By the way, closing down iStock regional offices (Germany) cutting down staff (Calgary), and outsourcing IT (South America) means there isn't anybody around the store to drive the stock photo buyers' market back in iStock's direction.

But none of this is actually for me to worry about according to my job description as artist supplier, right? So things like site problems, malfunctions, accounting errors, losses in site traffic, competitors gaining market share, scam sites reselling iStock contributor content, the buyers' rising price concerns, to zoom or not to zoom, to show dollar prices or not, fraud and charge backs, refunds and charge backs, incorrect picture view tallying, file descriptions that need to be edited twice for any changes to be reflected on the site, and whatever else goes wrong with my agent's cyber sales platform, these things are just not my job to worry about, right?

After all, I am blessed with the easier job of only having to try to supply iStock with something they can sell. So I shouldn't be worrying about all these other logistical things. I should just keep it simple and do my job and let them do theirs. And I mean that. So why is it we always have to cross the line and try and help them do their job anyway and then still have to try and keep them honest with us on top of it all?

Thank god though they see the value of me and my contributions by paying me so much more than they pay themselves when the products I create for us do sell. So, see that, I've really got nothing to complain about

Youre right actually!  this best match tweak is just a playact. Makes it look as if they are doing something.

Thanks. Now my maths isn't so good cause I nevva finish skool so just bear wiff me ok?

But I can tell you one thing. Double the volume of pictures, times half the site traffic as before gives you 25% of the total downloads from a year ago equals a bunch of upset contributors shouting for answers. So whatever admins are left running the little store in Calgary they are trying like mad to window dress as best they can before all the contributors realize the best match isn't going to save them, they hand in their crowns, and then there is no longer a little shop for them to go to work in anymore.

They can tweak best match any way the see fit. But no matter what, no way everyone can go back to making enough sales again as they were 12-14 months ago. Supply greatly outweighs demand at this point, plus many buyers have packed up and left, and there simply aren't enough people to press the "buy now" button to go around anymore. Improving the best match to give buyers more of what they are looking for means they might hold on better to the remaining buyer pool. But it's not going to dramatically change things for individual contributors. The whole best match debacle is a red herring.

Comical. iStock is so focused on the tone of the contributor voice and yet they make no mention of HQ's maddening ineptitude or provide one iota of feedback on critical site performance issues.

It matters none and changes nothing if contributors rant all day long on forums. iStock needs to cowboy up and focus purely on tangibles that matter. 

IStock has one responsibility and that is to provide a working and efficient cutting-edge cyber platform for contributors to sell their creations. iStock gets paid handsomely for bringing in the buyers, that which makes iStock a viable business model for everyone. At the moment, iStock is doing neither of those things and they haven't been for at least 12 months or more. Downloads overall have fallen to less than half of what they were a year ago. As a result, contributors are losing their livelihood and iStock is failing hard. They need to change this now. End of story.

So its a simple solution. Those iStock admins need to start growing some thicker skin. Hire IT people that are capable of continuing to develop the site and fix site bugs expeditiously when they are discovered. Acknowledge site problems and keep contributors informed about progress of their repairs. Lastly, they have to grow the iStock buyer market. They have failed to do this though as evidenced already by steadily falling Alexa site traffic rankings.

For starters, iStock could improve iStock traffic, rankings, and sales by getting the istockreseller scam site taken down immediately where XXL exclusive contributor content is being sold illegally everyday for just $7 a pop.

Now if they can do these simple things correctly, then they can close down the forums completely if HQ is too fragile to handle the contributor "rudeness".

The forums are simply the result of cause and effect. Fix the cause and iStock contributors will give them fuzzy secret handshakes and high-fives all day long if that's what Rebecca needs to make her world go round.

And the dumbest thing in all this is that they don't realize that the contributors know the stock photo business better than they do. Because of the forums, the contributors have a means of providing HQ some of the best free advice they could ever hope for. Yet all they are focused on is contributor tone and demeanor. Pathetic. Scary to think the fate of iStock contributors is in the hands of powerful people that don't get it or know how to implement change.

Interesting feedback. Many thanks for those who supplied figures so far.

So far anyone is yet to have had any growth in the last year or even just maintained the status quo.

It is starting to sound like the old adage "Shoot, Upload, Repeat" is becoming more like you are  just chasing your own tail.

gostwyck - You raise a very good point. I hereby withdraw all my conclusions as being completely implausible. We must be imaging that an illegal site exists where people are wrongfully downloading our files as we speak and that this site has been successfully operating illegally for at least a month or two while a multimillion dollar conglomerate like Getty stands by unable to do anything about it. I guess that's what taking away the zoom tool does to everyone, leaves us all in a state of hallucination. 

A partner site download wouldn't result in the contributor being credited for a full XL download each time. So a partner site probably isn't the leak. Plus it seems search results on the illegal site mirror iStock's search results.

It's also possible the illegal site downloads an XL regardless of the file size purchased by the buyer on the illegal site. Thus the contributor always gets credited for an XL download.

I've spoken with an internet security expert about how this illegal site is possibly obtaining iStock content.

It seems the most plausible answer is that the people behind this illegal site have obtained an illegitimate API access key somehow which allows them to get access to any contributor content they want on the iStock site for free.

It would seem iStock is aware of this, but hasn't been able to shut down their API access key or it wouldn't continue to go on.

So it seems the security of the iStock site has been broken and that is how this illegal site is able to supply iStock content to whoever tries to buy it from istockreseller.com

In addition, their API key also appears to allow them to add a credit to the contributor's account crediting them for the download/sale without ever making an actual payment to iStock for the content downloaded by the illegal reseller site.

As a result, this site sounds like some sort of group that is trying harm iStock and resell iStock content without harming its contributors.

Maybe the web developers who are job hunting for IT jobs in Calgary are aware of how problematic the old platform that the iStock site is built on is and don't want to have anything to do with it. The people working in IT probably don't care about the external reputation if the pay is good, but don't want the headache of trying to maintain a content management site riddled with bugs and that is barely being held together with band aids. Would you? Just knowing how slow the site runs and seeing how long the bug lists are, most qualified web developers would probably say no thanks.