Author Topic: Uploaded limits raised to 999 (Read 47521 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #175 on:** April 26, 2013, 09:39 »

The climb continues:

Waiting approval 134453

ShadySue · « **Reply #176 on:** April 26, 2013, 09:42 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 26, 2013, 08:45

Quote from: yuliang11 on April 26, 2013, 03:52
Thank you istock, your sales are so crappy now that I can consider stopping uploads to your site which is extra tedious and it's not worth the time anymore. For the few months, my earnings from smaller sites such as 123, ft and even macrosites have surpasses istock photo.
Because they raised the upload limits to 999?

I'm guessing that yuliang meant that his/her sales are already falling so badly that adding all that extra competition is going to make his/her efforts unsustainable. Which is only logical for most of us, who can't even hope to upload 99 per week.

tickstock · « **Reply #177 on:** April 26, 2013, 09:47 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #178 on:** April 26, 2013, 09:52 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 26, 2013, 09:47

The thing I find funny is that last month everyone was keeping a count of how many files were getting deleted and saying this is proof Istock is going down and now this month they are doing counts of all the files being uploaded and saying this is proof Istock is going down, the same people are doing this.

It's possible the two are not unconnected.

tickstock · « **Reply #179 on:** April 26, 2013, 09:54 »

tickstock · « **Reply #180 on:** April 26, 2013, 09:57 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #181 on:** April 26, 2013, 10:07 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 26, 2013, 09:57

Quote from: ShadySue on April 26, 2013, 09:52
Quote from: tickstock on April 26, 2013, 09:47
The thing I find funny is that last month everyone was keeping a count of how many files were getting deleted and saying this is proof Istock is going down and now this month they are doing counts of all the files being uploaded and saying this is proof Istock is going down, the same people are doing this.
It's possible the two are not unconnected.
Maybe or maybe not. D-day maybe took down 50,000 images, in 3 days they've made up for that. The point though was that contributors here are saying less files on Istock is proof they are failing and more files on Istock is proof they are failing.

I have no idea what shenanigans iS or their puppeteers are up to, but:
1. the deactivations showed that many suppliers felt that iS was failing them, particularly in protecting their IP.
2. It could be (and of course I'm not privy to this information) that 'more files' is an indication that their income is failing their overlords. They have offered no information as to why they have suddenly decided to raise the upload barrier, and they certainly haven't explained why contributers might find it a Good Thing. We'd rather they went out and found more buyers.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #182 on:** April 26, 2013, 10:08 »

Quote

D-day maybe took down 50,000 images,

I think 50,000 would be a very generous estimate, although I think one optimist here did suggest it was nearer 5 million ( that was a figure actually suggested if I remember right, in one of the forums here)

tickstock · « **Reply #183 on:** April 26, 2013, 10:12 »

luissantos84 · « **Reply #184 on:** April 26, 2013, 11:00 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 26, 2013, 09:47

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 26, 2013, 09:24
Quote from: tickstock on April 26, 2013, 08:45
Quote from: yuliang11 on April 26, 2013, 03:52
Thank you istock, your sales are so crappy now that I can consider stopping uploads to your site which is extra tedious and it's not worth the time anymore. For the few months, my earnings from smaller sites such as 123, ft and even macrosites have surpasses istock photo.
Because they raised the upload limits to 999?

oh man you are losing your precious time here, 999!
Man I've read your last 10 comments but I really have no clue what you are talking about in any of them, I wish Google had a Luis translator.

at least you can type my name correctly, anyway have you forgotten? I am German

ShadySue · « **Reply #185 on:** April 26, 2013, 11:14 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 26, 2013, 10:12

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 26, 2013, 10:08
Quote
D-day maybe took down 50,000 images,

I think 50,000 would be a very generous estimate, although I think one optimist here did suggest it was nearer 5 million ( that was a figure actually suggested if I remember right, in one of the forums here)
I do too and of those images taken down many were of old files that never sold so it probably helped Istock clean up the search a little if it had any effect.

Only if they were spammy. My 100+ weren't.
They were mostly newish files which the best match had sunk pages back within a week of upload.

drial7m1 · « **Reply #186 on:** April 26, 2013, 11:35 »

Total files 13213101
Waiting approval 135391

ShadySue · « **Reply #187 on:** April 26, 2013, 17:19 »

File uploaded c 02:25 BST approved c22.30 same day (non-editorial).

Queue: 138289

yuliang11 · « **Reply #188 on:** April 26, 2013, 19:24 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 26, 2013, 08:45

Quote from: yuliang11 on April 26, 2013, 03:52
Thank you istock, your sales are so crappy now that I can consider stopping uploads to your site which is extra tedious and it's not worth the time anymore. For the few months, my earnings from smaller sites such as 123, ft and even macrosites have surpasses istock photo.
Because they raised the upload limits to 999?

sorry it's a little irrelevant to the topic. What I earn from SS monthly is 9 times higher than IS. What i earn from photography service daily is 6 times higher than what I can earn from IS monthly. The keywording process and model release arrangement are hassle. so as far as my concern, they are not worthy as they used to be anymore. You can claim yourself to be the no.1 agency or whatsoever , the sales statement says it all.

lisafx · « **Reply #189 on:** April 26, 2013, 20:35 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 26, 2013, 11:00

at least you can type my name correctly, anyway have you forgotten? I am German

I thought you were Russian, Luis. Did you move??

tickstock · « **Reply #190 on:** April 26, 2013, 20:38 »

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #191 on:** April 26, 2013, 20:44 »

Has anyone done the time calculation given that the upload process is so tedious, can you actually upload 999 images per week?

tickstock · « **Reply #192 on:** April 26, 2013, 20:51 »

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #193 on:** April 27, 2013, 00:53 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 26, 2013, 20:51

Quote from: Zeus on April 26, 2013, 20:44
Has anyone done the time calculation given that the upload process is so tedious, can you actually upload 999 images per week?
They changed it to 999 because setting it to unlimited would require that part of the website to be recoded. This is supposed to be the same thing as unlimited.

I see. Why do you go from dribbling out upload slots to a full scale avalanche? Insane. But I guess that what's this thread is about.

ShadySue · « **Reply #194 on:** April 27, 2013, 07:51 »

Queue is currently at 143072, but I just had a main collection file go through in eleven hours.
So I'm guessing it must be all those indie factories that are uploading like mad.

dingles · « **Reply #195 on:** April 27, 2013, 08:01 »

Indie Factories...are they some sort of mythical creature?

ShadySue · « **Reply #196 on:** April 27, 2013, 08:11 »

Quote from: EmberMike on April 25, 2013, 16:10

They increased the limit for vector artists a couple of months ago, and said that it had nothing to do with slower upload volume.

Hmmm, when announcing that increase, Bortonia said:
"We've looked at how many people are actually using their existing upload slots and the number is surprisingly low. This got us thinking, what's the point in even having a limit to vector uploads anyways?"

A couple of years back, the old 'iStockers silver and above can submit directly to Getty' programme was stopped, apparently because only a small proportion of those accepted to the programme actually used it (I was one of those who didn't). Instead of asking WHY people who had gone to the bother of requesting to be accepted didn't use the programme, they just closed it.

This is more of the same, not analysing the root problem, or at least not doing anything about it.

VB inc · « **Reply #197 on:** April 27, 2013, 09:04 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 26, 2013, 09:57

Quote from: ShadySue on April 26, 2013, 09:52
Quote from: tickstock on April 26, 2013, 09:47
The thing I find funny is that last month everyone was keeping a count of how many files were getting deleted and saying this is proof Istock is going down and now this month they are doing counts of all the files being uploaded and saying this is proof Istock is going down, the same people are doing this.
It's possible the two are not unconnected.
Maybe or maybe not. D-day maybe took down 50,000 images, in 3 days they've made up for that. The point though was that contributors here are saying less files on Istock is proof they are failing and more files on Istock is proof they are failing.

I think ur confusing "istock going down" and istock generating less money for its contributors. Plenty of actions by the owners of the agency lead to less money in my pocket. Is it still speculation at this point that there are less buyers currently than previous years.

tickstock · « **Reply #198 on:** April 27, 2013, 09:49 »

drial7m1 · « **Reply #199 on:** April 27, 2013, 10:56 »

Total files 13222297
Waiting approval 144534

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Uploaded limits raised to 999 (Read 47521 times)

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

tickstock

ShadySue

vlad_the_imp

tickstock

luissantos84

ShadySue

drial7m1

ShadySue

yuliang11

lisafx

tickstock

PeterChigmaroff

tickstock

PeterChigmaroff

ShadySue

dingles

ShadySue

VB inc

tickstock

drial7m1

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors