Author Topic: New look for iStock (Read 12811 times)

ShadySue · « **on:** December 13, 2012, 18:50 »

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1

JPSDK · « **Reply #1 on:** December 13, 2012, 19:01 »

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.

fotografer · « **Reply #2 on:** December 13, 2012, 19:03 »

Quote from: JPSDK on December 13, 2012, 19:01

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

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** December 13, 2012, 19:57 »

Quote from: JPSDK on December 13, 2012, 19:01

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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #4 on:** December 13, 2012, 20:11 »

The Fellowship of the Banned...

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** December 13, 2012, 20:22 »

You get exclusive clubs, and excluded clubs, and combinations for both.

cthoman · « **Reply #6 on:** December 13, 2012, 20:48 »

Looks like GL.

Pixart · « **Reply #7 on:** December 13, 2012, 23:22 »

"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?

gillian vann · « **Reply #8 on:** December 14, 2012, 02:10 »

hmm, the person who suggested they offer a discount..... is no one going to bite him for saying that?

JPSDK · « **Reply #9 on:** December 14, 2012, 04:34 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 13, 2012, 20:11

The Fellowship of the Banned...

One ring to bind them all and in the darkness keep them.

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #10 on:** December 14, 2012, 16:45 »

Looking at all the giddy responses makes me think iStock is a cult.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 13, 2012, 18:50

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 on:** December 14, 2012, 18:14 »

Quote from: TheBlackRhino on December 14, 2012, 16:45

Looking at all the giddy responses makes me think iStock is a cult.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 13, 2012, 18:50
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1

So, what? We're never allowed to respond positively to an initiative?

rubyroo · « **Reply #12 on:** December 14, 2012, 19:07 »

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).

JPSDK · « **Reply #13 on:** December 14, 2012, 19:18 »

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.

Freedom · « **Reply #14 on:** December 14, 2012, 19:19 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2012, 18:14

Quote from: TheBlackRhino on December 14, 2012, 16:45
Looking at all the giddy responses makes me think iStock is a cult.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 13, 2012, 18:50
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1

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.

rubyroo · « **Reply #15 on:** December 14, 2012, 19:23 »

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.

JPSDK · « **Reply #16 on:** December 14, 2012, 19:30 »

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.

Freedom · « **Reply #17 on:** December 14, 2012, 19:36 »

Quote from: rubyroo on December 14, 2012, 19:23

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #18 on:** December 14, 2012, 20:52 »

JPSDK · « **Reply #19 on:** December 14, 2012, 21:14 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 14, 2012, 19:36

Quote from: rubyroo on December 14, 2012, 19:23
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.

Freedom · « **Reply #20 on:** December 14, 2012, 21:35 »

Quote from: JPSDK on December 14, 2012, 21:14

Quote from: Freedom on December 14, 2012, 19:36
Quote from: rubyroo on December 14, 2012, 19:23
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.

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #21 on:** December 15, 2012, 00:10 »

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.

Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2012, 18:14

Quote from: TheBlackRhino on December 14, 2012, 16:45
Looking at all the giddy responses makes me think iStock is a cult.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 13, 2012, 18:50
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1

So, what? We're never allowed to respond positively to an initiative?

fotografer · « **Reply #22 on:** December 15, 2012, 04:37 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 14, 2012, 19:19

Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2012, 18:14
Quote from: TheBlackRhino on December 14, 2012, 16:45
Looking at all the giddy responses makes me think iStock is a cult.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 13, 2012, 18:50
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349765&page=1

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #23 on:** December 15, 2012, 08:14 »

Quote from: fotografer on December 15, 2012, 04:37

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.

lisafx · « **Reply #24 on:** December 15, 2012, 11:12 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 14, 2012, 19:19

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New look for iStock (Read 12811 times)

ShadySue

JPSDK

fotografer

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

cthoman

Pixart

gillian vann

JPSDK

Tryingmybest

Sean Locke Photography

rubyroo

JPSDK

Freedom

rubyroo

JPSDK

Freedom

cathyslife

JPSDK

Freedom

Tryingmybest

fotografer

cathyslife

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors