Author Topic: Uploaded limits raised to 999 (Read 55742 times)

dingles · « **Reply #250 on:** May 08, 2013, 19:36 »

I think this has hit it's toll on review time...been waiting a while now...crap

gillian vann · « **Reply #251 on:** May 09, 2013, 02:17 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 08, 2013, 18:15

Quote from: gillian on May 08, 2013, 17:55
you can report wrong keywords, can't you?
These seem to go in as 'needs review', meaning the keywords aren't being checked at ingestion. Files I wikied well over two years ago are still unchanged, some lightboxes I submitted for batch wiki, as was asked for by Team Keywords haven't been looked at from as far back as March 2010, and a small sample of older ingested 'needs review' agency files haven't been changed in over a year, so ...

How can they ever hope to improve best match if they allow this?
Why are these people so appallingly bad at keywording anyway?

what makes them think someone looking for "france" will change their mind and buy a polar bear? they should drop keywords down to a max of 20.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #252 on:** May 09, 2013, 02:27 »

Quote from: gillian on May 09, 2013, 02:17

Quote from: ShadySue on May 08, 2013, 18:15
Quote from: gillian on May 08, 2013, 17:55
you can report wrong keywords, can't you?
These seem to go in as 'needs review', meaning the keywords aren't being checked at ingestion. Files I wikied well over two years ago are still unchanged, some lightboxes I submitted for batch wiki, as was asked for by Team Keywords haven't been looked at from as far back as March 2010, and a small sample of older ingested 'needs review' agency files haven't been changed in over a year, so ...

How can they ever hope to improve best match if they allow this?
Why are these people so appallingly bad at keywording anyway?
what makes them think someone looking for "france" will change their mind and buy a polar bear? they should drop keywords down to a max of 20.

Absolutely not. An image with a lot going on, needs easily 50 keywords, without any spamming or weird synonyms. For some agencies you need to put in UK and US english plus plurals as well.

ShadySue · « **Reply #253 on:** May 09, 2013, 05:21 »

Quote from: gillian on May 09, 2013, 02:17

Quote from: ShadySue on May 08, 2013, 18:15
Quote from: gillian on May 08, 2013, 17:55
you can report wrong keywords, can't you?
These seem to go in as 'needs review', meaning the keywords aren't being checked at ingestion. Files I wikied well over two years ago are still unchanged, some lightboxes I submitted for batch wiki, as was asked for by Team Keywords haven't been looked at from as far back as March 2010, and a small sample of older ingested 'needs review' agency files haven't been changed in over a year, so ...

How can they ever hope to improve best match if they allow this?
Why are these people so appallingly bad at keywording anyway?
what makes them think someone looking for "france" will change their mind and buy a polar bear? they should drop keywords down to a max of 20.

One of the other keywords is Loiret, and I've discovered there's a zoo in Loiret, but I haven't found their website yet, so I don't know if they have polar bears. Still, if so they shouldn't have Manitoba, Canada, North America, even though PBs occur there. Multiple locations is a well-estabilished no-no which spammers ignore constantly.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #254 on:** May 09, 2013, 05:53 »

Images waiting approval used to be around 50,000. It's currently at 222,995.

tickstock · « **Reply #255 on:** May 09, 2013, 15:00 »

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #256 on:** May 09, 2013, 15:01 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 09, 2013, 15:00

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 09, 2013, 05:53
Images waiting approval used to be around 50,000. It's currently at 222,995.
They have added about 150,000 new files since April 23 or around 9,000 per day average while Shutterstock has added about 400,000 images in the same time period or 25,000 per day. Just a little perspective.

I doubt that as Shutterstock adds about 70-90k images per week. 400k seems way over. Do you have numbers to back that up?

tickstock · « **Reply #257 on:** May 09, 2013, 15:03 »

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #258 on:** May 09, 2013, 15:07 »

But of course you are not going to show them or provide a link. So your comment will be taken as page filler, nothing else.

tickstock · « **Reply #259 on:** May 09, 2013, 15:07 »

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #260 on:** May 09, 2013, 15:13 »

No, I mean if you claim something you normally back it up.

I dont understand how their overall total goes up by 400k when they have only added 65-85k per week. If you take i.e 100k x 3 weeks, its still 100k short. Seems the SS counters are not in sync.

ShadySue · « **Reply #261 on:** May 09, 2013, 15:18 »

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 09, 2013, 15:13

No, I mean if you claim something you normally back it up.

I dont understand how their overall total goes up by 400k when they have only added 65-85k per week. If you take i.e 100k x 3 weeks, its still 100k short. Seems the SS counters are not in sync.

Start worrying.
At the beginning, certain iStock counters weren't in sync. Sometimes they are still a bit jerky. It could be an indicator that everything isn't what it should be in their techie department.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #262 on:** June 13, 2013, 14:34 »

Do they really need 16k of what this guy is shooting?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=12#post6899563

luissantos84 · « **Reply #263 on:** June 13, 2013, 14:54 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 13, 2013, 14:34

Do they really need 16k of what this guy is shooting?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=12#post6899563

that is one cloudy portfolio

luissantos84 · « **Reply #264 on:** June 13, 2013, 15:01 »

interesting stats from dcdp

Basically uploading speed has significantly increased from 1,000,000 every 90+ days to 1,000,000 file in the past 58 days, the last 500,000 has been uploaded in about 25 days.

sharpshot · « **Reply #265 on:** June 13, 2013, 15:20 »

I'm not uploading any, can't imagine how crazy I would get uploading 999 a week to istock. Going to be funny seeing people complaining about another drop in earnings. Every site that has had a huge amount of new images in the collection has had earnings dilution. When everyone’s uploaded everything and their earnings have gone down, they'll probably have another commission cut to celebrate

ShadySue · « **Reply #266 on:** June 13, 2013, 15:27 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 13, 2013, 15:20

Going to be funny seeing people complaining about another drop in earnings.

You enjoy laughing at other peoples' misfortune?

sharpshot · « **Reply #267 on:** June 13, 2013, 16:12 »

I was thinking of the people that constantly complain about istock while at the same time uploading all they can to them.

ShadySue · « **Reply #268 on:** June 13, 2013, 16:17 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 13, 2013, 16:12

I was thinking of the people that constantly complain about istock while at the same time uploading all they can to them.

Same could be said about several other agencies, but I don't think it's funny if people have poor sales there, just wonder why they bother.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #269 on:** June 13, 2013, 16:37 »

There seems to be way too much concern for what others are doing. I may make mistakes but I'm doing it MY way.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #270 on:** June 13, 2013, 16:48 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 13, 2013, 16:37

There seems to be way too much concern for what others are doing. I may make mistakes but I'm doing it MY way.

everybody is, we are all "free" to do whatever we wish, anyway what is your way? dreaming that uploading to iStock will get you rich or like you have said the other day that you don't have much to lose so yay I love uploading to iStock, pretty much to say I get files approved

tickstock · « **Reply #271 on:** June 13, 2013, 22:30 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #272 on:** June 14, 2013, 04:59 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 13, 2013, 22:30

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 13, 2013, 14:34
Do they really need 16k of what this guy is shooting?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=12#post6899563

the ideal should be that everything is accepted and the search works in such a way that the good/relevant stuff is up front. Buyers want cloudy pictures too, at least that's what a Getty editor told me.

This guy's stuff will sink fast. He's titling/describing and keywording them all or mostly the same, even when the pics are actually different, e.g. a flower.
A church interior has an unusual set of keywords.
Oh, and some of his files are showing as 'not available for download) - he seems to have dropped from 93 to 60 in about ten minutes.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #273 on:** June 14, 2013, 06:13 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 13, 2013, 22:30

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 13, 2013, 14:34
Do they really need 16k of what this guy is shooting?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=12#post6899563

the ideal should be that everything is accepted and the search works in such a way that the good/relevant stuff is up front. Buyers want cloudy pictures too, at least that's what a Getty editor told me.

"Cloudy" isn't the point.

Silken Photography · « **Reply #274 on:** June 17, 2013, 21:11 »

What is the point?

I don't like the turn this thread has taken. Picking on some contributor who, as far as we know, isn't even on these forums to defend themselves, for what, a laugh?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Uploaded limits raised to 999 (Read 55742 times)

dingles

gillian vann

Poncke v2

ShadySue

PaulieWalnuts

tickstock

Poncke v2

tickstock

Poncke v2

tickstock

Poncke v2

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

luissantos84

luissantos84

sharpshot

ShadySue

sharpshot

ShadySue

WarrenPrice

luissantos84

tickstock

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

Silken Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors