The rules keep changing and new submissions are held to ever higher standards, and rejected - leaving old submissions, which don't meet the new standards,  to keep pulling in the money.  It is not clear to me how this improves things for buyers.

This is especially problematic if this policy is effectively protecting low quality images from high ranking contributors like this one:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7754431-earth-with-night-lights-asia.php

while keeping better images from less prominent members out of the database.

I'm burned out on IS at this point and have stopped submitting.  I've been doing microstock for about a year and a half , trying to produce somewhat unusual object images, going for quality rather than quantity, and it isn't worth the effort.  Don't bother flaming me, it's just a simple statement of how I see this market, I'm not emotionally invested.  All my images sell, but none are going to be blockbusters, and at micro prices it doesn't add up to enough to bother with.   IS in particular espects you to jump through too many hoops for too small a payoff.  There's no way I could go exclusive unless I live to be 100, and I'd probably die the next day from exhaustion.  

I like doing these sorts of photos, I enjoy the validation I get from selling them, but there's no way it can pay off, given the mountains of old junk that sit ahead of me on the search pages.  

In no way do I intend to discourage those of you who have found a formula that works on IS.  

Quote from: stockastic on May 01, 2010, 21:18

The rules keep changing and new submissions are held to ever higher standards, and rejected - leaving old submissions, which don't meet the new standards,  to keep pulling in the money.  It is not clear to me how this improves things for buyers.

This is especially problematic if this policy is effectively protecting low quality images from high ranking contributors like this one:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7754431-earth-with-night-lights-asia.php

while keeping better images from less prominent members out of the database.

Hardy - hardy - har.  Like I said, late to the game, out of luck.  "low quality" is cute too, as it has day and night maps merged, with clouds, textured geography, bump maps, etc.  So, ps, not a "simple wrap".  Of course you could use the image zoom to see the full rez.  Something the OP hasn't provided here yet.

I couldn't agree more. I have no problem with istocks High standards and review policy. I just wish they would strip out all the inferior quallity they have on there which would never get through now... That would truly set them apart and stop me wading through poorer stuff when I'm sourcing images... I just don't get it. Who's benefitting from that?
 

Are you sorting by Best Match? In general (though there were wild swings in the ten or so days just past) it should give the most relevant hits.