MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: landbysea on April 22, 2013, 16:38
-
IStock just announced that they have effectively eliminated upload limits. Upload limits never made a lot of sense to me anyway.
-
Gosh, hope they've appointed a batch of new inspectors, the queue is currently 77889.
Clearly, they must have lost too many big guns and need to hothouse the newbies quickly. Even when I was Silver, I think I only hit my weekly limit twice. Still, I remember when I was new and had a backlog and used to wish I could buy spare slots!
They tried this with vectors first, apparently not many people were using their full allocation, so they increased the limits. ???
Oh, I see they have been training more inspectors. Also they are relaxing some technical rejections.
-
Is this a sign of the upload veto many people are enforcing is working? I know I haven't uploaded anything since D-day and the whole google mess.
-
Makes sense. They have alienated a lot of pro contributors. This may be a move designed to entice them to upload the images they haven't been sending to IS the past few months.
(eta: Tyler was faster :) )
It will probably be another blow to exclusives, as one of the unadvertised benefits of exclusivity was being sheltered from the full onslaught of images uploaded by the factories. Now exclusives will have to compete with the full portfolios of folks like Yuri, Andres, Monkeybusiness, Kurhan, etc. That is if those folks even feel it's worth bothering to get their full ports on Istock anymore.
-
It will probably be another blow to exclusives, as one of the unadvertised benefits of exclusivity was being sheltered from the full onslaught of images uploaded by the factories. Now exclusives will have to compete with the full portfolios of folks like Yuri, Andres, Monkeybusiness, Kurhan, etc. That is if those folks even feel it's worth bothering to get their full ports on Istock anymore.
And what's more it leaves the way clear for them to bulk import, without strict inspection, any amount of wholly-owned content from elsewhere, or any other bulk imports they can get hold of (remembering how bad technically, legally (releases) or keyworded a lot of the bulk imports have been.
You're right, Lisa, it is another body-blow for exclusives.
There is no benefit in this at all for regular contributors, other than for newbies.
-
Raising the bar or opening the floodgates... I think the term is 'meh...'
-
The change must not have hit DeepMeta. It still shows 20 for me, even tho I haven't used the quota in a long time.
-
In any case, it's hardly worth uploading now, as they haven't fixed the problem since September whereby new photos sink really rapidly in the best match.
Later: Oh, I see that has changed today, at least in the searches I just tried, for very recent uploads.
However, those from the last six months are still down in the doldrums and maynever get their chance.
-
.
-
The real question is.. how many images/week are you willing to have show up on Google for free? ;)
-
I don't think this is anything to do with mass ingestion from other sources (as Braddy said - it never stopped them before).
My initial guess is (as mentioned above) that they want to ingest more new material (since a lot of folk - me included - have been throttling back on uploading).
It would also seem that newer contributors are favoured, since they are probably the group most restricted by the upload limits.
-
deleted post... i thought it was about vectors
-
Is this a sign of the upload veto many people are enforcing is working? I know I haven't uploaded anything since D-day and the whole google mess.
I would like to thing so...It might be interesting with a poll to find out how many contributors are still not uploading to iS after the google drive deal. Maybe divided into contributors making over/under a certain amount in microstock, Let's say 1000$ a month.
-
.
-
iStock iStock iStock we do know what you are trying to do and 99% will join ;D
minus for the Loser that do not understand a joke, maybe time to get a life no?
-
They already did bulk upload Getty content, I don't think this changes anything. Edstock has 123,000 images or an average of over 1,000/week. I think the change will be good for me I bump up against the 120 per week limit every now and again, in fact right now I was maxed out.
I can't speak for Liz, but my comment was not about more Getty content, but hundreds of thousands more images from the image factories.
Good luck getting your new content seen amid the rising flood.
-
iStock iStock iStock we do know what you are trying to do and 99% will join ;D
Can you fill me in? This comment went right over my head...
-
The change must not have hit DeepMeta. It still shows 20 for me, even tho I haven't used the quota in a long time.
It works for me. Try clicking the refresh button. Not that it matters, but the 'Used' also reset to 0.
-
They already did bulk upload Getty content, I don't think this changes anything. Edstock has 123,000 images or an average of over 1,000/week. I think the change will be good for me I bump up against the 120 per week limit every now and again, in fact right now I was maxed out.
I can't speak for Liz, but my comment was not about more Getty content, but hundreds of thousands more images from the image factories.
Good luck getting your new content seen amid the rising flood.
Yes, you are totally correct about the image factories, though I notice Anders hasn't uploaded since the end of Feb. I personally don't compete in any of the areas that the image factories *currently* supply, but the principle is certainly one more worry for exclusives.
-
I never understand that silly policy (upload limit I mean) from they side ... (At my start I realize that they are fags and *insult removed* in soul and behavior which escalate from month to month, year to year)
It bothers me when I start with them and I have 100 or 300 images at other agencies and I want to equalize my port for easier tracking. After few months when I do that I never reach they stupid restrictions whatever they are 10, 15 or 20 or whatever per week because I never upload more than 50 images per month maybe few times in 6 years.
But I recognize them from start as faggy gready *insult removed* at first place and they are just that.
P.S.
Sorry I was to polite above (because didnt go in details) but they are just most disgusting "agency" (they are not agency they change in contract that they are DISTRIBUTORS of our property)
for me whatever they do now is pure green puke...
cheers...
-
iStock iStock iStock we do know what you are trying to do and 99% will join ;D
Can you fill me in? This comment went right over my head...
not much actually, pretty much iStock is going down and losing buyers everyday as we all know so they are desperate once more, perhaps Lobo is getting extra $$$ to check our portfolios in other agencies and noticed we are still uploading, too bad iStock is once again late ;D
that said, I do believe that most will take this chance...
*deepmeta shows 999
MINUS for the big Loser
-
I think this is a hugely significant development. Istock are s-l-o-w-l-y waking up to the idea that it is the customer, not they, who are king. Whatever gave them the idea that it was better business, for example, to only have about 15% of Yuri's portfolio available ... when pretty much all of their competitors had the whole shebang?
Istock's bean-counters must be cr*pping themselves on the spreadsheet projections for this to have happened. Far too little, far too late unfortunately.
-
The change must not have hit DeepMeta. It still shows 20 for me, even tho I haven't used the quota in a long time.
Just ran DeepMeta, showing 999. Doesn't really matter. Sales there for me, put iStock in the Low Earners group and well below BigStock and a few others.
Too little too late
-
I think this is a hugely significant development. Istock are s-l-o-w-l-y waking up to the idea that it is the customer, not they, who are king. Whatever gave them the idea that it was better business, for example, to only have about 15% of Yuri's portfolio available ... when pretty much all of their competitors had the whole shebang?
Istock's bean-counters must be cr*pping themselves on the spreadsheet projections for this to have happened. Far too little, far too late unfortunately.
No one is not going to IS because they're missing a portion of Yuri's work. There's plenty of clones to fill in anything missing.
Agree with Lisa, it's a way to further annoy exclusives by allowing factories to flood the collection with plenty of same old.
-
The real question is.. how many images/week are you willing to have show up on Google for free? ;)
Is there a connection between the upload limits being increased and the Google drive deal? I don't see it yet.
It's the long term plan that's the scary thing.
Or what it could lead to, as I'm not convinced they go in for even mid-term planning.
-
I think this is a hugely significant development. Istock are s-l-o-w-l-y waking up to the idea that it is the customer, not they, who are king. Whatever gave them the idea that it was better business, for example, to only have about 15% of Yuri's portfolio available ... when pretty much all of their competitors had the whole shebang?
Istock's bean-counters must be cr*pping themselves on the spreadsheet projections for this to have happened. Far too little, far too late unfortunately.
No one is not going to IS because they're missing a portion of Yuri's work. There's plenty of clones to fill in anything missing.
Agree with Lisa, it's a way to further annoy exclusives by allowing factories to flood the collection with plenty of same old.
Add to the fact that high quotas is one of the perks exclusives had. One less perk, one less reason to remain exclusive.
-
The change must not have hit DeepMeta. It still shows 20 for me, even tho I haven't used the quota in a long time.
It works for me. Try clicking the refresh button. Not that it matters, but the 'Used' also reset to 0.
Thanks. that did it.
-
jjneff
Funny I see the opposite, now I do see that they want to squeeze the artist out of every penny, I do think that this could happen later this year. I would think you could still load to iStock but the images would be on thinkstock and some other sites with all exclusive files being here and Getty
heard that the 1st time back in 2010 from an exclusive contributor, believe we are in 2013 and yes a lot have changed just not that but who knows right? iStock is the real chameleon ;D
-
No one is not going to IS because they're missing a portion of Yuri's work. There's plenty of clones to fill in anything missing.
Agree with Lisa, it's a way to further annoy exclusives by allowing factories to flood the collection with plenty of same old.
Of course they do. Yuri is, like it or not, the most downloaded photographer in history. That's because buyers really, really do like his stuff.
Similarly, buyers did go to Istock, in their thousands, to download your work that they couldn't get anywhere else.
-
I wished they'd been more specific about:
Additionally, we've also relaxed some of our technical requirements for photos which will help reduce the number of outright rejections for small issues that don't compromise the composition nor limit the usefulness of the file. Emphasis will be placed on the overall beauty and composition of file.
so that I could decide if it's worth Scouting any rejections.
-
All this is going to do it push out more exclusives. Didn't IS just do a recent "we love you, exclusives and are doing a lot more to keep you" campaign? Now this? Ohy Vey
-
Hasta la vista, baby!
-
let's be honest with ourselves for a moment...
who ever really used their complete upload slot allowance anyway? i am allowed 150 per week and never even cracked 99> per week.
so many immediate speculative theories on this forum it's silly.
-
^ people like me probably, on 18/10 days. I was always running out and you could never tell when the next time was coming up without a lot of clicking, so I didn't get to use my upload time efficiently. then I stopped uploading and deactivated files so I was back to @150, and now I've started sprinkling a few over there. this new offer is good for ppl like me: still building up my port.
what I choose to do yet I don't know. there is no trust.
-
^ yes i can see where it is a bonus if you only have a small number in your quota.
personally i have stopped uploading for several months now. the best match is broken and no new files are being found so it's a complete waste of my time for the time being whether it be 1 file a week or 999> per week.
-
this new move from IS clearly shows management finally had come to terms with reality.
they're no more the king of the hill, they're just in the top-4.
besides, sales will suffer for the exclusives as IS will soon be flooded by new uploads.
it's gonna be a numbers game, more than before.
-
but i've also a new conspiracy theory : first they allow unlimited uploads but next they will automatically move underperforming images into a new dump collection .. it would make sense and keep the site fresh.
-
IStock just announced that they have effectively eliminated upload limits. Upload limits never made a lot of sense to me anyway.
Do you have a link to this announcement? Is this going to be a temporary thing? If it is so anyone is staying up all night to upload to kae full advantage of the opening?
Another conspiracy theory: IS has bought the major world supply of coffee beans. They want to jack up the price of coffee by encouraging sleepless nights of uploading.
-
They did it a while ago for the vector upload limit with some BS reason.
It makes sense as having exclusive content doesn't add anything if you are missing the bulk of the good work on other sites because of these limits. I said before, there was more work "exclusively everywhere but IStock" than "exclusively on IStock" thanks to the limits.
Having said that I doubt that is why this has happened. It's pretty clearly because of the number of people pulling work or stopping uploads.
-
IStock just announced that they have effectively eliminated upload limits. Upload limits never made a lot of sense to me anyway.
Desperate times come for desperate measures!
I will upload when i get it in writing that my work isn't going to be given away for free or on some pointless rental loan scheme
-
Love this comment......
but they are just most disgusting "agency" (they are not agency they change in contract that they are DISTRIBUTORS of our property)
for me whatever they do now is pure green puke...
And yet, you're still uploading there, the last one a few days ago so actually not that bad then.
-
I've raised my deletions from 20 to 30 a week.
-
let's be honest with ourselves for a moment...
who ever really used their complete upload slot allowance anyway? i am allowed 150 per week and never even cracked 99> per week.
so many immediate speculative theories on this forum it's silly.
That's exactly why the speculative theories.
-
I've raised my deletions from 20 to 30 a week.
rofl :-)
-
If we're doing mad conspiracy theories, how about they are targetting indy material, then they're going to force all indy stuff onto the PP only.
That is purely mad speculation on my part, but it's theoretically possible.
-
I wished they'd been more specific about:
Additionally, we've also relaxed some of our technical requirements for photos which will help reduce the number of outright rejections for small issues that don't compromise the composition nor limit the usefulness of the file. Emphasis will be placed on the overall beauty and composition of file.
so that I could decide if it's worth Scouting any rejections.
Hmmm... that is strange, cause yesterday I got two rejected photos with a standard generic response, of the flat/dull, on camera flash (which was not used), incorrect wb text.
-
hard to know what whacky things those crazy kooks will come up with next! It's been a v interesting year at iS, that's for sure. Perhaps we should start a betting thread; you're allowed one prediction only. Could be fun.
-
I wished they'd been more specific about:
Additionally, we've also relaxed some of our technical requirements for photos which will help reduce the number of outright rejections for small issues that don't compromise the composition nor limit the usefulness of the file. Emphasis will be placed on the overall beauty and composition of file.
so that I could decide if it's worth Scouting any rejections.
Hmmm... that is strange, cause yesterday I got two rejected photos with a standard generic response, of the flat/dull, on camera flash (which was not used), incorrect wb text.
ditto, but in a way it's almost a relief, there's one more file out of their clutches. It's terrible, it's like being trapped in a marriage that we're too afraid to leave, but we know isn't great.
-
IStock just announced that they have effectively eliminated upload limits. Upload limits never made a lot of sense to me anyway.
Do you have a link to this announcement?
Right at the top of the discussion forum:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=1)
Though as the thread title is "New - Upload Limits Announcement" it should surely have been posted first to the Announcements forum with a link to the discussion forum. Else what's the point of an Announcements forum?
-
They seem to be trying to solve the wrong problem.
Fix the Google Drive deal guys. We need to be paid fairly for our images in order for this business to be SUSTAINABLE for us. Just really REALLY try to understand that. Please.
Once you've done that, give us information and opt-out options on future deals, and I'm sure you'll see an avalanche of wonderful images start coming your way again. It's no good opening the floodgates until you've done something to encourage contributor trust and enthusiasm.
-
They seem to be trying to solve the wrong problem.
Fix the Google Drive deal guys. We need to be paid fairly for our images in order for this business to be SUSTAINABLE for us. Just really REALLY try to understand that. Please.
Once you've done that, give us information and opt-out options on future deals, and I'm sure you'll see an avalanche of wonderful images start coming your way again. It's no good opening the floodgates until you've done something to encourage contributor trust and enthusiasm.
are you going to be the one to start a thread at iS?
it's like the elephant in the room over there.
-
No. I don't post in their forum. But you'd think they'd get it by now without any further help, wouldn't you? It's extraordinary.
-
it's certainly very quiet over there of late. I honestly think ppl are scared.
-
No. I don't post in their forum. But you'd think they'd get it by now without any further help, wouldn't you? It's extraordinary.
I'm sure plenty of exclusives said it in their recent questionnaire. FWIW.
It's certainly one more exclusive benefit removed. Slowly but surely they're chipping away at all the benefits. Now although the price and percentage are higher, we don't have the ability to nominate a proportion our generic files to be priced competitively with indies, so the higher price is a mixed blessing. And many suspect that the aim is to get everyone's commission down to 'at most 20%'.
-
I think you're right Gillian, they are scared. Scared because if they say what the top brass don't want to hear, they'll get banned.
They have to address the root cause of the issue and stop papering over the cracks, but if all they look at is short-term forecasts on spreadsheets, they'll never see it.
@Sue - yes, this must feel like another slap in the face for exclusives. I'm sure we're all hoping for a day when they realise that iStock's success and upward trajectory was based on all parties performing well, not just them.
-
I don't care for upload limits. Once they raise their royalty limits I may become interested again.
-
999 is ridiculous to ordinary folk. it's like "all you can eat" seriously, how many can you really upload?
sure, i could trawl through my own back catalogue and find some great sh!t stuff, but it would be a fool's game only played to increase my port #, nothing more.
-
999 is ridiculous to ordinary folk. it's like "all you can eat" seriously, how many can you really upload?
sure, i could trawl through my own back catalogue and find some great sh!t stuff, but it would be a fool's game only played to increase my port #, nothing more.
Right. This was not done because anyone currently at IS was asking for it. They're trying to pull in outside image factories and production houses. As an admin said:
"I guess it's not great news for everyone but I think newer members ( both exclusive & nonexclusive) will appreciate the extra slots."
-
I too find the change in upload limits intriguing, and would really like to know the true motivation because I think that it's a very telling development given the circumstances. Hard to believe it's not connected with the Google deal, even though many of the responses are from exclusives expressing dismay...
I consider this comment by gladassfanny (see http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352443&messageid=6864225 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352443&messageid=6864225) ) the most pertinent comment on the Google deal. Succinct and to the point, it was never graced with a reply.
"Actually Lobo, Trust Is the crux of the main complaint. Contributors trusted iStock/Getty to do the right thing when representing them. The Getty/Google deal squandered that trust. Since the deal was revealed (actually unmasked), a lot of dancing has taken place on the part of the company.
The changes in the licensing agreement remind me of applying lipstick to a pig to make it look better. It is still a pig when one is finished.
The deal is the deal, and it is an extremely bad one for contributors and for the industry.
Your game, your rules, but the Google Drive deal writes a book about the practices of Getty/iStock and it is not a positive one."
I know we all get a little confused from time to time, but a comment like this generally clears things up for a while. So, I can't see how iStock could really be confused about how contributors feel about the Google deal. The whole deal reeks of unmitigated incompetence - now it's time to get back in my box.
My portfolio is very small, so no-one is going to notice me uploading, disabling or not, but I'm looking for more ethical outlets.
Regards
-
upload limits mean little to me personally, I rarely come anywhere near even the base level as it was previously, let alone my exclusive level limit, as I'm just a part timer.
But it's strange. Lots of people here used to complain about the upload limits on iStock; just do a search if you don't believe me.
Now they've effectively removed the limits (for that is what they have done, no-one is suggesting you should try and meet 999/week as a target), people complain about that and say it's ridiculous.
Seems you can't please some of the people any of the time.
-
I guess this way Thinkstock will be more competitive, they were missing quite a bit of the independent content.
But I don't really understand why exclusives would cheer it. If they wanted to make it easier for newbies to go exclusive - just remove the 250 download barrier! Let people go exclusive as soon as their first file is approved and then they can also enjoy higher upload limits.
If they removed the limit for exclusives and made it possible to be exclusive with the first file I am sure they would be able to "catch" many of the people who are coming in new to the market. That would include a lot of pros who are moving their portfolios from the macros "downstream" because they are realising they have to follow the customer.
Like this I see it as a benefit to the independents and the large production houses. The exclusives can only hope that best match keeps favoring them and that they have enough files in the lower price range to stay visibile.
-
Unlimited x nothing = nothing
-
Gosh, hope they've appointed a batch of new inspectors, the queue is currently 77889.
Clearly, they must have lost too many big guns and need to hothouse the newbies quickly. Even when I was Silver, I think I only hit my weekly limit twice. Still, I remember when I was new and had a backlog and used to wish I could buy spare slots!
They tried this with vectors first, apparently not many people were using their full allocation, so they increased the limits. ???
Oh, I see they have been training more inspectors. Also they are relaxing some technical rejections.
Hey Sue, could you tell me where you're getting that 77889 number from? Is it only for photos, or for all mediums? Can't seem to find that sort of information any where on iStock... Thanks! :)
-
it's certainly very quiet over there of late. I honestly think ppl are scared.
It's not because they/we are scared, it's cuz we don't care any longer. Enough is enough.
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/stats (http://www.istockphoto.com/stats)
Total files 13184228
Waiting approval 88946
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url])
Total files 13184228
Waiting approval 88946
Thank you! :) What a strange, barren page... I always thought iStock had a 20 million+ strong library, since they've been around for so long. :o This is rather surprising...
-
it's certainly very quiet over there of late. I honestly think ppl are scared.
It's not because they/we are scared, it's cuz we don't care any longer. Enough is enough.
It's not that they are scared, it's not that they don't care any longer - it's because they have been banned. ;)
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url])
Total files 13184228
Waiting approval 88946
Thank you! :) What a strange, barren page... I always thought iStock had a 20 million+ strong library, since they've been around for so long. :o This is rather surprising...
That link just goes to their homepage. Did they just get rid of the page?
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url])
Total files 13184228
Waiting approval 88946
Thank you! :) What a strange, barren page... I always thought iStock had a 20 million+ strong library, since they've been around for so long. :o This is rather surprising...
That link just goes to their homepage. Did they just get rid of the page?
I can see it
-
999 is ridiculous to ordinary folk. it's like "all you can eat" seriously, how many can you really upload?
There were jokes about this in the vector thread when they raised it to 999. I think it would take me about 40-50 hours to upload 999 files there. So, I think it is more a policy of upload as much as you want or until you get frustrated and have to stop. ;)
-
Historically 999 was the emergency number in the UK and a good few other countries in the world
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url])
Total files 13184228
Waiting approval 88946
Thank you! :) What a strange, barren page...
That link just goes to their homepage. Did they just get rid of the page?
It's just a status page, not intended for general consumption, kind of nice that regular contributors can see the queue length. You have to be logged in or you get redirected to the home page.
-
.
-
Now 92106.
Some people had backlogs.
-
I am the smallest of fish, but I have a few photos I really care about, and they have value. It isn't just the Google deal, it's knowing there could be another deal just like it at any time.
I deactivated all but 1 on D-Day and the only reason that one is there is to keep the account active in case the whole operation gets sold or spun off, and the new owners make a strong and unambiguous statement of how things are going to be different.
-
I wish IS would put the focus into fixing the current issues then these types of things...remove the debris on the road before you progress...
-
.
-
I wish IS would put the focus into fixing the current issues then these types of things...remove the debris on the road before you progress...
That's exactly the reason they said they raised it to 999 instead of recoding the website to allow unlimited uploads.
Well, that's one way to look at it.
-
Now 92106.
Some people had backlogs.
we all do but why going that way if we know what they can do
-
Wondering what the deleted image count (including the exclusives who have left or were fired) really is? Is there a way to determine image count prior to D-Day?
-
.
-
I wish IS would put the focus into fixing the current issues then these types of things...remove the debris on the road before you progress...
That's exactly the reason they said they raised it to 999 instead of recoding the website to allow unlimited uploads.
Well, that's one way to look at it.
This is what was said: "It's the quickest way to get around a load of developer time." and "...they wanted to remove upload limits altogether, but since the site is coded for uploads to be limited, the easiest way to "remove" the limit was to just set everyone to the highest limit possible with the current programming, which is 999 per week. "
I don't think changing the number of uploads from 20/week to 999/week took much time or effort, nor did writing a couple paragraphs to announce this change. I doubt anything was taken away from other projects to do this, I guess you disagree? Why not elaborate on how you see this as drawing focus from fixing other issues?
It's more like "hey, we did this thing that negatively affects most current longtime contributors, but we didn't take away any work cycles from other stuff".
-
.
-
.
-
My point wasn't about developer time, but any time spent on making limit changes or anything outside of the already known issues seems counter-productive. I'm sure it can be argued that it isn't, but that is how it is perceived by me
-
it's a sad state for them when any announcement has everyone wondering what's going on behind the curtain.
That's what happens when you destroy Trust.
-
.
-
My response wasn't about that issue at all, it was about taking away resources to make this change which I don't see happening. There may be other issues but the one I was responding to wasn't that. Looking through the comments a lot of long term and high canister contributors are saying this is a good thing, what's your take on that?
Really? I read a majority questioning the need for it. Obviously no one is going to keep questioning it in this atmosphere.
-
it's a sad state for them when any announcement has everyone wondering what's going on behind the curtain.
That's what happens when you destroy Trust.
Are you really wondering why they got rid of upload limits? The answer is to get more uploads. I'm sure it was also one of the bigger issues for nonexclusives on the last survey.
It probably is something that simple. I do agree the lack of trust has just led to one conspiracy after the other. There are many things going on that has hurt trust...the main is probably the Google Drive deal, but I bet if sales were still strong we'd be less bitchy about that and all the site issues. The real issue is sales have been weak and confidence is low.
-
upload limits mean little to me personally, I rarely come anywhere near even the base level as it was previously, let alone my exclusive level limit, as I'm just a part timer.
But it's strange. Lots of people here used to complain about the upload limits on iStock; just do a search if you don't believe me.
Now they've effectively removed the limits (for that is what they have done, no-one is suggesting you should try and meet 999/week as a target), people complain about that and say it's ridiculous.
Seems you can't please some of the people any of the time.
I think you're misreading the reaction. It's the hypocrisy that has people P.O'd (if they're indie) and the loss of a privilege (protection from the factories) if you are an exclusive. That and the impression that they're not telling the whole story.
There's also the concern that this is heralding a new wave of imported content (perhaps non Getty) as it's people with a huge portfolio to upload who will see the biggest benefit. People mostly seem to be reporting poor sales, and a huge influx of new content without new buyers isn't going to help existing contributors even if it temporarily boosts Getty's revenues.
iStock used to talk about the importance of the upload limits - only uploading your best work. Now, with no explanation that makes any logical sense, they reverse a policy of many years' standing.
The secret partner deals (e.g. Google) with no opt out hasn't changed, so for many, they could make the upload limits anything they wanted and it'd make no difference. But I suspect they're trolling for cash wherever they can (like the clipart.com imports) and this is just another sad attempt.
-
I love how they are PANICKING, they have finally realized that they are not the number 1 site... :D
-
And they still haven't removed this as a benefit of exclusivity from the exclusive page:
"Exclusives have increased upload limits"
-
^ well they technically do, don't they? they have no limits, whereas the rest of us can only upload 999. :D
-
.
-
^ well they technically do, don't they? they have no limits, whereas the rest of us can only upload 999. :D
Maybe the reason you're "wondering what's going on behind the curtain" is that you haven't read the announcement?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=1[/url])
No, she means we don't know what's really going on, which they're hardly going to tell us.
We can't take everything they tell us at face value.
-
.
-
upload limits mean little to me personally, I rarely come anywhere near even the base level as it was previously, let alone my exclusive level limit, as I'm just a part timer.
But it's strange. Lots of people here used to complain about the upload limits on iStock; just do a search if you don't believe me.
Now they've effectively removed the limits (for that is what they have done, no-one is suggesting you should try and meet 999/week as a target), people complain about that and say it's ridiculous.
Seems you can't please some of the people any of the time.
I think you're misreading the reaction. It's the hypocrisy that has people P.O'd (if they're indie) and the loss of a privilege (protection from the factories) if you are an exclusive. That and the impression that they're not telling the whole story.
There's also the concern that this is heralding a new wave of imported content (perhaps non Getty) as it's people with a huge portfolio to upload who will see the biggest benefit. People mostly seem to be reporting poor sales, and a huge influx of new content without new buyers isn't going to help existing contributors even if it temporarily boosts Getty's revenues.
Yes, exactly^^.
To what JoAnn said, I will add that there was a time when I would have loved Istock to raise upload limits for indies, and most likely made that point in the forums. However, that was a long time ago, and referred to a site that, for all practical purposes, is gone, gone, gone.
Since D-Day and the lead up to it, there is absolutely no benefit to me in greater upload limits, and I apparently a number of disaffected Istock contributors feel the same.
-
it's a sad state for them when any announcement has everyone wondering what's going on behind the curtain.
That's what happens when you destroy Trust.
Are you really wondering why they got rid of upload limits? The answer is to get more uploads. I'm sure it was also one of the bigger issues for nonexclusives on the last survey.
The last survey was for exclusives, not indies. I doubt too many exclusives expressed a desire to see unlimited uploads for nonexclusives.
-
.
-
Looking through the comments a lot of long term and high canister contributors are saying this is a good thing, what's your take on that?
The first three cheering comments from long term inspectors are from people who use nothing like their existing slots. So who knows why they're cheering?
-
Tickstock you are trying too hard
-
.
-
iStock remove upload limits and train new inspectors - so they expect a bigger volume of uploads (seems self-evident).
But nothing happens without a reason, so the question is .... Why do they want to do this?
Question - Why?
First guess is that uploads have been dwindling (certainly applies to me and some other exclusives).
Second guess is that they want more non-exclusive content (since indies are one of the groups impacted by the limits)
Third guess is that they want a huge volume of stuff from indies (so-called image factories)
Second Question - What is the impact ?
Big boost in Indie content - leads to bigger, better Thinkstock etc
- leads to a collection skewed to images with a higher percentage for "our distributor"
Boost in New/Bronze Exclusive content - leads to a collection skewed to images with a higher percentage for "our distributor"
- dilutes the impact of the 40% Diamond members
I realise this is a very simplistic post - but I do feel that there is obviously an underlying issue that iStock wants to address - I am just not sure what this issue is, nor what the impact on the contributor base might be (but I am quite sure that iStock cares little about any collateral damage ot teh contributor base).
Thanks for reading,,,
-
.... Why do they want to do this?
Question - Why?
Almost always, preceding a sale of the agency, they will take on extra content. Expect a sale of Getty.
-
I'm rather pleased about this move :) Now I can upload all my old crappy travel pictures to iStock... such decrease in quality of iStock content will scare off remaining customers who will switch to agencies where I earn more than 15% :D
The management is either quite stupid to think this is the way to save iStock, or they are incredibly clever and deliberately trying to kill iStock for some higher purpose ::)
-
where I earn more than 15%
What, like the 25c you get at SS? Wooyay.
-
.
-
When are you lot going to stop harping on about the 25-38c that SS pay? What we get in our pay cheques at the end of the month is what matters to me and I am 100% sure that between all the agencies it is a lot more than I could get if I was an IS exclusive.
-
Well it is over 50% more and a lot more than the 28c Thinkstock/ IStock pays me, but you never seem to bring that up (?)
ETA, reply to posts above fotografer, was typing at the same time!
-
where I earn more than 15%
What, like the 25c you get at SS? Wooyay.
Don't you know they get up to 38c per sale, 25c is insulting but 38c wooyay!
LOL, you can get up to 120 dollar per sale.
-
.
-
.
-
I've heard a few posters here mentioning the word "indies".
What exactly is "indies"?
Google can't help me with this.
-
where I earn more than 15%
What, like the 25c you get at SS? Wooyay.
Don't you know they get up to 38c per sale, 25c is insulting but 38c wooyay!
It's 0.25 cents to $28, in general. And unless they change the rules I won't receive 25 cents again. In fact larger figures of up to $120 are not unheard of. It's easier to understand the methodology of ss's various price structures when you are an ss contributor. It's possible for those who are not with ss to understand it too, but many people doggedly don't want to. You ever get that feeling of deja vu.
-
I've heard a few posters here mentioning the word "indies".
What exactly is "indies"?
Google can't help me with this.
indies is just another word for smart ;)
-
I've heard a few posters here mentioning the word "indies".
What exactly is "indies"?
Google can't help me with this.
People who are not exclusive with any one agency, so are independent.
-
I've heard a few posters here mentioning the word "indies".
What exactly is "indies"?
Google can't help me with this.
indies is just another word for smart ;)
Mebbes aye, mebbes naw; as always, it 'just depends', in this case on portfolio.
-
never mind...
-
Well it is over 50% more and a lot more than the 28c Thinkstock/ IStock pays me, but you never seem to bring that up (?)
ETA, reply to posts above fotografer, was typing at the same time!
I get more than 38c and I only have files on there that have never sold at Istock after years. I wouldn't put all my work onto Thinkstock for 28c either.
If I had an opt out I wouldn't put any of my work on there, but IStock wont give me that!
-
Well it is over 50% more and a lot more than the 28c Thinkstock/ IStock pays me, but you never seem to bring that up (?)
ETA, reply to posts above fotografer, was typing at the same time!
I get more than 38c and I only have files on there that have never sold at Istock after years. I wouldn't put all my work onto Thinkstock for 28c either.
If I had an opt out I wouldn't put any of my work on there, but IStock wont give me that!
There's an opt out. It's the button labeled delete image. ;)
-
You think it would have been better to reward people who had high sales or a high ratio of sales to files uploaded be they exclusive or non exclusive.
It stands to reason that more so so images will get uploaded this way.
Apparently there is an exclusive uploaded who always uploads his weekly quota, I wonder how he is taking the news :-)
-
Queue now at 108963; so they are getting plenty of new uploads, and they can't keep up with inspections despite the announcement claiming: "We don't foresee any significant increase in queue wait times – in fact, we've been ramping up and training new members of the team in preparation for these changes."
-
I've heard a few posters here mentioning the word "indies".
What exactly is "indies"?
Google can't help me with this.
Indie (noun)
1. Good looking and sexy individual with shrewd intellect and expert knowledge of all things microstock.
2. Antonym of exclusive.
-
Indie (noun)
1. Good looking and sexy individual with shrewd intellect and expert knowledge of all things microstock.
2. Poorer than an exclusive.
-
I've heard a few posters here mentioning the word "indies".
What exactly is "indies"?
Google can't help me with this.
Indie (noun)
1. Good looking and sexy individual with shrewd intellect and expert knowledge of all things microstock.
2. Antonym of exclusive.
Not to be confused with:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8e/Indiana_Jones_in_Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark.jpg/200px-Indiana_Jones_in_Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark.jpg)
-
Queue now at 108963; so they are getting plenty of new uploads, and they can't keep up with inspections despite the announcement claiming: "We don't foresee any significant increase in queue wait times – in fact, we've been ramping up and training new members of the team in preparation for these changes."
And now 110,287, so up a couple of thousand in just a few hours. It was 70K just a few days ago. I'd say they're adding some large pile of new content, not just contributors getting busy.
-
.
-
LOL, you can get up to 120 dollar per sale.
That is funny because YOU cannot get up to 120 dollars per sale.
I can, what are you on about. Because I havent reached that level yet? But I will, so I can. Man you are trying so hard, but fail miserably.
-
Braddy clarifying what the number at that stats link means (sequence starts here http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&messageid=6878457 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&messageid=6878457) ):
Posted By braddy:
Posted By vandervelden:
Here.
I'll just make this clear now.
Those stats aren't real-time, nor are those numbers an accurate reflection of the queue - it's a sum of all the file type queues (including editorial and leftover logos) and processes through the system.
Seems to me many exclusives are unhappy - there some rather senior folk monitoring and responding to that thread - and I find that interesting... I guess someone got the news...
Regards
-
The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
The message body was left empty.
-
And now 110,287, so up a couple of thousand in just a few hours. It was 70K just a few days ago. I'd say they're adding some large pile of new content, not just contributors getting busy.
LOL. "Large pile" is probably a very accurate description. ;D
-
Queue now at 108963; so they are getting plenty of new uploads, and they can't keep up with inspections despite the announcement claiming: "We don't foresee any significant increase in queue wait times – in fact, we've been ramping up and training new members of the team in preparation for these changes."
And now 110,287, so up a couple of thousand in just a few hours. It was 70K just a few days ago. I'd say they're adding some large pile of new content, not just contributors getting busy.
They probably need the factory stuff to make up for Sean's port.
-
Queue now at 108963.
While we are busy posting in forum the rest are busy uploading. ;D
-
I think it is economics. Liquidity.
Most of their decisions since the enfamous redeemed credit thing, had to do with that they needed a sustainable business model and could not afford to pay out all those huge (!) (15%, 20% orespecially the 40% of royalty).
So now when they let tons of new pictures in, they buy themselves a few extra months of time with lesser percentages.
Its clearly a warning signal.
it compares to when the grocery shop has a sale, to get cash to pay the next delivery.
So they are short of money, and they try to ease the expenses.
Point is, they have not shrunk the business at the same pace as the customers are leaving.
I m happy that I only have a picture of a cockroach there.
-
Funny how the stats didn't need clarifying in the last 10 years...
-
Queue now at 108963.
While we are busy posting in forum the rest are busy uploading. ;D
The faster they get approved the faster Getty can pass them on to Google and the lucky contributors can pocket their $6 or $12 loot :)
-
But I don't really understand why exclusives would cheer it. If they wanted to make it easier for newbies to go exclusive - just remove the 250 download barrier! Let people go exclusive as soon as their first file is approved and then they can also enjoy higher upload limits.
That is already happening. They keep twittering their new Exclusive contributors....and go check their portfolio, all of them has less than 100 files and less than 200 DLs.......
-
I've trimmed this topic due to back and forth spats, poor attitude and negatively linking contributors portoflios. I'm guessing the thread will be locked as well if it doesn't improve.
-
Depending on your situation and viewpoint, this scrapping of upload limits could be seen as a positive, indifferent or negative change.
Maybe it will allow iStock management to present some positive growth figures to their bosses - certainly growth in the overall number of images online, and maybe some income growth too, in the short term at least.
But there are loads of things which iStock could choose to do, which would be met with positivity pretty much across the board. If real, sustained growth is what is wanted, if they want to reverse the current trend where established exclusive artists continue to leave and iStock's once (pretty) good name is turning into a toxic brand, it will take hard work and a bit of pain. Maybe even an iota of humility. Just flicking an 'upload limit' switch, then sitting back to watch the dollars roll in is not likely to cut it.
-
Just flicking an 'upload limit' switch, then sitting back to watch the dollars roll in is not likely to cut it.
I'm not sure why removing the upload limit would cause 'the dollars to roll in'. It doesn't increase the number of sales, just the breadth of choice for buyers surely?
-
Just flicking an 'upload limit' switch, then sitting back to watch the dollars roll in is not likely to cut it.
I'm not sure why removing the upload limit would cause 'the dollars to roll in'. It doesn't increase the number of sales, just the breadth of choice for buyers surely?
Plus in the random searches I've tried, very, very few of the existing most recent 200 files have had sales, so how adding thousands more is going to help is a mystery.
-
Just flicking an 'upload limit' switch, then sitting back to watch the dollars roll in is not likely to cut it.
I'm not sure why removing the upload limit would cause 'the dollars to roll in'. It doesn't increase the number of sales, just the breadth of choice for buyers surely?
Some exclusives fear that removing the limits will lead to a flooding of independent content, making it more likely that the customer chooses indie content. If that happens, istock might earn more percentagewise because they pay less royalty.
Of course indie content is cheaper so I am not sure if that is always true. sometimes an exclusive sale will earn them more money, even if the royalty is higher because the price is higher.
I would be more worried about the dilution, especially longterm. There are a lot more independents than exclusives, so the content mix will tip strongly towards independent content with only best match to save them.
But maybe they will come up with some other idea to promote exclusives even more. The twitter campaign is a nice one.
Maybe the fact that quite a few longterm exclusives have left is making them come up with more benefits and attention, at least where they can make decisions. Like the much faster inspections for exclusives.
-
I would be more worried about the dilution, especially longterm. There are a lot more independents than exclusives, so the content mix will tip strongly towards independent content with only best match to save them.
Even that is doubtful.
I did a search yesterday evening, and in the best match the top two results were indie and lots of indie results were on the top three lines, above even flaming exclusive files. And not one photos-only file in the top 200 had fewer than 10 files, meaning mine and other files accepted at the end of last week are already lower than 200.
But the very opposite is the case for other keywords, as noted elsewhere.
-
Just flicking an 'upload limit' switch, then sitting back to watch the dollars roll in is not likely to cut it.
I'm not sure why removing the upload limit would cause 'the dollars to roll in'. It doesn't increase the number of sales, just the breadth of choice for buyers surely?
Nor am I... but I did finish the sentence with ' is not likely to cut it.' :)
There could be some logic there. We know many established exclusives are dropping exclusivity and removing their best work to put it elsewhere. So iStock respond by allowing new exclusives and independents to upload as much as they want. Not exactly a like for like replacement.
If they had higher management looking over their shoulders and asking why other sites are increasing their libraries so much faster than iStock, now they'll be able to say that's one thing that's improving.
But in a few years time I doubt anybody will be looking back on the decision to scrap upload limits as being the thing that saved the fortunes of iStockphoto.
-
I find it hard not to see this response as akin to on spotting an iceberg to issue the command to increase the speed of your ocean liner ....
-
Waiting approval 119799
go go go go!!!
tickstock needs competition ;D
-
I don't understand why they would do this without getting the Best Match under control... ???
... and come to think of it, the site is so slow now, and then there is so many other misguided decisions happening at IS now, I suppose it truly doesn't matter. :(
-
Waiting approval 119799
...
And in just a few hours it's up more: 120628
-
Waiting approval 119799
...
And in just a few hours it's up more: 120628
I agree, they are all over the place. They need to stop spreading focus so thin. The site issues should trump beefing up their content. And considering they had 70k in the queue before this announcement, why would they just get through the bulk of that first. It was nice having things approved so quick for a little while, but I image that exclusives will be back to waiting 4 weeks and non-exclusives twice that.
-
Current numbers:
Total files 13203683
Waiting approval 121824
-
A I see my 15000 images have gone to the queue. Good to know. :D
-
It was nice having things approved so quick for a little while, but I image that exclusives will be back to waiting 4 weeks and non-exclusives twice that.
I don't see mass uploads of non-exclusives having any impact on the review time for exclusives. And I don't think many of the additional images are those of exclusives because they already could upload more than they could have reasonably produced.
What I'd be more worried about is that non-exclusives will now be reviewed by a group of recently added inspectors. Who might tend to be "on the safe side" and show their superiors that they take the job seriously. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame any of them but I think a new inspector will tend to reject easier than a senior who has seen tens of thousands of crap images and likes to look for images he can accept. Pure speculation on my side here, of course.
-
.
-
amazing indeed, that is why iStock keep playing with us, sure I understand that we all need extra $$$ but this is just sad
-
Just flicking an 'upload limit' switch, then sitting back to watch the dollars roll in is not likely to cut it.
I'm not sure why removing the upload limit would cause 'the dollars to roll in'. It doesn't increase the number of sales, just the breadth of choice for buyers surely?
Think cost per sale. Flooding the site with Low Cost Per Sale images will improve the bottom line, however by lowering standards it drives down quality perception by buyers. It is one reason I left IS when they started flooding & pushing buyers to the high cost crap they flooded the site with over the last several years.
-
They increased the limit for vector artists a couple of months ago, and said that it had nothing to do with slower upload volume. Even though up to that point (and even afterwards) the vector queue was lightning fast and sometimes took less than an hour. They said it was because they brought on more reviewers. Yeah right.
I suspect the same holds true with the photo limits. They might say it has nothing to do with diminishing upload volume, but we all know better.
-
They increased the limit for vector artists a couple of months ago, and said that it had nothing to do with slower upload volume. Even though up to that point (and even afterwards) the vector queue was lightning fast and sometimes took less than an hour. They said it was because they brought on more reviewers. Yeah right.
I suspect the same holds true with the photo limits. They might say it has nothing to do with diminishing upload volume, but we all know better.
Yeah my last illustration was a few weeks ago and took over a week...the ones before that was less than a day to review.
-
They increased the limit for vector artists a couple of months ago, and said that it had nothing to do with slower upload volume. Even though up to that point (and even afterwards) the vector queue was lightning fast and sometimes took less than an hour. They said it was because they brought on more reviewers. Yeah right.
I suspect the same holds true with the photo limits. They might say it has nothing to do with diminishing upload volume, but we all know better.
right Mike just got the notice today, a slow rolling announcement that changes nothing. March? New review standards.
Contributor News: March 21, 2013
Upload Limits Removed - Photo
We're happy to announce a big change to the community. We have removed the upload limits for photo contributors across the board, as has recently happened for Illustrations. Well actually, we’ve set the limit to 999. It's the quickest way to get around a load of developer time.
It's a great thing for all, especially those who are new to the site or on lower canister levels and desperately trying to build their portfolios.
Naturally, you're probably wondering if these upload increases will also mean an increase in inspection times. We don't foresee any significant increase in queue wait times – in fact, we've been ramping up and training new members of the team in preparation for these changes. If you've notice a decreased in inspection times recently, this is why.
Additionally, we've also carefully reviewed and revised some of our technical requirements for photos which will help reduce the number of outright rejections for small issues that don't compromise the composition nor limit the usefulness of the file. More emphasis will be placed on the qualities of file that are more central to its marketability such as subject relevance, beauty, concept or composition. As always, poorly composed and lit images, snapshots and serial duplicates will be rejected and dealt with appropriately.
-
right Mike just got the notice today, a slow rolling announcement that changes nothing. March? New review standards.
Contributor News: March 21, 2013
I didn't even notice that March date in the title (cut and pasted from the last newsletter?)
-
for the record, has anyone noticed a decrease in review times?
-
for the record, has anyone noticed a decrease in review times?
Nope, it took four days (in the exclusive queue) for them to reject my latest upload. :)
-
I submitted 7 last night and had 5 accepted and 2 rejected (duplicates/similar) when I came down at 7 this morning. (exclusive)
I was surprised pleasantly.
-
Just now checked the stats:
Waiting approval 126199
-
If they havent changed their upload procedure, a raise in numbers is meaningless.
-
Just now checked the stats:
Waiting approval 126199
WOW. Man I am sitting back imagining all of the future MSG discussions that will surely pop up about how this has affected sales, what shenanigans Istock will pull to deepen our distrust in them and so forth. This can't be good for the contributor unless it attracts a sh&t load of new buyers. I personally feel that this is being done for reasons that we will have to find out on our own.
-
Just now checked the stats:
Waiting approval 126199
WOW. Man I am sitting back imagining all of the future MSG discussions that will surely pop up about how this has affected sales, what shenanigans Istock will pull to deepen our distrust in them and so forth. This can't be good for the contributor unless it attracts a sh&t load of new buyers. I personally feel that this is being done for reasons that we will have to find out on our own.
It is scary, like when they attracted indies in to the exclusive programme by promising to grandfather them in if they committed to give up independence even if it was going to take some time for all their files to be released, then reneged on the grandfathering.
-
I've seen some of my editorials approved in a few hours, but others will sit for a couple of days, regular photos can take from 2-4 days depending.
Not much of a change yet, but the number in the approval list have got up quite a bit.
-
for the record, has anyone noticed a decrease in review times?
Nope, it took four days (in the exclusive queue) for them to reject my latest upload. :)
My uploads (exclusive) are still being reviewed within 24 hours....kind of surprising, actually. It's meaningless, for me at least, as sales have been so poor since December that it all seems like a waste of time, mine and theirs.
-
just had a batch of 12 editorials reviewed and rejected in under 24hrs. I can't get the hang of their captioning system.
-
just had a batch of 12 editorials reviewed and rejected in under 24hrs. I can't get the hang of their captioning system.
noone can, i think it is only there to frustrate you and make you feel belittled
-
lol. I think I just had the info in the wrong box, as I seem to do every time I bother to upload editorial to iS. v frustrating but it's their playing field.
-
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.
-
What I'd be more worried about is that non-exclusives will now be reviewed by a group of recently added inspectors. Who might tend to be "on the safe side" and show their superiors that they take the job seriously.
Au contraire I think new inspectors are better, they are trained to the standards that exist today rather than ones in the past
-
.
-
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! ;D
-
The climb continues:
Waiting approval 134453
-
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.
-
.
-
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.
-
.
-
.
-
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.
-
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)
-
.
-
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! ;D
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 ;D
-
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.
-
Total files 13213101
Waiting approval 135391
-
File uploaded c 02:25 BST approved c22.30 same day (non-editorial).
Queue: 138289
-
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.
-
at least you can type my name correctly, anyway have you forgotten? I am German ;D
I thought you were Russian, Luis. Did you move??
;D ;D
-
.
-
Has anyone done the time calculation given that the upload process is so tedious, can you actually upload 999 images per week?
-
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Indie Factories...are they some sort of mythical creature?
-
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.
-
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.
-
.
-
Total files 13222297
Waiting approval 144534
-
'
-
Indie Factories...are they some sort of mythical creature?
Yes. Kind of like a Hydra. Many heads and they all are there to eat your lunch ;). Only problem is they aren't mythical.
-
Has anyone done the time calculation given that the upload process is so tedious, can you actually upload 999 images per week?
We'll let you by the end of first week of Upload Liberation.
Anyone knows whether the Upload Liberation is going to be eternal? If it is so we don't have to lose sleep uploading like crazy. ;D
Looks like The Independent Forces are gearing up to win the war.
-
Anyone knows whether the Upload Liberation is going to be eternal? If it is so we don't have to lose sleep uploading like crazy. ;D
Well, nothing is eternal in microstock, but it certainly sounded like this would be a permanent removal of upload limits.
-
Interesting that when I try to get to the Stats page now it redirects to the main page for istock.
D.
You need to be signed in.
I found that out afterwards, Thanks.
Douglas.
-
Indie Factories...are they some sort of mythical creature?
Yes. Kind of like a Hydra. Many heads and they all are there to eat your lunch ;). Only problem is they aren't mythical.
;D
-
at least you can type my name correctly, anyway have you forgotten? I am German ;D
I thought you were Russian, Luis. Did you move??
;D ;D
my bad, yes Russian! ;D
-
at least you can type my name correctly, anyway have you forgotten? I am German ;D
I thought you were Russian, Luis. Did you move??
;D ;D
my bad, yes Russian! ;D
Oh. I thought you were Japanese. :P
-
at least you can type my name correctly, anyway have you forgotten? I am German ;D
I thought you were Russian, Luis. Did you move??
;D ;D
my bad, yes Russian! ;D
Oh. I thought you were Japanese. :P
yes I am a sushi lover! ;D
-
Waiting approval 162764
-
Waiting approval 162764
Exclusive inspections still under 12 hours; but (my) sales are definitely not keeping up. :(
-
Waiting approval 162764
How many have you submitted?
:)
-
.
-
.
-
at least you can type my name correctly, anyway have you forgotten? I am German ;D
I thought you were Russian, Luis. Did you move??
;D ;D
my bad, yes Russian! ;D
Oh. I thought you were Japanese. :P
yes I am a sushi lover! ;D
I thought you are grandson of Louis the 84th king of France and Norwegian SantaClaus grand daughter so you must be a Dutch from Greenland and in 84th knee with Yuri ;)
-
at least you can type my name correctly, anyway have you forgotten? I am German ;D
I thought you were Russian, Luis. Did you move??
;D ;D
my bad, yes Russian! ;D
Oh. I thought you were Japanese. :P
yes I am a sushi lover! ;D
I thought you are grandson of Louis the 84th king of France and Norwegian SantaClaus grand daughter so you must be a Dutch from Greenland and in 84th knee with Yuri ;)
I'll have what he's having. :D
-
Waiting approval 162764
I'm giving them everything I can before my 30 days is up....then it's back to the back of the line with the rest of the indies.
-
at least you can type my name correctly, anyway have you forgotten? I am German ;D
I thought you were Russian, Luis. Did you move??
;D ;D
my bad, yes Russian! ;D
Oh. I thought you were Japanese. :P
yes I am a sushi lover! ;D
I thought you are grandson of Louis the 84th king of France and Norwegian SantaClaus grand daughter so you must be a Dutch from Greenland and in 84th knee with Yuri ;)
LOL I was born in 84 :D
-
The waiting que might well be going up, but not with any of my files!
-
anyone game to comment of whether rejections are higher or lower?
-
anyone game to comment of whether rejections are higher or lower?
-
^^^^ I don't think the standards have lowered -- much. I tried "Pushing the Envelope" and got this for a rejection:
*Please upload a higher quality file or try reducing the size of your image. Review the photo at full size to check quality. Thanks!
Back to the grind. ;D
-
anyone game to comment of whether rejections are higher or lower?
Seems to be running about the same.
-
anyone game to comment of whether rejections are higher or lower?
Seems to be running about the same.
Agree, it's about the same for the approvals, I'm not seeing any change, a little longer review time right now on editorials for me at least.
-
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
-
999 = 142 per day
= 6 per hour
Even with their stupid slow upload system you would be able to max out the limit if you didn't need any sleep.
I'd expect an influx from the mythical Indie factories
-
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
just did a test: my anzac day stuff is on the first page. what's more of a concern is that my specialised ayurvedic spa treatment images don't show up when I input the actual description. "basti" returns 0 images. I may have to change all the descriptions to "ayurveda massage" or something more general. pity.
do designers use Best Match? Any designers care to comment?
-
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
just did a test: my anzac day stuff is on the first page. what's more of a concern is that my specialised ayurvedic spa treatment images don't show up when I input the actual description. "basti" returns 0 images. I may have to change all the descriptions to "ayurveda massage" or something more general. pity.
Descriptions aren't searchable, only keywords within iStock's search, and I believe titles are searchable in Google.
Your Anzac Day searches are down c10% of the total hits on that search, which is the same as mine, so it depends on size of search.
You don't have basti in the keywords for image #23930928, so that's why it wouldn't show up in a search (it's in the title, which isn't searchable inside iS).
-
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
just did a test: my anzac day stuff is on the first page. what's more of a concern is that my specialised ayurvedic spa treatment images don't show up when I input the actual description. "basti" returns 0 images. I may have to change all the descriptions to "ayurveda massage" or something more general. pity.
Descriptions aren't searchable, only keywords within iStock's search, and I believe titles are searchable in Google.
Your Anzac Day searches are down c10% of the total hits on that search, which is the same as mine, so it depends on size of search.
You don't have basti in the keywords for image #23930928, so that's why it wouldn't show up in a search (it's in the title, which isn't searchable inside iS).
IS only searches keywords on their own site? Why do I add title description and catagory.
-
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
just did a test: my anzac day stuff is on the first page. what's more of a concern is that my specialised ayurvedic spa treatment images don't show up when I input the actual description. "basti" returns 0 images. I may have to change all the descriptions to "ayurveda massage" or something more general. pity.
Descriptions aren't searchable, only keywords within iStock's search, and I believe titles are searchable in Google.
Your Anzac Day searches are down c10% of the total hits on that search, which is the same as mine, so it depends on size of search.
You don't have basti in the keywords for image #23930928, so that's why it wouldn't show up in a search (it's in the title, which isn't searchable inside iS).
hmm, wonder why that is. I'll go and have a look. I'll have the only images on iS with that as a keyword. sshh. not that there's a huge market for these images, but they are niche. question: if the word isn't in the CV is it searchable?
thanks for that! if you're bored you can look over the rest of my port and suggest tweaks :D
-
question: if the word isn't in the CV is it searchable?
Yes, but it won't be translated into the 'community languages', which won't matter in cases like basti or place names, but could matter in other cases.
Also if it's a keyword phrase which isn't in the CV like eg "buzzing hornets", it not only wouldn't be translated, but a searcher would need to know to search for it in quotes, or it would be separated into two words in the search, buzzing and hornets.
Oh, maybe you did have basti in the keywords, but I just couldn't see them.
For weeks now there's been some issue whereby totally wrong images come up in a search, but even when I go in to wiki them, the keyword isn't showing, and I'm wondering if that's non-CV keywords You can let me know if you did have 'basti' in your keywords, though that wouldn't explain why it didn't show up in a search.
Time: not right now, sorry. I discovered that a lot of my previously-working banner/lightbox inks now don't work. Spend an hour yesterday totally redoing Scotland and another hour this morning redoing architecture, and I have some other lightbox links still to sort. H*ll, why can't they leave what's working alone?
-
no it wasn't there. might be cos I use the optimize function in DeepMeta which drops out lots of keywords. i've added it in and it shows up. :)
-
I use the optimize function in DeepMeta which drops out lots of keywords.
::) :o
I don't use DM for keywording/uploading. It has far too many quirks.
However it's really useful for changing lightbox links. :)
-
'
-
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
That sounds like a good placement for new files in the Best Match, top 10%. Your files have no sales so they shouldn't be put at the top of the search for their "main keyword", how would the main keyword differ from any other keyword before an image gets sales?
That makes sense, but consider that if an image slides off the first few pages within a matter of days they are less likely to ever get any sales.
-
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
That sounds like a good placement for new files in the Best Match, top 10%. Your files have no sales so they shouldn't be put at the top of the search for their "main keyword", how would the main keyword differ from any other keyword before an image gets sales?
That makes sense, but consider that if an image slides off the first few pages within a matter of days they are less likely to ever get any sales.
Quite.
I'm hoping not to have to deactivate the latest lot for that reason.
-
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
That sounds like a good placement for new files in the Best Match, top 10%. Your files have no sales so they shouldn't be put at the top of the search for their "main keyword", how would the main keyword differ from any other keyword before an image gets sales?
That makes sense, but consider that if an image slides off the first few pages within a matter of days they are less likely to ever get any sales.
Quite.
I'm hoping not to have to deactivate the latest lot for that reason.
My 'check' files are down about another 5% today. No wonder the files I've uploaded this year (and haven't deactivated) are hardly even getting views!
-
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
That sounds like a good placement for new files in the Best Match, top 10%. Your files have no sales so they shouldn't be put at the top of the search for their "main keyword", how would the main keyword differ from any other keyword before an image gets sales?
That makes sense, but consider that if an image slides off the first few pages within a matter of days they are less likely to ever get any sales.
Quite.
I'm hoping not to have to deactivate the latest lot for that reason.
My 'check' files are down about another 5% today. No wonder the files I've uploaded this year (and haven't deactivated) are hardly even getting views!
Views are only recorded for those who are logged in at the time. Those not logged in can still view your images but it is not recorded. It's been this way for several months. Apparently not many log in anymore cuz I've been getting very few views for a long time.
There's been discussion that the number of views also influences best match placement. If that's true new files which are not getting many recorded views due to the way they are now being recorded are competing with older files which have a ton of views accumulated during the previous method of recording them...if that makes sense.
My new files have really been taking a hit since the first of the year. I've lost all confidence that iStock will do anything about it. Seems like a waste of time to upload. That, and many other things including promising new opportunities, have convinced me to trash the crown....24 days to go.
-
IS actually has stated that only logged in views are counted and that is the intended behavior. They first said it was done this way to keep contributors from view padding foe best match and then later said views have only a small influence on best match. Either way I think all views should count and view padding wouldn't make sense if they use a view vs download ratio...that way low views and high downloads would be weighted heavier than tons of views and low downloads. Anyway views are currently useless as they now stand as they now offer very little for us to gauge anything
-
The views story keeps changing. Originally it was an unexpected display bug after their big upgrade in September - the numbers were recording correctly in their database but not showing in contributors' views. Then it was logged in viewers only were counted, but still a bug. Now it's a feature and deliberate.
I don't tend to cynicism but this doesn't foster any trust.
-
It's hard to know what percentage is malice vs incompetence.
Whatever, the fact that new files sink fast and constantly in the best match not only implies there's no point in uploading unless you have found some new and unique subjects (which buyers want) but also add fuel to what's really behind the raising of the upload limits. I don't think it's just 'to increase the collection', but they always do something worse than any of my conspiracy theories/wild imaginings.
Already we know that "We don't foresee any significant increase in queue wait times" was 'inaccurate' (for indy uploads) - at the very least, they should change their clairvoyant.
-
The views story keeps changing. Originally it was an unexpected display bug after their big upgrade in September - the numbers were recording correctly in their database but not showing in contributors' views. Then it was logged in viewers only were counted, but still a bug. Now it's a feature and deliberate.
I don't tend to cynicism but this doesn't foster any trust.
Yeah, they have back tracked a lot then eventually just said it was the intended behavior.
-
"It's not a bug, it's a feature"
-
Here's another observation.
New files seem to fall around 5% per day.
I've been tracking some of my recent uploads and while I see them falling, I don't see that the files now above me (some in single figures) have had sales since I uploaded, though obviously their historic sales are higher.
Still super fast exclusive inspections - but it's moot if the files disappear within a few days.
[Queue: 196870]
-
'
-
Here's another observation.
New files seem to fall around 5% per day.
I've been tracking some of my recent uploads and while I see them falling, I don't see that the files now above me (some in single figures) have had sales since I uploaded, though obviously their historic sales are higher.
Still super fast exclusive inspections - but it's moot if the files disappear within a few days.
[Queue: 196870]
It doesn't seem to me to like a new file should be at the top of the Best Match search for 50 different keyword searches (for each different keyword in the new file). And if they do give a new file a chance how long should it stay in the front of the search? Pretty soon the front of the search is just like sorting by age with nothing to do with relevance. Good proven best sellers should be at the front of the best match, new files should have to get sales to move up.
YMMV, and probaby you're getting loads of sales on day 1, but if files are falling below position 200 (in large searches) after a day or two, and continuing downwards on a daily basis, even if the other files around them aren't selling in the same timescale, (bearing in mind that old files have probably been lightboxed months ago) they have very little chance. (1)
In fact, between Sept and Jan, files were demoted even further on their first download, and I see people reporting the same still happening on the best match discussion on iS.
(1) That said, who knows. Overnight (BST) I had three sales, from different buyers of different subjects, from 2008, all of low-selling files, one of which (with only 3 previous dls) is in a hugely-supplied/sold area; so who knows what the best match did yesterday!
-
'
-
I guess they're doing that old thing whereby the factories they have deals with can get their files in without their keywords being looked at. There's a bunch of Agency Polar Bears apparently uploaded yesterday and searchable already. Not making any comment about the photos, but they have multiple locations including Central Europe and Chateaueuf-sur-Loire, Western Europe, France ... all well known Polar Bear locations (sarcasm alert) as well as Manitoba, Canada etc. Also 'rearing up' and 'animals hunting' with 'resting' of a bear lying in the snow.
I really, really despair. >:( :( :'( >:(
-
you can report wrong keywords, can't you?
-
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?
-
I think this has hit it's toll on review time...been waiting a while now...crap
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. >:(
-
Images waiting approval used to be around 50,000. It's currently at 222,995.
-
'
-
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?
-
'
-
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.
-
'
-
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.
-
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.
-
Do they really need 16k of what this guy is shooting?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=12#post6899563 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=12#post6899563)
-
Do they really need 16k of what this guy is shooting?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=12#post6899563[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=12#post6899563[/url])
that is one cloudy portfolio ;D
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
Going to be funny seeing people complaining about another drop in earnings.
You enjoy laughing at other peoples' misfortune?
-
I was thinking of the people that constantly complain about istock while at the same time uploading all they can to them.
-
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.
-
There seems to be way too much concern for what others are doing. I may make mistakes but I'm doing it MY way.
8)
-
There seems to be way too much concern for what others are doing. I may make mistakes but I'm doing it MY way.
8)
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 ::)
-
'
-
Do they really need 16k of what this guy is shooting?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=12#post6899563[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=12#post6899563[/url])
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.
-
Do they really need 16k of what this guy is shooting?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=12#post6899563[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353223&page=12#post6899563[/url])
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.
-
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?
-
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?
I'm not sure what the point is, and you're right it isn't fair to the contributor (though they did open themselves up for scrutiny by posting on IS's forum how they have 16,000 files to UL -- but that was IS, not here at MSG).
However, I am very dismayed by what I see in their port. Many near duplicates, and many, many that are poorly composed, poorly exposed, and poorly keyworded. These are files that wouldn't have been accepted on IS back in 2005; they have no place in a commercial collection, IMO. Not the entire portfolio, mind you, but far too many for my comfort.
-
Some of the photos could be tweaked in photoshop to look a bit more interesting but they look like they're straight out of the camera. It's fine if istock want to become like MostPhotos but look where that strategy has taken them in the earnings poll.