I still think that it's bad manners to have a discussion/debate with someone and not be willing to at least sign your first name.  That being said, in the grand scheme of things...who really cares?
Have a good one,
Mat

If that's the worst example of bad manners you experience on the web, I'll be amazed. 

Really?  I think that it makes a great difference in the validity of an opinion.  Are you telling me that you hold the anonymous poster with a portfolio of 17 poorly composed, improperly lit photos in the same regard as a photographer like Yuri? 
Mat

If they were anonymous, how would you know which category they fell into?

I'm semi-anonymous here, i.e. my user name isn't my real name, but if anyone cared, they can easily find out who I am.
Before I started iStock it seemed most contributors (that frequented the forums) had 'silly' usernames (this has changed since then) and I thought it was required, so thought one up as I registered. My name here is a variation.
Not having my real name here means someone in another context searching my name won't find it here (which I hadn't thought about until I read it earlier in this thread).
I am anonymous on the Alamy forum, as there are so many micro haters there. If they know you're a microstocker, particiularly iStock, they gang up on you (so what?), and sometimes refuse to answer your questions even if you've been helpful in previous posts . As I'm anonymous there, it hasn't happened to me, but I've seen it happen to others.
(Don't bother trying to guess. I changed computer and forgot all my passwords, and haven't posted on there for weeks.)

Quote from: ShadySue on August 08, 2011, 12:45

Back on topic, I notice JJRD has said:
"Moderators are fair.
People going Downtown around here go beyond expressing themselves."

Well, ya know:
"So, maybe I'll see you there
We can forget all our troubles, forget all our cares and go
Downtown, things'll be great when you're
Downtown, don't wait a minute more,
Downtown, everything's waiting for you"
[Tony Hatch]

You'll be dancing with 'em too before the night is over,..  

We need some new blood.  

If there is a best match boost for P+, it must be minimal.  In most searches the vast majority of images in the front are still exclusive.  In fact I had hoped P+ would improve my search positions more than it has. 

The promised best match boost for E+ never happened, and I'm not even sure that they made such a promise for P+ (?).
Knowing what an iStock promise is worth, they'd be better not to make them. Once (or more) bitten, several times shy.

Nothing new in the article. He does mention the 'no advertising' clause with Premium, but plays it down. That is a huge difference between premium and micro. End of.

I wouldn't want Lobo's job.

Well, no, but you'd think he could have picked up some other skills and advanced by now.
iStock's careers page says:
"We love learning
We thrive off running one of the world's busiest and fastest-growing sites and we offer our employees training opportunities in many of the fields our business impacts. So whether you are interested in advanced layer-masking techniques for Photoshop, want to be an illustrator or a videographer, or just want to learn how to take a picture in focus, we're going to help.
Launched in spring 2008, iStock U is an in-house set of courses from our own experts on all kinds of visual art. You'll be immersed in a creative, web-friendly environment and we'll provide you with training to make the most of it. "
As a minimum. he should be required to get, say, 50 files in each media online, so that he knows all the frustrations of the process. It's easy to be snarky when you haven't a clue. I wouldn't dream of commenting on the issues an audio contributor might have, for instance.
And did he get a pay cut when most contributors did? Unlikely, I'd say.
Though he has been treated badly by his overlords, e.g. when they dropped the September bombshell and disappeared, and he was left, as someone here put it, 'playing whack-a-mole' with the inevitable fallout for IIRC about a week.

I totally disagree, I think he is fully under control and anything else is just letting IStock off the hook.
Again, if IStock Inc. didn't approve of the appalling treatment being dished out on their forums they've had plenty of time to remedy it.
Any ill-treatment can by now be considered official IStock policy and under their control.

Good point and probably true; also as mentioned before, I hear Peebert was even worse.
You'd think they could train Lobo in helpfulness, and maybe a bit in iStock policy. After all, if they're paying him to be on the forums, he might as well be useful. If trained in iStock policies, he could earn his keep by filtering some queries away from Support. (though I suspect a lot of 'policies' are made up on the spot if a query arises). 'Uncle Rob' was very helpful, and would actually find out things for people.

This user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else.

eheh let�s open a FB fan page for him

Some of us must be automatic super-fans. 

The BBC buys from TS. I try not to look at the pictures anymore on the website.

As an iStocker, I'm as mad as Getty togs are when they see iStock photos being used.
As a licence payer, I guess it's OK. 

[clipart.com]
Seeing that site mentioned in KKT's e-mail inspired me to take another look to see if it had changed since I last looked in 2008. I was totally blown away by the garbage they're offering. I think this is all wholly owned garbage, so I'm going to post links to gems like these coins, this supposed night scene - look at the shadows, or the lovely composition of this shot of a banjo. Whoever shot these remains anonymous
There are at least four very similar to one of those you linked to above doing well at iStock.

The illustrations are just as bad - boy with puppy, stick insect, Christmas wreath. Then there's a 32x32 GIF of a palette.

A lot of these illos look very similar to the sort of clipart you could get free with computer magazine discs back in the day.

When he joined iStock in 2004, he certainly couldn�t have imagined how loathed iStock would be today. Or maybe he doesn't even know.

He thinks "everyone just calmed down".