their posts now that they are not surrounded by a cloak of corporate secrecy?
-
hmm, the person who suggested they offer a discount..... is no one going to bite him for saying that?
-
The Fellowship of the Banned...
One ring to bind them all and in the darkness keep them.
-
Looking at all the giddy responses makes me think iStock is a cult.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1[/url])
-
Looking at all the giddy responses makes me think iStock is a cult.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1[/url])
So, what? We're never allowed to respond positively to an initiative?
-
Nope.
No more hope or positivity permitted. MSG now stands for Morose Sullen Groaners.
(No offence to anyone specifically - I'm just as guilty myself).
-
it sucks.
I cannot read the text it is unsharp and blurred and very small confusingly centered in the middle. The pictures are dull full of photographic flaws, overfiltered ,really strange white balances and the graphics are primitively made with annoying colours.
An attempt to play simple and primitive retro.
Worst is that it scrolls down and leaves ½ of my screen white.
I dont like it, but I never liked istocks design.
I cannot believe they made a text, that I cannot read.
-
Looking at all the giddy responses makes me think iStock is a cult.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1[/url])
So, what? We're never allowed to respond positively to an initiative?
Sean, I am with you. We all agree iStock deserves to be criticized, however, it is not nice to wish for its demise. Indies should be sensitive to the fact that many people are still receiving meaningful income from it, including indies. Just because iStock did injustice to you, it's not fair to sink the ship with many innocent victims with it. Sometimes I find it ironic for those who complain about poor sales while trying to bring down iStock at the same time.
-
Yes, I think we have a problem here in that contributors turn against contributors at times. The fact is we should all be on the same side, regardless of allegiances to any particular agency.
Every contributor who takes this seriously is working bloody hard to create or maintain something stable on shifting sands. We all know it's not easy, and we all understand eachothers' predicament better than the agencies do.
-
Im just talking about the design, and I dont like it.
Yesterday I was a judge in a photo competition in a small town out in the country, and the photos on istocks page and those in the competition were quite alike. And they shouldnt be.
The general impression should also be different.
-
Yes, I think we have a problem here in that contributors turn against contributors at times. The fact is we should all be on the same side, regardless of allegiances to any particular agency.
Every contributor who takes this seriously is working bloody hard to create or maintain something stable on shifting sands. We all know it's not easy, and we all understand eachothers' predicament better than the agencies do.
I agree. I was once an indie too. I just cannot imagine that other agencies, including Alamy, not to mention FT and DT, would allow the contributors to voice as much resentment as iStock has been on its own forums, so in this capacity, iStock is far more democratic than most agencies. Besides, you folks should understand Rebecca Rockafellar is just a general manager, her role is to manage, and not to set mandate. If you want to have real and substantial changes, you should find audience of Johnathan Klein and Carlyle management. When people praise the new face of iStock website, it is a affirmation of the employees, the front line workers, who have been working hard to make things better. It is not just and fair to insult these people and their efforts, and shoot any of your colleagues as suckers.
Can we be happier? Happy holidays, everyone.
-
::)
-
Yes, I think we have a problem here in that contributors turn against contributors at times. The fact is we should all be on the same side, regardless of allegiances to any particular agency.
Every contributor who takes this seriously is working bloody hard to create or maintain something stable on shifting sands. We all know it's not easy, and we all understand eachothers' predicament better than the agencies do.
I agree. I was once an indie too. I just cannot imagine that other agencies, including Alamy, not to mention FT and DT, would allow the contributors to voice as much resentment as iStock has been on its own forums, so in this capacity, iStock is far more democratic than most agencies. Besides, you folks should understand Rebecca Rockafellar is just a general manager, her role is to manage, and not to set mandate. If you want to have real and substantial changes, you should find audience of Johnathan Klein and Carlyle management. When people praise the new face of iStock website, it is a affirmation of the employees, the front line workers, who have been working hard to make things better. It is not just and fair to insult these people and their efforts, and shoot any of your colleagues as suckers.
Can we be happier? Happy holidays, everyone.
So now, istock is democratic?
And they work hard? and all is good? they probably smile awhile.
Not correct. Istock is the banana republic of stock and it has dug its own grave.
-
Yes, I think we have a problem here in that contributors turn against contributors at times. The fact is we should all be on the same side, regardless of allegiances to any particular agency.
Every contributor who takes this seriously is working bloody hard to create or maintain something stable on shifting sands. We all know it's not easy, and we all understand eachothers' predicament better than the agencies do.
I agree. I was once an indie too. I just cannot imagine that other agencies, including Alamy, not to mention FT and DT, would allow the contributors to voice as much resentment as iStock has been on its own forums, so in this capacity, iStock is far more democratic than most agencies. Besides, you folks should understand Rebecca Rockafellar is just a general manager, her role is to manage, and not to set mandate. If you want to have real and substantial changes, you should find audience of Johnathan Klein and Carlyle management. When people praise the new face of iStock website, it is a affirmation of the employees, the front line workers, who have been working hard to make things better. It is not just and fair to insult these people and their efforts, and shoot any of your colleagues as suckers.
Can we be happier? Happy holidays, everyone.
So now, istock is democratic?
And they work hard? and all is good? they probably smile awhile.
Not correct. Istock is the banana republic of stock and it has dug its own grave.
Nope, but they may not be the worst. Some of the comments are childish to say the least.
Grave or not, all of us, including businesses, will go there one day. Just it's not your party time yet.
-
Just making an observation. Stay cool. :)
cult |kəlt|
noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object : the cult of St. Olaf.
• a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister : a network of Satan-worshiping cults.
• a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing : a cult of personality surrounding the leaders.
• [usu. as adj. ] a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, esp. among a particular section of society : a cult film.
Looking at all the giddy responses makes me think iStock is a cult.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1[/url])
So, what? We're never allowed to respond positively to an initiative?
-
Looking at all the giddy responses makes me think iStock is a cult.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1[/url])
So, what? We're never allowed to respond positively to an initiative?
Sean, I am with you. We all agree iStock deserves to be criticized, however, it is not nice to wish for its demise. Indies should be sensitive to the fact that many people are still receiving meaningful income from it, including indies. Just because iStock did injustice to you, it's not fair to sink the ship with many innocent victims with it. Sometimes I find it ironic for those who complain about poor sales while trying to bring down iStock at the same time.
It would be pretty stupid of any indie to wish for Istock's demise as we would get so much more competition at the other sites if the exclusives started to give up their crowns. I really feel for all the exclusives who's livelihoods comes from their stock earnings.
-
It would be pretty stupid of any indie to wish for Istock's demise as we would get so much more competition at the other sites if the exclusives started to give up their crowns. I really feel for all the exclusives who's livelihoods comes from their stock earnings.
I really feel for ALL the contributors, exclusives or not, whose livelihoods were taking away by istocks greed. And I still wish for their demise. Not because I am interested in punishing the remaining contributors, but because I want to see the company, who still isn't satisfied with what they are getting and are looking for ways to get MORE, go down. And that applies to any company who treats people this way, not just istock. Yeah, there is going to be collateral damage, but that's pretty much how life is. The greater good...
There has been more than enough warning, so if exclusives want to continue to drink the koolaid and not get their ducks in a row, that is their choice, they can't really blame the people who are willing to take a stand and do what they feel is right. Again, blaming the wrong people. It's the contributors bad-mouthing istock's fault, not istock's fault. Yikes. ::)
-
We all agree iStock deserves to be criticized, however, it is not nice to wish for its demise. Indies should be sensitive to the fact that many people are still receiving meaningful income from it, including indies. Just because iStock did injustice to you, it's not fair to sink the ship with many innocent victims with it. Sometimes I find it ironic for those who complain about poor sales while trying to bring down iStock at the same time.
As one of the indies that would prefer for Istock to get its act together and recover from this tailspin, I am well aware how important they have been to the balance of the microstock industry. I continue to believe that Istock making exclusives happy while providing a stable platform for all of us to sell our images would be ideal.
However I must object to the notion that my and other indie contributors efforts to redirect our buyers to other, more equitable sites are responsible for "bringing down Istock". Istockphoto's demise is entirely self-inflicted. I am sure that if you review their business decisions of the past two years you will agree.
-
What could I possibly add to Lisa's post?
I agree 100%.
-
We all agree iStock deserves to be criticized, however, it is not nice to wish for its demise. Indies should be sensitive to the fact that many people are still receiving meaningful income from it, including indies. Just because iStock did injustice to you, it's not fair to sink the ship with many innocent victims with it. Sometimes I find it ironic for those who complain about poor sales while trying to bring down iStock at the same time.
As one of the indies that would prefer for Istock to get its act together and recover from this tailspin, I am well aware how important they have been to the balance of the microstock industry. I continue to believe that Istock making exclusives happy while providing a stable platform for all of us to sell our images would be ideal.
However I must object to the notion that my and other indie contributors efforts to redirect our buyers to other, more equitable sites are responsible for "bringing down Istock". Istockphoto's demise is entirely self-inflicted. I am sure that if you review their business decisions of the past two years you will agree.
Doesn't "self-inflected" go against the idea that Getty is making all the decisions.
It does get confusing when we discuss Getty and iStock in one post. Are they one or are they separate entities. Who makes the decisions?
-
Doesn't "self-inflected" go against the idea that Getty is making all the decisions.
First off, this misses the main point of my post, which was that it is not contributor actions that are killing Istock.
Secondly, seems pretty obvious they are now one entity. Most of Istock's original people have been replaced by Getty people. Since they are all part of one company and have been for almost 7 years, I don't see how anyone could view Getty's destruction of Istock as anything but self-destruction.
Getty/Istock = tom(ay)to/to(mah)to
-
So, I'm a Getty Photographer? :P ;) ???
-
Looking at all the giddy responses makes me think iStock is a cult.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1[/url])
So, what? We're never allowed to respond positively to an initiative?
Actually the responses are positively mild compared to those in better times. Not so long ago, when the Kool-Aid drinking was at it's peak, any sort of announcement on the forums immediately brought forth every Admin and Inspector across the world to gush in feverish praise and admiration __ and all within 45 minutes too. It was obvious that they had been summoned and it was their duty to pay appropriate homage to the machine.
-
Actually, no, they are not summoned. But as an admin you really live on the site and obviously you want to cheer the other members of the team with whatever it is they work on.
-
We all agree iStock deserves to be criticized, however, it is not nice to wish for its demise. Indies should be sensitive to the fact that many people are still receiving meaningful income from it, including indies. Just because iStock did injustice to you, it's not fair to sink the ship with many innocent victims with it. Sometimes I find it ironic for those who complain about poor sales while trying to bring down iStock at the same time.
As one of the indies that would prefer for Istock to get its act together and recover from this tailspin, I am well aware how important they have been to the balance of the microstock industry. I continue to believe that Istock making exclusives happy while providing a stable platform for all of us to sell our images would be ideal.
However I must object to the notion that my and other indie contributors efforts to redirect our buyers to other, more equitable sites are responsible for "bringing down Istock". Istockphoto's demise is entirely self-inflicted. I am sure that if you review their business decisions of the past two years you will agree.
According to your logic, Lisafx, may we come to the conclusion that if you ever complain that sales are not satisfactory at iStock, they must be self-inflicted?
Let's go back to the original topic, the issue is when iStock has a new web page, whether or not anyone can say anything positive about it. That was Sean's point, right? Also does it mean that if iStock has caused you grievance because of their management's greed, you can justify yourself to wish everyone else working for and selling through iStock sink with the boat because your own financial interests are not met, in other words, perhaps because of your own greed?
-
Getty acuired IS some years back and by today Getty have achieved exactly, 100% what they set out to do. Must say they played this one beautyfully, a master stroke indeed.
I dont really want to spell it out here but I am sure some of the older members know exactly what I am talking about.
-
Getty acuired IS some years back and by today Getty have achieved exactly, 100% what they set out to do. Must say they played this one beautyfully, a master stroke indeed.
I dont really want to spell it out here but I am sure some of the older members know exactly what I am talking about.
Chris,
I am very old and have a hell of a time understanding anything you talk about. I doubt that you intend to be understood. ;D
-
What could I possibly add to Lisa's post?
I agree 100%.
me too.
-
It would be pretty stupid of any indie to wish for Istock's demise as we would get so much more competition at the other sites if the exclusives started to give up their crowns. I really feel for all the exclusives who's livelihoods comes from their stock earnings.
I really feel for ALL the contributors, exclusives or not, whose livelihoods were taking away by istocks greed. And I still wish for their demise. Not because I am interested in punishing the remaining contributors, but because I want to see the company, who still isn't satisfied with what they are getting and are looking for ways to get MORE, go down. And that applies to any company who treats people this way, not just istock. Yeah, there is going to be collateral damage, but that's pretty much how life is. The greater good...
There has been more than enough warning, so if exclusives want to continue to drink the koolaid and not get their ducks in a row, that is their choice, they can't really blame the people who are willing to take a stand and do what they feel is right. Again, blaming the wrong people. It's the contributors bad-mouthing istock's fault, not istock's fault. Yikes. ::)
-
According to your logic, Lisafx, may we come to the conclusion that if you ever complain that sales are not satisfactory at iStock, they must be self-inflicted?
I don't think you're following my logic. :-\
I see few to no parallels between the way most contributors have conducted our businesses the last few years and the way Getty/Istock have conducted theirs.
Personally, if I make as many boneheaded and greedy mistakes as they did, then yes, I would expect my sales to suffer, and I would also expect that drop would be equally evident across all sites, rather than isolated to one or two who have clearly lost the plot.
-
:
-
Dr. Sheldon Cooper has spoken.
::)
-
According to your logic, Lisafx, may we come to the conclusion that if you ever complain that sales are not satisfactory at iStock, they must be self-inflicted?
I don't think you're following my logic. :-\
I see few to no parallels between the way most contributors have conducted our businesses the last few years and the way Getty/Istock have conducted theirs.
Personally, if I make as many boneheaded and greedy mistakes as they did, then yes, I would expect my sales to suffer, and I would also expect that drop would be equally evident across all sites, rather than isolated to one or two who have clearly lost the plot.
No Lisa, if I follow your logic, I will make myself very unhappy. :(
Seriously, being one of the most successful stock photographers as you are, I expect you show more class, generosity, open-mindedness and positivity. When you use words like death warrant and such, it somehow reminds me of jihad. What is wrong if someone praises the new design of a webpage? I don't like every elements about the new design, but I have no issue if others like it. I distinguish the efforts of iStock employees and contributors from those who only want to profit as much as possible from other people's labor. I also feel uncomfortable when more seasoned and successful contributors show excessive jealousy, prejudice and self-righteousness to their peers.
-
sounds like you are taking the design of that page pretty personally. maybe you are the one that designed it?
lisa is one of the many hard working contributors that come here and also one of the most level headed and intelligent contributors. there are many others too, but i dont understand why you continue to try to shove your thoughts on istock down everyone elses throat. everyone is entitled to their own opinions. if you think istock is great and want to hang around, great. best of luck. lots of others have moved on, and im guessing a lot more must be getting ready to move on, judging by the attention all of a sudden from this rebecca and folks like yourself.
-
:
-
sounds like you are taking the design of that page pretty personally. maybe you are the one that designed it?
lisa is one of the many hard working contributors that come here and also one of the most level headed and intelligent contributors. there are many others too, but i dont understand why you continue to try to shove your thoughts on istock down everyone elses throat. everyone is entitled to their own opinions. if you think istock is great and want to hang around, great. best of luck. lots of others have moved on, and im guessing a lot more must be getting ready to move on, judging by the attention all of a sudden from this rebecca and folks like yourself.
Ccclapper, I can assure you with 100% certainty that I was not the designer nor any of my image was featured in the webpage. I like what you said, "everyone is entitled to their own opinions", so true, let's stick to it and allow both the positives and negatives. It comes back to Sean's point. I understand you have moved on and removed almost all of your images from iStock, good for you! What I don't understand is this, why are you so active and passionate in every thread if it is related to iStock?
-
Dr. Sheldon Cooper has spoken.
::)
Smiling Jack, at 87 years young, seems perfectly able to keep up with MSG just fine without asking stupid questions, with obvious answers, every f*cking day. Just getting tired of your 'act'. You don't fool me and you ain't going to win any nominations for it, that's for sure.
Do you think I really give a rat's ass what you are tired of?
And, just which question required a response from you? get a life, Doc.
-
:
-
Dr. Sheldon Cooper has spoken.
::)
Smiling Jack, at 87 years young, seems perfectly able to keep up with MSG just fine without asking stupid questions, with obvious answers, every f*cking day. Just getting tired of your 'act'. You don't fool me and you ain't going to win any nominations for it, that's for sure.
Do you think I really give a rat's ass what you are tired of?
And, just which question required a response from you? get a life, Doc.
Great! Now you're talking and actually expressing yourself instead of just acting the hapless fool and wasting everyone's time. Well done __ keep it up! If you ever happen to have a considered opinion on something related to microstock photography then I'd be delighted to read it. That would be a 'first' for you.
You mean like you? You know that isn't possible. We all wait breathlessly for your next pearl of wisdom.
ED: and PS: Thank you so much for your permission to post.
-
Seriously, being one of the most successful stock photographers as you are, I expect you show more class, generosity, open-mindedness and positivity. When you use words like death warrant and such, it somehow reminds me of jihad. What is wrong if someone praises the new design of a webpage? I don't like every elements about the new design, but I have no issue if others like it. I distinguish the efforts of iStock employees and contributors from those who only want to profit as much as possible from other people's labor. I also feel uncomfortable when more seasoned and successful contributors show excessive jealousy, prejudice and self-righteousness to their peers.
Sorry, but W-T-F?? I wasn't one of the ones criticizing the design, nor did I at any time criticize anyone who showed enthusiasm for the design. I certainly haven't been one of the people calling for Istock's demise. I dread it, but I see it happening. It's different than rooting for it to fail. Kindly point me to where I've been jealous or self-righteous anywhere in this thread.
Furthermore, I have made every effort to avoid insulting or ridiculing people for being Istock exclusive. Ever. My criticisms of Istock have ONLY been directed at GETTY/Istock management and the way they have treated contributors, particularly exclusives. Ask your exclusive friends if you don't believe me.
You really need to be more careful to know what you are talking about before taking off on an insulting, derisive personal attack like this. Seriously.
-
...Seriously, being one of the most successful stock photographers as you are, I expect you show more class, generosity, open-mindedness and positivity. When you use words like death warrant and such, it somehow reminds me of jihad.
You have really got the wrong end of the stick on this one. I'm not sure that anyone owes positivity about anything to anyone. It's very nice when people are positive because they have something about which to be positive. Some of the situations where people show positivity in terrible circumstances end up seeming irrational.
Lisa referred to iStock signing its own death warrant - she didn't call for it to be done (which is the implication in the jihad reference you make) - you're totally inventing motives that I've never, once, seen Lisa show. You'll see that she says several times in this discussion that she would prefer to see iStock pull out of this tailspin and fix the many broken and problematic things. Escalating the rhetoric as you did is just out of place in every way.
Given the circumstances, I think Lisa's comments were very mild and measured - and I have no idea in what way she didn't exhibit "class" in your view.
And as far as open-mindedness, it's always good to keep an open mind about things that you're unfamiliar with or which are in some early stage of development. At this point, we've had a good while to see how Getty is running iStock and it isn't much different from the way it's run everything else it has acquired. Being open minded in the face of a wretched track record like Getty's smacks of stupidity or willful ignorance. Lisa doesn't appear to me to be either of those things.
I get it that exclusives aren't happy when independents have a go at iStock, but you'd have a hard time arguing that we have no reasons for doing so. I am still so angry at the lies and betrayal of trust. I have moved on and things are doing much better, but I can't see anything positive for iStock at the moment, and that's a very sad thing. Not sad for the greedy wretches who brought this about, but for all the people who made iStock what it is, including the many loyal buyers who made the marketplace such a success, and all those current exclusives who took all the promises at face value.
I honestly think you need to apologize to Lisa, or at the least just back off and stop talking on this subject here if you can't take any negative comments about your agency (I'm assuming you are an iStock exclusive, although I have no idea who you are).
-
I am sorry, jsnover, but I owe no apology to Lisa, because I was not speaking for my self interest. The whole point of this thread is to comment on a new web design. Some like and some don't. That is totally fine, I just voice my opinion which echos with Sean's.
It is unfortunate that I have witnessed this anti anything iStock choir for sometimes now. I feel it is totally unfair that the target of this negativity is not only directed at the iStock owners and management, but at our own peers, the contributors and web designers, a.ka. the commoners of iStock. I didn't direct all my comments at Lisa, but I do feel she could have done better. I don't think it's necessary to give out any examples, since we have all read the forum over a period of time and know what position we each take.
I stand by what I said. 8)
-
Dr. Sheldon Cooper has spoken.
::)
Smiling Jack, at 87 years young, seems perfectly able to keep up with MSG just fine without asking stupid questions, with obvious answers, every f*cking day. Just getting tired of your 'act'. You don't fool me and you ain't going to win any nominations for it, that's for sure.
Do you think I really give a rat's ass what you are tired of?
And, just which question required a response from you? get a life, Doc.
Great! Now you're talking and actually expressing yourself instead of just acting the hapless fool and wasting everyone's time. Well done __ keep it up! If you ever happen to have a considered opinion on something related to microstock photography then I'd be delighted to read it. That would be a 'first' for you.
Hey! warren is lying anyway, hes not old at all! the guy isnt even over 40! havent you noticed? all our posts are getting minuses and its all from these newbie people who wasnt even here from the beginning, they sort of jumped on the train from 2010 and onwards.
I call them the "bollocks-brigade" since they are bigger then their brains.
all the best. :D
-
I am sorry, jsnover, but I owe no apology to Lisa, because I was not speaking for my self interest. The whole point of this thread is to comment on a new web design. Some like and some don't. That is totally fine, I just voice my opinion which echos with Sean's.
It is unfortunate that I have witnessed this anti anything iStock choir for sometimes now. I feel it is totally unfair that the target of this negativity is not only directed at the iStock owners and management, but at our own peers, the contributors and web designers, a.ka. the commoners of iStock. I didn't direct all my comments at Lisa, but I do feel she could have done better. I don't think it's necessary to give out any examples, since we have all read the forum over a period of time and know what position we each take.
I stand by what I said. 8)
Actually. You do owe her an apology. Doesnt cost very much. Just a bit of respect. Go on.
-
What I said. ;)
-
Geez...the party's getting rough in this thread.
-
I hope I'm not treading on anybody's toes if I actually talk about the subject of this thread instead of exchanging insults. I was thinking that JSP is right about the text in the middle being far too small but, of course, that is a 50% screen grab so it's probably big enough in the live form. I think the presentation looks cluttered like a primary school pinboard but it may actually be a very effective way of communicating easily with customers, so it may do what it is meant to do very well
-
I have no comment on the design; however I am shocked that they've resurrected categories. At least two years back when people said that certain of their images didn't fit into any of the categories, official word (Ethan? Duck?) was that categories didn't matter, just choose any to be able to submit the image. Also word was that categories might be disappearing.
Maybe the delivery boy made that decision, or maybe one of the new staff who was unaware of the 'official word' on categories from a couple of years back.
-
sounds like you are taking the design of that page pretty personally. maybe you are the one that designed it?
lisa is one of the many hard working contributors that come here and also one of the most level headed and intelligent contributors. there are many others too, but i dont understand why you continue to try to shove your thoughts on istock down everyone elses throat. everyone is entitled to their own opinions. if you think istock is great and want to hang around, great. best of luck. lots of others have moved on, and im guessing a lot more must be getting ready to move on, judging by the attention all of a sudden from this rebecca and folks like yourself.
Ccclapper, I can assure you with 100% certainty that I was not the designer nor any of my image was featured in the webpage. I like what you said, "everyone is entitled to their own opinions", so true, let's stick to it and allow both the positives and negatives. It comes back to Sean's point. I understand you have moved on and removed almost all of your images from iStock, good for you! What I don't understand is this, why are you so active and passionate in every thread if it is related to iStock?
I think you have asked me this question before, but I will answer again. First, I'm ok with sean and you being positive...you are apparently making good money and need that income. I would expect you to be positive and not want istock to go down. Did I argue or criticize Sean? I'm only wondering why you are attempting to tell other people what they should think, feel, or say.
Second of all, I have a right to post here about istock or any other subject I want. Yes, I did remove my images. Yes, I still do have my account open at istock. I was hoping for a turnaround, but clearly that's not going to happen. There are others who have dumped istock who still post in threads about istock, why don't you ever call them out about it? It isn't your board, so please don't try to moderate my discussions. If you don't like what I say, that's OK. But I deserve the same respect and courtesy as every other poster, whether they contribute to istock or not.
(But I see you don't have much respect for other posters either, so there you go.)
-
I have no comment on the design; however I am shocked that they've resurrected categories. At least two years back when people said that certain of their images didn't fit into any of the categories, official word (Ethan? Duck?) was that categories didn't matter, just choose any to be able to submit the image. Also word was that categories might be disappearing.
Maybe the delivery boy made that decision, or maybe one of the new staff who was unaware of the 'official word' on categories from a couple of years back.
So ... you're surprised that iStock has contradicted something they stated in the past? ;D
More bothersome to me is that reportedly clicking on one of these doesn't show search results of all files matching the category, but instead goes to a managed LB which is skewed towards certain contributors only. Typical iStock, actually.
-
I have no comment on the design; however I am shocked that they've resurrected categories. At least two years back when people said that certain of their images didn't fit into any of the categories, official word (Ethan? Duck?) was that categories didn't matter, just choose any to be able to submit the image. Also word was that categories might be disappearing.
Maybe the delivery boy made that decision, or maybe one of the new staff who was unaware of the 'official word' on categories from a couple of years back.
So ... you're surprised that iStock has contradicted something they stated in the past? ;D
More bothersome to me is that reportedly clicking on one of these doesn't show search results of all files matching the category, but instead goes to a managed LB which is skewed towards certain contributors only. Typical iStock, actually.
Oh well, I can't see/use the real thing yet, it's just North America.
-
Oh well, I can't see/use the real thing yet, it's just North America.
I can't see the real thing yet either.
Even if the lick of paint on the front page is lovely, it's still a lick of paint and I don't know whether the buyer issues that have been repeatedly expressed, most recently by Pressahead (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349485&page=1) change or improve with a front page redesign. IMO it just doesn't matter much in the current circumstances
-
I hope I'm not treading on anybody's toes if I actually talk about the subject of this thread instead of exchanging insults. I was thinking that JSP is right about the text in the middle being far too small but, of course, that is a 50% screen grab so it's probably big enough in the live form. I think the presentation looks cluttered like a primary school pinboard but it may actually be a very effective way of communicating easily with customers, so it may do what it is meant to do very well
My apologies for letting myself be dragged into such a childish exchange.
My dig at Chris was intended to be humorous. I'm afraid that post led to diversion of the subject.
I have no comment regarding the subject. Should have stepped back and followed the thread.
Again, sorry for my part.
-
I'm only wondering why you are attempting to tell other people what they should think, feel, or say.
Second of all, I have a right to post here about istock or any other subject I want. Yes, I did remove my images. Yes, I still do have my account open at istock. I was hoping for a turnaround, but clearly that's not going to happen. There are others who have dumped istock who still post in threads about istock, why don't you ever call them out about it? It isn't your board, so please don't try to moderate my discussions. If you don't like what I say, that's OK. But I deserve the same respect and courtesy as every other poster, whether they contribute to istock or not.
(But I see you don't have much respect for other posters either, so there you go.)
Bingo. Very well said, Cathy. This isn't the Istock forum. People here can post what opinions they like as long as they are somewhat civil. And the fact that Freedom is able to post unfounded personal attacks, and then refuse to back them up with ANY examples, is an indication that even civility is fairly optional here.
At this point, we've had a good while to see how Getty is running iStock and it isn't much different from the way it's run everything else it has acquired. Being open minded in the face of a wretched track record like Getty's smacks of stupidity or willful ignorance...
I get it that exclusives aren't happy when independents have a go at iStock, but you'd have a hard time arguing that we have no reasons for doing so. I am still so angry at the lies and betrayal of trust. I have moved on and things are doing much better, but I can't see anything positive for iStock at the moment, and that's a very sad thing. Not sad for the greedy wretches who brought this about, but for all the people who made iStock what it is, including the many loyal buyers who made the marketplace such a success, and all those current exclusives who took all the promises at face value.
Nicely put. As usual, JoAnn, you have said what I was trying to, but more succinctly. :)
-
It almost seems to me like the puppets at istock management is trying to bombard contributors with all these new developments and recent forum posts in order try to take the spotlight off its real issues. Rebeccas last post was pretty clear that it is no longer istock and is only interested in gettys profits.