If they raised the commission for distributors they would get more of both. Quality and Quantity.
It's the last try to avoid the inevitable step...raise contributors earnings.
it will happen...

If they raised the commission for distributors they would get more of both. Quality and Quantity.
It's the last try to avoid the inevitable step...raise contributors earnings.
it will happen...

I agree that they need to raise commission percentages but I can't see them doing it.  They've only been thinking about how to make as much money as possible from the site in the short term.  They didn't consider how damaging all these changes would be.  To change strategy now, they would have to admit that they got it wrong and I just don't see them doing that.  Istock can't be sold off, as its too integrated with Getty, so there's no chance of getting new owners that are more focused on a good long term strategy.

Quote from: KB on June 17, 2013, 08:04

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2013, 05:09

The upload date default is actually a severe distortion of the search. Files should appear by approval date, not by upload date. That way at least they could hope for a few seconds on the first page of the most recent search, which might get a sale, which might give them a chance to battle into contention on best match.

This is exactly the way it works, and has for a long time. With such large differences in approval time now, it's very easy to see. Do any popular search (e.g., 'business') and look at the results sorted by age. Exclusive file numbers start with 252, indies with 251 or 250.

Yup, I had a batch of Scout-overturned files last week, and they're showing as my most recent by Age, even though they were uploaded a couple of months ago.

If you get theasis' latest browser script
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352385&page=1
There's an option to order your upload page by approval date. Just hover over the blue "DL" button the script gives you at the top of the page for options.

Quote from: ShadySue on June 17, 2013, 05:37

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2013, 05:30

I'm afraid I've posted that pic in the "incredibly fast inspection" thread so it probably won't be around for long.

Indeed, it's already 'not available for download'.

And I got a sitemail telling me my post was deleted and I "should know better" than to post someone else's work in the forum.
Lol!
I wrote back pointing out it was the inspector I was criticising, not the photographer. Perhaps I'll get banned again.

Oh, Kelvin did say that the file had already been "earmarked for deletion" so perhaps Lobo had picked it up from this thread already.

Well, here's another sideways acceptance:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25071502-buenos-aires-argentina.php?st=bf10631
Maybe it's the Next Big Thing after instagrams.

And the lighting on that...  I would have deleted it from my camera, if I'd even bothered to take it in the first place.

Please, iStock, put your standards back in place.  I can handle rejections...

Quote from: Gannet77 on June 18, 2013, 06:22

And the lighting on that...  I would have deleted it from my camera, if I'd even bothered to take it in the first place.

Please, iStock, put your standards back in place.  I can handle rejections...

You guys are just being mean now.

I mean, come on, isn't this a perfectly wonderful image of Highway one:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25106230-highway-one.php?st=3d83e3b

Perhaps some of the other half dozen in that port titled "Highway one" aren't quite this good, but they're all fine examples that I'm sure Getty is proud to have in their collection.

He hasn't got any sales yet. Probably because of his keywording.

Not the end for me,  the change put a lot of my images in higher catagories and I am better off for it!

Unless the buyers, who weren't informed about the changes in advance, vote with their feet and move once their current credit bundle expires.

Conversely, I had two photos of the same subject taken on different days with very different lighting, previously both just E files. One has sold steadily, and was made S+. The other had no sales and was demoted to Main.
The demoted one got its first sale this morning.
But we cannot know:
Did that one sell only because it was in the Main collection?
Would the buyer have bought it or the other one at S price, but not S+ price (so both iS and I have lost out).
If my file hadn't been in the Main, would the buyer have bought one of the several indie files in the Main collection, so iS would have made more?

All imponderables.

I just wouldn't have expected iStock to accept it.  I've often uploaded a borderline image if it's the best I have, but I usually do it without any great expectations and no small surprise if it gets accepted.  My complaint is with them apparently dropping their standards so drastically, after making such a big deal of their strict requirements in the past.

It's a total mystery, and I'm sure there's a Dark Plan behind it.

Quote from: Gannet77 on June 18, 2013, 08:57

I just wouldn't have expected iStock to accept it.  I've often uploaded a borderline image if it's the best I have, but I usually do it without any great expectations and no small surprise if it gets accepted.  My complaint is with them apparently dropping their standards so drastically, after making such a big deal of their strict requirements in the past.

It's a total mystery, and I'm sure there's a Dark Plan behind it.

Yes, there must be.
it seems totally insane what they are doing, but there must be a plan.
Or at least a reason.
Even an ever so low reason.

They  had a base of strictly sorted quality pictures ( at least thats what they claimed) now they are doing their best to dilute it.
And why would they?
Is it so important to have many new pictures.
Or is it so that many new images of poor quality, can be used to qualify the rest?

Maybe the answer is in the timing, where many things reviel their true faces:

The come up with new categories/ collections, new upload limits and new lesser quallity demands at the same time.

So are they just collecting pictures so the customers can compare good and bad and such be motivated to buy the expensive high quality stuff?

NO!
I know why.
They want to compete with the low performing agencies.
All those agencies who take in all kinds of crap.

They want to be able to say... WE have it all, from crap to splendid. Authentic to styled.

There is no reason to go elsewhere, everything can be found at istock.

I bet their next step will be to have super low prices on the low grade content.

NO!
I know why.
They want to compete with the low performing agencies.
All those agencies who take in all kinds of crap.

They want to be able to say... WE have it all, from crap to splendid. Authentic to styled.

There is no reason to go elsewhere, everything can be found at istock.

I bet their next step will be to have super low prices on the low grade content.

They have built in a Value Bin to the collections, but it doesn't seem to exist as yet.

Quote from: Gannet77 on June 18, 2013, 08:57

I just wouldn't have expected iStock to accept it.  I've often uploaded a borderline image if it's the best I have, but I usually do it without any great expectations and no small surprise if it gets accepted.  My complaint is with them apparently dropping their standards so drastically, after making such a big deal of their strict requirements in the past.

It's a total mystery, and I'm sure there's a Dark Plan behind it.

+1

On another side, they are also releasing the standards for Vetta acceptance. It is easier to get in than it used to be. Also, I have sold more vettas in the last 10 days than in the last 9 months (normal sales are getting a new free fall though)