pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: S+ stats  (Read 5612 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

« on: July 27, 2013, 06:31 »
+1
From the iStock forums:

Posted By lostinbids:
"I think what seems a bit fishy to me is that out of the c95000 exclusive photos accepted in the last month only 231 have been made S+ (and over 75% of those accepted as S+ are from one contributor!)."

Posted By fotoVoyager:
"How do you know those figures?"

Posted By lostinbids:
"Go to the istockphoto home page, under browse click latest uploads, then scroll down to 'more attributes', expand that and check 'exclusive files', scroll up and check 'photos'. Then you can use the price slider to see the number of files in each collection."]"Go to the istockphoto home page, under browse click latest uploads, then scroll down to 'more attributes', expand that and check 'exclusive files', scroll up and check 'photos'. Then you can use the price slider to see the number of files in each collection."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354349&messageid=6920094
« Last Edit: July 27, 2013, 07:25 by ShadySue »


« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2013, 07:01 »
0
Someone from Atlanta, Georgia obviously had a good month, acceptance-wise  :o

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2013, 07:30 »
0
Ha, well on my latest version of FF/Win, the search modifiers don't work at all. Here's a screenshot of the top of p3 (200 per page). You can see I've chosen photos, exclusive, and .
A whole batch of indie files (, not ), and vectors are mixed in (have they removed the vector icon etc from searches? I didn't notice that before).

« Last Edit: July 27, 2013, 07:39 by ShadySue »

« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2013, 07:49 »
+1
On Safari it works exactly as described in the forum 231 photos, a lot of which happen to be from the same contributor, who happens to be an Inspector..  ::)

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2013, 08:09 »
0
On Safari it works exactly as described in the forum 231 photos, a lot of which happen to be from the same contributor, who happens to be an Inspector..  ::)
I can see a lot from that inspector on page 1, but indie, vectors, and S files are mixed in even though I have selected the indicators as shown.
Don't they QC on Firefox (v22)?

« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2013, 08:43 »
0
Just tried it on Firefox (Mac 10.8.4, FF 22.0) with the same, correct result. I have to be logged in, however - otherwise I don't see the "Recent Uploads" button...

wds

« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2013, 08:43 »
+1
The whole S+ thing and what it takes to move an image from S to S+ (or upwards between any of the levels for that matter) is completely undefined whether it's on inspection or sometime down the road based on performance. My guess is that iS hasn't really defined this for themselves yet. It's a big problem for contributors going forward as many peoples current income level has a lot to do with where their files sit collection-wise.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2013, 08:54 »
0
On Safari it works exactly as described in the forum 231 photos, a lot of which happen to be from the same contributor, who happens to be an Inspector..  ::)

How do you know he is an inspector?

« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2013, 08:59 »
+1
On Safari it works exactly as described in the forum 231 photos, a lot of which happen to be from the same contributor, who happens to be an Inspector..  ::)

How do you know he is an inspector?

Click on the contributor name, you'll see a whole row of batches, one of which happens to be an "I"...

wds

« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2013, 08:59 »
0
On Safari it works exactly as described in the forum 231 photos, a lot of which happen to be from the same contributor, who happens to be an Inspector..  ::)
I can see a lot from that inspector on page 1, but indie, vectors, and S files are mixed in even though I have selected the indicators as shown.
Don't they QC on Firefox (v22)?

I am using Firefox v22 on Win7x64 and it works fine.

« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2013, 09:00 »
0
On Safari it works exactly as described in the forum 231 photos, a lot of which happen to be from the same contributor, who happens to be an Inspector..  ::)

How do you know he is an inspector?

because iStock has cute icons on our profile's that were supposed to be gone by now, again and as usual it is taking more time than expected ;D

« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2013, 09:03 »
0
It worked fine for me on Firefox 22.0 on latest Mac OS X.

By my count, 177 of 231 (IE. 77%) are the same contributor. (I didn't double check my count).

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2013, 09:15 »
-1
Take a look at one admin's portfolio, about 95% are 'Editors Pick'.

« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2013, 09:30 »
+1
come on guys! that is fine ;D

ShadySue

« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2013, 09:36 »
0
On Safari it works exactly as described in the forum 231 photos, a lot of which happen to be from the same contributor, who happens to be an Inspector..  ::)

I can see a lot from that inspector on page 1, but indie, vectors, and S files are mixed in even though I have selected the indicators as shown.
Don't they QC on Firefox (v22)?


I am using Firefox v22 on Win7x64 and it works fine.

I'm on FFv22; Win7x64.
Wonder why my results are so different/wrong?

 Oh, h*ll, it's universal.
I tried with IE v10.0.9.
Even worse, just sorting the latest uploads by photos gave zero results:


So then I tried Chrome v28.0.1, and only chose , zero results:


Have I suddenly forgotten how to search?
« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 04:36 by ShadySue »

JFP

« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2013, 02:50 »
0
So the guy approved its own files???

On Safari it works exactly as described in the forum 231 photos, a lot of which happen to be from the same contributor, who happens to be an Inspector..  ::)

How do you know he is an inspector?

« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2013, 07:18 »
0
What do inspectors do now that everything is accepted?

ShadySue

« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2013, 07:24 »
0
What do inspectors do now that everything is accepted?
Check for releases?
One, and possibly only one, throws up random relevant keywords as being irrelvant.
Otherwise they don't seem to give a $&*%&! for abysmal keywording, which, if they ever fix best match will be abysmal for searchers. With the huge influx of badly keyworded files, it'll take forever for relevance to kick in, far less image quality.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 07:26 by ShadySue »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Stats

Started by dbvirago iStockPhoto.com

0 Replies
977 Views
Last post January 18, 2015, 19:38
by dbvirago
1 Replies
1293 Views
Last post March 15, 2017, 15:06
by dpimborough
5 Replies
1515 Views
Last post May 16, 2017, 06:27
by ShadySue
8 Replies
2715 Views
Last post June 28, 2017, 08:37
by Brasilnut
27 Replies
5086 Views
Last post July 21, 2017, 09:17
by jonbull

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results