I seldom look at my site's guestbook, and I have just found two angry entries from people who of course know how to attack but refuse to hear a reply, as they don't have the courage of using a real name and email address. 

In case they originated from people in this forum (as I think at least one did), I would just like to let you know that such coward attack doesn't affect me at all.  If I make you angry it's possibly because what I said is right and it's about you. If you were right you would have no problem sending a real message so we could discuss our views.

�Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated.� George Bernard Shaw

Regards,
Adelaide

I think you just pissed off alot of exclusives of IStock by exposing the truth.
That's something they don't want exposed....shhh

Agree with Susan S.

Hmm, a little suspicious that you and Susan S. both registered within the last day and the only posts you have made are on this topic.

I dunno who Susan S is. I usually just lurk and read the forums and don't have much to say. But had to make a small protest yesterday when I stumbled across the other thread, when Madelaide posted someone's picture (dunno who he is either) in order to make fun of it. So I registered and had a word with Tyler who runs this forum.

The other thread seems to have disappeared, do you find that suspicious too? Ever stop to wonder why it's gone?

Ever heard of the saying pot calling the kettle black?

Quote from: Lynx on December 07, 2006, 01:17

Agree with Susan S.

Hmm, a little suspicious that you and Susan S. both registered within the last day and the only posts you have made are on this topic.

[/quote]
 And I don't like image criticisms or accusations of conspiracy where the criticised person can't fight back.

[/quote]


Well I wasn't involved in those topic , but just to jump in ....


So if you lurk so much u probably know what happens at certain forums if you post  something it cant be beaten with words or if it doesnt please someone......  , locking , deleting etc .... so If you want to defend the freedom of speech so much you have some more places to visit and posts to write. 

And next thing , if certain approver can criticize mine  or any other persons work, why couldnt  I  or any other person criticize his work on a neutral site  and post an image that after him or her is worth approving , ant that photo was never the subject of that post it was just an object for judging someones objectivity.

You miss the point , on purpose or not  but anyway  it  never was about the photographer it was about reviewers work.


If i had to bet about how many people are hiding in those 2 post i put my money on one , and if I had to say if  the photographers work that was posted  was the whole problem or was it something else I would  bet on something else.


And for the end as good old Dylan would say : "So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late"






     

welcome here susan.  i hope you don't find it too anti-istock here.  It is good to have some exclusives opinions on things around here, so i hope you stick around.

Let's be honest shall we? This forum is not only anti iStock it's increadibly anit iStock exclusive.  In interest of full disclosure I've been here before and was told the same thing about it being nice to have the opinions of an iStock exclusive.  That was pure BS.  Maybe Tyler really meant it but the rest of the posters were like a pack of wolves.  Any time I had something positive to say about IS or attempted to explain anything that was missepresented here I got jumped on.

The amount of animosity and namecalling directed at iStock exclusives here is beyond juvenile.  If this forum is to be taken seriously or be a truly valuable source of information about the microstock industry all facets should be represented.  I can garuntee you with the attitudes displayed here you will not have iStock exclusives hanging around very often. 

The worst example was yesterday's utterly classless attempt at ripping on an image by a person you don't even know. (Who did see the thread by the way.) Say what you want about it being directed at the reviewers, if so than why all the giggling and pointing about the actual image? 

That's BS.  Some of you need to stop acting like you're on a middle school playground.  I was very pleased that the thread was taken down, it shows that Leaf actually acknowledged that a line has finally been crossed.  Now if the overall tone could be raised here perhaps there would be room for actual mature opinions from both exclusive and non-exclusive members of iStock.  Wouldn't that be nice?

The two post rule is so true.  I don't envy your position as moderator! All right I volunteer to be thick skinned and honest and give my exclusive opinions whether you like it or not without attacking or flaming anyone here.  How's that?  Maybe Susan S. will unlurk more often and we can all party together regardless of exclusivity? Or at least keep it semi-civil and classy.

Geez, I didn't meant to start a fight here. 

Ok, it may be unpolite to criticize someone's image, I accept that.  I can rate it however at the site, can't I?  I wouldn't do that however. 

My critics, correct or not, was signed.  But anyway if what I did was offensive, the offended person (not necessarily the photographer, but someone who did not agree with my attitude) could have said so at the forum or even send me a message here.  My complaint was that the person(s) instead cowardly left notes in my guestbook (which I believe I can delete, I must check it because I never needed it before) saying "why do u make urself feel better by putting others down? radically pathetic imho. if u think ur being treated unfairly and that a site is evil then LEAVE PLEASE I BEG OF U. the constant cattiness and whining is nauseating." and "You truly must have the poorest portfolio to be spread across so many outlets, one wonders why you don't spend more time behind a camera instead of trolling your lo grade stuff around the interweb".

I know my portfolio is not awesome as many others, maybe most of the others, but I don't think I have the poorest portfolio (and my earninsg at micro and macro stock sites say that).  I didn't post that image to put anyone down, but to criticize IS policy of discriminating the non-exclusives with the very picky reviews and ever tighter upload limits - a constant complaint by many, not just me. 

I totally agree with Susan when she says

If we went through most people's portfolios, exclusive or inclusive, including mine I'm sure that you could find some "what were they thinking about when they approved that?" images.

This is quite true and is not surprising in a stock photo site, they are not about photography art, but about useful images.  The problem is that some sites like IS (and Crestock is even worse at this) often reject images that may not be the most beautiful ones, but that are technically good or quite reasonable for the most pointless reasons, and at the same time accepts images with even worse problems (and sometimes problems that might be even easy to correct, such as an unleveled horizon and untuned colors) from the exclusives. I had one example this week, an image of mine that they rejected and this week it sold 3 times in other sites. 

Would I leave IS?  No, because it gives me a good income - it's just a pity it might be even better.  I would more easily leave IS for the horrible upload system or for the low earnings compared to other sites. 

But back again to the original thread, I despise a person that cowardly attacks another without a chance of reply.  Some may say "That's what you did by posting that image", but no, I didn't attack anyone directly (I didn't even gave the contributor's name and I have no idea of who he/she is) and I did my critics openly, so anyone offended or disagreeing with me could say so at the forum.  Instead the person(s) took time to go to my website and offend me there without signing their names. 

Therefore: �Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated.�

Regards,
Adelaide

I think what you say madelaide is fair and i agree with you.  A shame you had to recieve 'hate mail'.

hopefully it is bridge under the water now.

Quote from: Indigo on December 07, 2006, 12:30

Let's be honest shall we? This forum is not only anti iStock it's increadibly anit iStock exclusive. 

I don't think this forum is 'anti iStock exclusive at all.

Each person makes their own decision as to how they're going to sell their work and that is their personal decision. No one ... but no one ... can criticise that.

What does happen is that people vent their feelings about iStock here. And the reason for that is because (it appears) if you post anything critical on the iStock forums it either gets locked or removed. So ... naturally people go elsewhere.

If you read it carefully when it was posted, that controversial thread was not negative about the photographer. It was criticising iStock and their decisions.

In any event, I believe anyone should be able to take criticism without resorting to silencing the critic with superior force or sending abusive replies. Squelching criticism (by whatever method) is one of the signs of a dictatorship.

Here, here...

I'm Susan_Stewart on istock (I thought I mentioned that, but I obviously didn't!).    I think it's fair to say that I have been fairly critical of istock at times, especially over the current keywording issues, but I've never felt that I've been unfairly censored on istock's forums (either before or after turning exclusive) I'm always pretty careful to put a constructive slant on my criticisms, but if something isn't working I say so. They do tend to close down threads that have started going in circles, or threads which just say a paraphrase of "this site sucks", or have descended into personal invective. They don't allow discussion of individual rejections (except for constructive criticism in the critique forum)  - and I think that's also pretty fair enough. Whining about things like that on the forums isn't going to help anyone. (although the crazy scout queues tend to add to the tendency for people to complain). Given they are paying for the bandwidth and it's their sandbox I suppose  in the end they have the right to control discussion.

Whining about things like that on the forums isn't going to help anyone. (although the crazy scout queues tend to add to the tendency for people to complain). Given they are paying for the bandwidth and it's their sandbox I suppose  in the end they have the right to control discussion.

Here's the thing Susan, it wasn't whining. It wasn't even a complaint. I corrected someone on the forums about a question that had nothing to do with iStock. As far as bandwidth, we pay more for are bandwidth than iStock does. Yes, it is their sandbox but there is a difference between controlling a discussion and complete repression of speech. If they want to be a dictatorship fine, but don't then go around professing to be a "community" environment. Especially don't call my house over such a trivial matter (Note: the person later admitted they were in the wrong and had to open a new thread to do it because iStock had locked the other one).

I also want to say that the OP's original posting was completely correct. What makes it through the exclusive queue (especially the admins' stuff) is amazing considering that Getty is going to let them submit some of their stuff. Makes me wonder when I'll be seeing a row of trash cans with blown-out highlights on Getty. (I don't think I will, because Getty doesn't lower it's standards for "exclusives".)

For what it's worth, the image did NOT belong to an admin. There can be all kinds of "we weren't dissing the photo, only the inspector" now, when the proof has vanished. But all of you who saw the thread know very well that you were indeed making great fun of the photo specifically in many many ways and also make derogatory statements concerning your perception of the photographer's abilities. Stating that it happened otherwise now, after the fact, does not make it so.

and i thought this thread had finally burried itself 

non the less congrats to the photog.  it is a great photo

HA!!!   before I clicked I thought,    "here we go, the ride begins again!".
The more I read and thought about this and the other thread, the more I regreted my orignal comments on the other thread.    I wasn't very kind.  And I was wrong.
      When I go and look at my own portfolio... I have to admit that there is some real garbage in it (no pun intended to the original thread).  Even now, I occassionally upload something that, while I am yet keywording it, one side of my brain says,  "this is real crap, man, why are you sending this?"  but,  the other side sends it anyway. 

The freaky thing?   Some of them sell!  And when they sell,  my brain asks,   "Why would someone buy that piece of crap, even for 25 cents?"

      Who knows, maybe someone bought it to put  on a forum somewhere on the web and people are ripping it, and me, and the microsite,  ... to shreds?  LOL  ha ha ha ha.
      My point:   One man's garbage is another's treasure ....  beauty is in the eye of the beholder    .....   love is blind...    and a billion other catchy sayings.    OR,  someone might have actually been looking for a pic of that particular ratty looking, 1950's, kit transistor radio? 
    My wife puts up a lot of my work on the sites.  Early this week she put on a picture of a horse in a meadow.  First, there's  999,999,999.2 pictures of horses in meadows out there. Second, I never posted it as I thought it was a LOUSY  picture.  I came home and even asked in a disappointing manner,  why she put that poop picture up.

        Yesterday, it sold.         Who knows why we put up what we do? Or why what sells, does?   I'm learning  to compete against myself. I don't just do it for the money, God knows I'll never get rich on Micros.  I do it more for the fun and the art and the passion and, then a couple extra bucks. If someone likes something I did, I'm thrilled to share it with them  for a quarter or a couple hundred.
     I am not so naive as to think that all my pictures are art and no one could possibly rip them up.  I'm sure I get ripped up somewhere on this planet several times a day.  So what?   Walk into any major art museum in the world....   you'll hear people praise one classical artist as the greatest that every walked the earth... and in the next room say another one's work should be gracing the nearest garbage landfill... 

same here and everywhere.                   peace.   -tom