It isn't crucial - we can still see what we have earned, which images have sold etc and we can assume that sooner or later it will be back in some form. Though frankly I would be quite happy with a monthly report updated as a batch FWIW.

While I agree that the bottom line is what counts, not the timeliness of reporting, the repeated problems they have had running the PP batch sales script make me think it could be a serious problem if they try to do that for everything.
Batch reporting is also contrary to the psychology of microstock, which relies on instant gratification to keep the punters supplying pictures. I'd be all in favour of reducing the incentive to supply but iStock wouldn't want to do that.

I've been popping in here less and less as my life is busier (moved states, new school, renovating, bank stress, etc) but I haven't seen a thread about this until this morning. Sadly there's a page of arguing and about 5 good posts. I'm showing zero stats too, although I've been keeping track all month thanks to Sean's script, so I know the month is doing ok for me. Whether that will be reflected in the made up reported earnings is another matter. It's pretty sad that I say "fingers crossed" and mean it. How very unprofessional.

I don't have Sean's script, but I use Livestock for my android smart phone.  I still have the same # of downloads since 10/25, but both Livestock and the istock website agree on the finances

^^ Woteva.
But it's still grossly embarrassing for iS that the IT team can break it and not fix it, but volunteer contributors can write scripts which do the job in their own time.

Just like they get complaints about the current incarnation of the loupe, which even Lobo admits is horrible, and they don't remove it while they try to fix it, or roll back to an earlier, preferable, version.

iStock: have you even heard about UI testing? It's a great concept: check it out. Look up 'sandbox' while you're at it.

They do seem to be pouring money into their website and steering it into something that will be much more useable in the longterm, which is more than can be said for a lot of the other indy sites which have terrible search results and clunky designs.
If they could breath some life into new work going up and scrapping the RC'S they could get themselves back on track.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 22, 2013, 04:15

But it's still grossly embarrassing for iS that the IT team can break it and not fix it, but volunteer contributors can write scripts which do the job in their own time

How do you know that it is grossly embarrassing - unless of course you somehow know why it is not currently working ?

Clearly the site is being gradually re-architected - fixing a big website without taking it down for ages is analogous to trying to replace the engine in a car one part at a time whilst the car is being driven at speed. It's difficult. And perhaps the previous code behind stats was not compatible with new design.  Or perhaps it represented a bottleneck which needed to be addressed.

Maybe, maybe not; but if it were deliberate, in the new 'climate of communication' (sarcastic laugh) they could have said that putting a break on reporting graphs while other work was ongoing was necessary, before it happened.
A side benefit of that would be that we'd get an impression that they might know what they're doing.

Instead, it has been reported and was accepted and listed as a bug.
That's the only evidence we have; all else is surmise.

PS: I do agree that buyer side features should take priority, for the most part, but they don't seem to test them much either: vide the 'similar images' and the current loupe.

They do seem to be pouring money into their website and steering it into something that will be much more useable in the longterm, which is more than can be said for a lot of the other indy sites which have terrible search results and clunky designs.
If they could breath some life into new work going up and scrapping the RC'S they could get themselves back on track.

Unfortunately, despite the keywords article, they don't seem to have got inspectors onto checking keywords yet. Sort by recent is dismal in most cases, and you have to wait until the whole page loads before you can switch sorts. The 'Recent' sort should be just that: recent files which pertain to the relevant keyword. It could be useful to the more secure buyers, but not as it is just now.

Never mind myself and may more buyers are quite happy to buy from IS. They still have pictures that no other agency can deliver. Thats what counts. Noting else.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 22, 2013, 11:30

Unfortunately, despite the keywords article, they don't seem to have got inspectors onto checking keywords yet.

Yet? They are clearly building a system which they intend to be based on relevancy. A similar but not identical system is in place at Alamy. Nobody inspects keywords ay Alamy either - but bad key wording is counter-productive.

The keyword article is for contributors and not inspectors.

Don't get me started on Alamy search! I did a search on a particular celebrity X Y, where X is the first and Y the surname. Two photos of the actual celeb, then a swathe of images of old pics from the filmset of a 1970s film about X Y, in which he doesn't feature personally (keyword from the caption), a pile of pics from another film starring X A and B Y, then way down more pics actually of X Y. That's relevancy for you. Does anyone imagine that more than 1 in 1000 people searching only on X Y wanted other people on the set of a film about him from the 70s or these other people who share opposite halves of his name?
That's only one example, I could give many more.

However, surely each agency shouldn't be happy just to be 'as good as' the others, they should want to be better. iStock used to have a generally clean search, but now, it's as bad as most and worse than some.

What was the point of the keywording article, then? The old ones were perfectly adequate, and with much more detail. People ignored these, they are ignoring the new article too. It's counter-productive; but also like I said, pointless to have a 'Newest' search which is completely ruined by spam.

Today I had a first-time sale. Four views, top reordered keyword: 'photography (image)', which of course is one of the lowest as I ordered it. I bet most people think that's never searched on. Hope that doesn't mean the main keyword (the actual subject) isn't penalised!

I'm very curious why they stopped inspecting keywording at upload. It could take forever - probably never - for new, mostly unviewed files to gain relevancy, and what if the buyer picks less obvious keywords? True, inspections are much faster now (at least for exclusives), but at a high price.

Never mind myself and may more buyers are quite happy to buy from IS. They still have pictures that no other agency can deliver. Thats what counts. Noting else.

They do. But then other agencies have images that iStock can't deliver. Swings and roundabouts, really.

By the way, is it accident or strategy that has two of your three posts over the last week attacking shutterstock because you had a problem accessing it (the first time in 10 years, with SS, I think) which makes it "unsustainable" and forces you to go elsewhere, while your third post proclaims the wonders of iStock's exclusive images and ignores the frequent outages it has had for years? It seems a bit odd, though I can see why if you are buying at other agencies you would want to use iS if you couldn't find what you want elsewhere.

Quote from: grey on November 22, 2013, 17:09

Never mind myself and may more buyers are quite happy to buy from IS. They still have pictures that no other agency can deliver. Thats what counts. Noting else.

They do. But then other agencies have images that iStock can't deliver. Swings and roundabouts, really.

By the way, is it accident or strategy that has two of your three posts over the last week attacking shutterstock because you had a problem accessing it (the first time in 10 years, with SS, I think) which makes it "unsustainable" and forces you to go elsewhere, while your third post proclaims the wonders of iStock's exclusive images and ignores the frequent outages it has had for years? It seems a bit odd, though I can see why if you are buying at other agencies you would want to use iS if you couldn't find what you want elsewhere.

Grey is our permanently banned friend.