Author Topic: Stats haven't updated since Nov. 14th? (Read 22330 times)

cmannphoto · « **Reply #25 on:** November 22, 2012, 19:12 »

Looks like the RC totals have dropped to ZERO and your percentage rate has dropped to the base amount.

KarenH · « **Reply #26 on:** November 22, 2012, 19:54 »

Quote from: cmannphoto on November 22, 2012, 19:12

Looks like the RC totals have dropped to ZERO and your percentage rate has dropped to the base amount.

And royalties are being reported incorrectly. It never ends.

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** November 22, 2012, 19:58 »

It's really hard to be confident about any of their stats. Including whether our royalties are correct.
For example, usually if I refresh a page while looking at my balance but I've had no dls (sad, innit?) all of the bottom line stays the same (steady), while the top of the page refreshes.
Sometimes, however, the actual $XX blinks out and in again, but the rest of the bottom line is steady, while the top refreshes. What's that all about?

ShadySue · « **Reply #28 on:** November 22, 2012, 20:03 »

Quote from: KarenH on November 22, 2012, 19:54

Quote from: cmannphoto on November 22, 2012, 19:12
Looks like the RC totals have dropped to ZERO and your percentage rate has dropped to the base amount.

And royalties are being reported incorrectly. It never ends.

Oh, that'll be the stats that oldladybird yesterday were 'in testing'.
Who does that testing?
It's just beyond pathetic.

Especially when they never sorted out the money they owed contributors on previous occasions this has happened.

Malice or incompetence?

gostwyck · « **Reply #29 on:** November 22, 2012, 20:04 »

Quote from: cmannphoto on November 22, 2012, 19:12

Looks like the RC totals have dropped to ZERO and your percentage rate has dropped to the base amount.

Hopefully that means they are actually working on a fix. I really cannot comprehend the incompetence and ineptitude of the iStock 'developers'. It's a strange title to give them because everytime they 'develop' one thing they tend to 'undevelop' one or two others. iStock is unique in that they have actually been 'undeveloping' for several years now. Back in 2004 we had real-time stat's for example (just like every other agency also had then and still has today). iStock exclusives who joined after 2008 or so will never have even experienced real-time stats. Incredible.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #30 on:** November 22, 2012, 21:09 »

Is this zero royalty thing what got screwed up last January that we never got reimbursed for?

ShadySue · « **Reply #31 on:** November 22, 2012, 21:13 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 22, 2012, 21:09

Is this zero royalty thing what got screwed up last January that we never got reimbursed for?

Yup

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #32 on:** November 22, 2012, 21:44 »

Jay must have one junior programmer fixing IS problems in their spare time.

It's pretty clear IS isn't part of Getty's long term plans. IS has a part time CEO and she's a Getty SVP who's supposed to be an E-commerce expert. Hmmmm. Either she's doing a horrible job or they're expecting these problems because they're part of a transition plan.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #33 on:** November 22, 2012, 22:16 »

When you consider how much money they're "in charge" of, their cavalier attitude towards payments (I think the January mess and the retro payments for those who exceeded their RC numbers have yet to be made, months after they were owed) and borderline competence with stats seems de facto fraudulent. By which I mean that they may not intend to defraud but they don't take the prudent steps necessary to keep accurate books in a timely manner, which effectively keeps money they shouldn't be keeping.

If it were a single (large and powerful) entity they were doing this to, they'd stop it much more quickly. If they were subject to banking regulations (or other government standards with criminal sanctions) they would also stop it sooner.

They know we're a large group with individual amounts that are small and they are completely unregulated. No one stops them from doing this so they say "we're trying" and keep bumbling on.

Happy Thanksgiving indeed.

Reef · « **Reply #34 on:** November 23, 2012, 06:20 »

Quote from: vannphoto on November 22, 2012, 17:51

I'm up to day 12 of waiting for images to be approved. that seems long for IS?

I haven't uploaded since September. New uploads do not seem to be selling because of best match or whatever.

Monkeyman · « **Reply #35 on:** November 23, 2012, 06:59 »

Here we go with the royalty bug again. Maybe it's time to sue iStock.

Monty-m-gue · « **Reply #36 on:** November 23, 2012, 07:47 »

What an absolute shambles of an organisation! Where to begin dissecting this mess..?

Monty-m-gue · « **Reply #37 on:** November 23, 2012, 13:56 »

My RC just updated. Still no royalties since the 14th though....

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** November 23, 2012, 14:09 »

Wonder how long it will take them to repay the percentage discrepancy.

tee · « **Reply #39 on:** November 23, 2012, 14:34 »

I have never seen a more duct taped together piece of junk website of this scale in the history of the internet. Can anyone remember a time (especially since the redesign) where all features of the site worked as they should? On the contributor side? Just wow. They're either keeping the status quo until Getty's system absorbs them, or they truly are a ragtag group of inept programmers testing changes live on one of the busiest stock photography websites. Either way, not good. Anyway just venting.

Monty-m-gue · « **Reply #40 on:** November 23, 2012, 14:39 »

I have an image of those programmers like 'Scottie' from 'Star Trek' emailing iStock management: "Captain, she's breaking up, she's breaking up!!"

Monty-m-gue · « **Reply #41 on:** November 23, 2012, 14:45 »

...whilst the Senior Management Team play Scissors, Paper, Rock with the CEO.

iStop · « **Reply #42 on:** November 23, 2012, 15:02 »

That's assuming there are even any senior management left to sit around and play Scrabble on the best match algorithm with the CEO. Seems most of them did in fact accept the generous severance package offered to them when the recent Getty sale closed and have already left. Although I did notice BoBo is back from his extended bender. He's probably satisfied to stay onboard anyway because he does it for the fun of it like most of us. I imagine if he just gets paid enough from IS to buy a new lens cap every now and again he's tickled pink.

michaeldb · « **Reply #43 on:** November 23, 2012, 20:54 »

Quote from: iStop on November 23, 2012, 15:02

That's assuming there are even any senior management left to sit around...

Great name.

tab62 · « **Reply #44 on:** November 23, 2012, 21:19 »

More like- "Scotty, there appears to be no intelligent life forms present on the iStock Ship- beam me up!"

Mantis · « **Reply #45 on:** November 25, 2012, 14:42 »

Frankly this is disgusting and makes me ill. I went in and used Sean's Grease Monkey and copied all November sales into Excel. Then I compared November 1-14 to what the stats say I have. Big gap of $65 probably due to untraceable credit card sales. So there you have it. There's really no way to hold IS accountable for the money because for contributors the money trail isn't visible. The longer this goes the worse it gets.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #46 on:** November 25, 2012, 14:54 »

My Nov 1-14 chart on iStock seems to match StatsPrime. Also a match for all of October. Mantis, I hope you find the problem and can press it.

Then I went to my daily record log and compared my balance from Nov 1-14 doesn't match. It could be the timing of the sales on either end of the period.

For the month of October I gained more in my iStock account than what StatsPrime scraped and the iStock charts show. I'm not sure where the extra income came from.

gillian vann · « **Reply #47 on:** November 25, 2012, 18:27 »

the poll here will be v interesting for IS, if only half the month is accounted for.

Mantis · « **Reply #48 on:** November 25, 2012, 18:37 »

Quote from: vannphoto on November 25, 2012, 18:27

the poll here will be v interesting for IS, if only half the month is accounted for.

My sales are the lowest they have been since I hit 800 image uploads. I am well over 2000 now. This sucks. They suck. The lack of communication is disgraceful and it reeks of some other sinister plan that doesn't include us (assuming here only).

RacePhoto · « **Reply #49 on:** November 26, 2012, 11:02 »

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on November 23, 2012, 14:45

...whilst the Senior Management Team play Scissors, Paper, Rock with the CEO.

That one isn't going away. They admitted they play the fiddle while iStock burns.

Just in case, I thought this might have just been me. I wrote a few weeks back, they said, they are aware of the problem and trying to correct it.

"Right now, you have 0 downloads and your approval rating is 58.04%. You do not qualify yet. You're almost there. Keep uploading."

That's if you look at the exclusive pages, to join. Nice way for them to promote becoming is have it broken for about a month?

Just in case anyone else wants to see their 0 sales and 58.04% approval rating = http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos-exclusivity.php

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Stats haven't updated since Nov. 14th? (Read 22330 times)

cmannphoto

KarenH

ShadySue

ShadySue

gostwyck

PaulieWalnuts

ShadySue

PaulieWalnuts

Jo Ann Snover

Reef

Monkeyman

Monty-m-gue

Monty-m-gue

ShadySue

tee

Monty-m-gue

Monty-m-gue

iStop

michaeldb

tab62

Mantis

StanRohrer

gillian vann

Mantis

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors