The only 'pattern' I've noticed in my own case is that the files with ELs tend to have low dl numbers, whether old or new. (Though my top sellers also have had ELs). Sometimes even old files with 0 dls, as though the buyer has particularly sought out a low seller on a search. Makes sense.

Then you write, I am sure that one can find technical flaws in Ansel Adams pictures and content flaws in Cartier Bresson's, but lets be realistic, and try not to be perfectionists. Are you Ansel or Cartier in your own mind.

One thing thatmicro has spoiled me for is photo exhibitions. No matter how big the name, I keep finding myself thinking, "That'd never get onto iStock", even contermporary 'big names' with modern gear. Not that they'd need to consider selling on micros anyway. 
I do try to shake off that 'limited' mentality before going into galleries.

Here's what I wrote:

What frustrates you about working with iStock?
Not being able to plan for the future, as things can change without notice. For example, the RCs debacle a few days after I quit my day job (ironically, because of the duplicity of my former boss).
Sometimes very strange and inconsistent inspections.
Sometimes strange rules, i.e. 'respecting IP' seems not to apply to Developing World artisans (I guess because they can't afford expensive lawyers).
Strange rules about not sending sports images taken on public spaces. It might well be an issue in the US, but there's a whole world out here.
Not being able to trust anything which is said, whether it's "It'll be fixed by Wednesday" or "you will be grandfathered in".
Silly games and teasing, all that F5 silliness, which might have been fun while the site was fun, but is now just childish and annoying.
Site problems not being resolved quickly. New site features never seeming to be tested properly before going live. When there's a site fault, buyers get a discount so contributors lose out, though the fault was clearly not our doing.
Lobo.
Slow editorial inspections.
Very slow support/Scout replies sometimes (months)

Why somewhat dissatisfied?
As indicated in the answer about frustrations. Inconsistent inspections, especially about what's allowed and not, what's editorial what's 'main collections'.
 Slow response time, sometimes.
Lack of trust.
Apparent lack of a clear way forward - sometimes it seems like they just go in and ask the masseuse, "suggest something new we could do on the site" and the programmers have to implement it by lunchtime.
Although I am signed up for newsletters and group emails, I don't get them, and the Support reason (you haven't provided us with a valid email address) is obviously not true, as I get acceptance emails and payout confirmation emails no problem.

How else could iStockphoto improve the way it communicates with you?
Use clear, unambiguous language. There's no use writing communications which are open to interpretation so that people waste time on the forums trying to thrash out the meaning - but these are only 'peer opinion'. We need it to be clear and unambiguous first time: it never is. Get a variety of people to read over the communications before they go out, e.g. contributors.


Do you have any ideas on how iStockphoto could better serve our current customers and/or attract new ones?
Expand Team Keywords to be able to cope with the mess of spammed files. Make sure all inspectors are onboard with inspecting keywords - pay them more, if necessary. Many files are still being accepted day and daily with badly keyworded files. Some search results are, frankly, risible.

Is there anything else you want to tell us?
Allegedly, iStock's business model was 'unsustainable', so they had to cut most of our percentage rates. We, the suppliers, have expenses too, and for many of us, iStock is becoming unsustainable.
No more bombshells.
You have a LOT of work to do if you are to regain even a fraction of the goodwill you had before September. Kelly was so wrong when he said, "It's all just blown over". NO. If people didn't "calm down" they were LOBOtomised from the forum.
If it's not broke, don't fix it. E.g. F5.
Don't rub our noses in it: just after the RC/%age cut shock, the iStock admins were staying at a London hotel during the 'lypse which cost almost double the central London Holiday Inn I stay in when I'm in London. Clearly, it's only the contributors who are unsustainable. The staff are whistling while the contributors burn.

From the iStock thread about The Weltzeituhr in Alexanderplatz, http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=332700&page=1, I found this Wikipedia link about Freedom of Panorama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

Inter alia, it says:
"Freedom of panorama, often abbreviated as FOP, is a provision in the copyright laws of various jurisdictions that permits taking photographs or video footage, or creating other images (such as paintings), of buildings and sometimes sculptures and other art which are permanently located in a public place, without infringing any copyright that may otherwise subsist in such works, and to publish such images. Panorama freedom statutes and/or case law limit the right of the copyright owner to take action for breach of copyright against the creators and distributors of such images. It is an exception to the normal rule that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorize the creation and distribution of derivative works. The phrase is derived from the German term Panoramafreiheit ("panorama freedom").
...
Laws around the world
Many countries have similar provisions restricting the scope of copyright law in order to explicitly permit photographs involving scenes of public places or scenes photographed from public places. Other countries, though, differ widely in their interpretation of the principle.

In the European Union, Directive 2001/29/EC provides for the possibility of member states having a freedom of panorama clause in their copyright laws, but does not require such a rule.

Panoramafreiheit is defined in article 59 of the German Urheberrechtsgesetz, in article 27 of the Swiss Urheberrechtsgesetz, in section 62 of the United Kingdom Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and it exists in several other countries.

On the other hand, there are also European countries such as Italy, where there is still no freedom of panorama at all. In Italy, despite many official protests and a national initiative led by the lawyer Guido Scorza and the journalist Luca Spinelli (who highlighted the issue), the publishing of photographic reproductions of public places is still prohibited, in accordance with the old Italian copyright laws.

<snip>

Anyone know about this Italian legal let-out? There are many 'out and about' ancient buildings photos (a very few of them mine) in Italy in iStock's main collection, and we know how they tend to 'err on the side of caution'. I'm going to Florence in a couple of months and should have some photo time. I'm guessing there's more to it than the last paragraph above.

I spotted a couple of best match searches where it wasn't the same old, same old at the top, but new low-selling files. These were 'less popular' search terms. Certainly in some of my usual tests, it's the same V/A at the top. But maybe they're trying out different BMs.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 24, 2011, 08:57

I've never heard of most of these people.

Maybe minor celebrity portraits then...?

My not having heard of someone doesn't preclude them from being a celebrity - its not really something that interests me. I just saw a whole lot of faces at movie events and glazed over.

Yeah, someone has to be huge before I'll ever hear of them: not quite as bad as my husband who asked me who Brad Pitt was when Legends of the Fall was on TV over the w/e.

Quote from: nruboc on August 23, 2011, 17:10

Compete?
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com+dreamstime.com/

Amazin chart, for IS. People always criticize the validity of these traffic charts, but if I tilt the chart a few degrees counterclockwise, the DT and SS lines match very well with my sales stats at those sites. Probably not a coincidence. Are the IS exclusives trapped on the deck of a sinking ship?

Funny thing is that my stats don't match the iStock graph. Just me being weird, as usual, I suppose.

Quote

iStockphoto is the favorite/go-to microstock agency
Designers use a mix of rights managed and royalty free images
    Rights managed � 32%
    Royalty free � 93%

32% + 93% > 100%

(It may mean that some use both, but others surveys in the same page are totalling 100%)

I took it for granted that it meant that some use both ("designers use a mix")

Quote from: ShadySue on August 23, 2011, 13:32

On SS's privacy page, it says their phone number is 1-866-663-3954. It might be worth phoning that number, even if it's only to get the number of the person you need to contact.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/privacy.mhtml

There you go. Don't look under Contact Us, the logical place. Look through every other page on their site!  

I googled Shutterstock phone number, but that was the only real 'hit' I got.
I thought having 'real' phone number on your contact page was good practice to encourage trust that you're not a rip-off merchant.

On SS's privacy page, it says their phone number is 1-866-663-3954. It might be worth phoning that number, even if it's only to get the number of the person you need to contact.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/privacy.mhtml

We check the ID's on a per user basis. If it's a known name with files elsewhere we are ok with one ID. If it's a new user we're more strict. For anyone here one ID is fine.

Must be an issue for a lot of people, esp from countries like the UK which don't require photo ID. For example, I happen to have a passport, but that's the only photo ID I have, and there must be lots of people who don't have a passport (fewer in the UK than - proportionately - in the US). I have an old-style driver's licence which doesn't have a photo and don't need to change that until 2033. (Ironically, those with the newer photo driver's licences have to renew them every ten years and pay �20 for the privilege. Huh, that's a great example of 'Rip-off Britain' - I look like a fatter, wrinklier version of my graduation photo, no-one would doubt it was me 34 years ago.)

Ok, good news for me: my first batch of 4 images was accepted by Alamy some minutes ago.

Bad news for me: I still do not know wheter Alamy allows to sell images  RM if  sell them RF on other agencies. I am not really interested about what iStock is saying cause I am not exclusive there (or elsewhere). I just would like to know wheter Alamy allows it.
And I would like to know (if there is anybody who sells some RM and some RF on Alamy): which kind of liscence is earning more money

Do you know there is an Alamy forum?

Thanks for your quick answer.

Now two new questions:
If a have to similar but not identical photo from a series, can I sell one on my microstock agencies, the other as RM on Alamy?

And does anyone have experience with "novel use". Can you combine it with RF and is it worth doing it?

It depends how similar. Some definitions of sister/similar are remarkably different - Getty is particularly sticky about thatl.
You can combine RF with novel use. What I've read is that 'novel use' returns can be tiny, but I've seen on iStock/Getty forum that sometimes Getty sales can be under a dollar too. Up to you to decide if it's worth it. You almost certainly wouldn't get full price sales from the NU buyers unless you've got something really unique that they can't get CC on Flickr, for example.
IIRC, you're either 'in' NU or not, so if you are opted into the scheme and get a photo of the Loch Ness Monster, you couldn't opt that photo alone out. Same applies to the newspaper scheme. You get a chance to opt in or opt out of each programme in April each year.