And it's also pretty demotivational when an image is at best match position 83 less than 24 hours after being accepted into the collection. Even though best match changes FTTT, that file is effectively DOA.
On the other scale, when Vetta was introduced, there was a rule that files had to have under 100 sales to qualify. I had one particular file which had gone to about 109 (can't remember exactly), so I didn't submit it for consideration. That file is now buried in best match below many other Vetta files uploaded since then, many of which I don't see as being 'better' than mine.

that does not speak to quality of your work, which we all agree is great I'm sure. nor does it speak to your knowledge, which I'm the first to say you have a great deal of and which you share very generously. but if I forget it is you in the example...there are many higher canister levels who reached diamond--the second to highest canister level--simply by whittling away at it for a few years. that's okay, but why should they get the same income as a contributor producing hundreds of files per month, and therefore generating income with more downloads (assuming the quality is there).

They wouldn't have the same income. If someone has a tiny number of super selling files (I've seen at least one diamond with fewer than 50 files) they're hardly 'working their butt off', but they are garnering loads of money for iStock.
If someone isn't producing the quality/quantity ratio, they're already getting less money because they have fewer sales. Someone with a higher quantity/quality ratio earns more because they have more sales.
This artificial 'bell curve' whereby only a certain number of people can reach each percentage point is totally demotivational. If it's 'motivating' it's only making people produce more and more, which benefits the site at a lower percentage, but only a set percentage of people can get the higher percentages. The bell curve is such an outdated model (we learned it in teacher training college in the 70s; I never heard about it since). Nowadays it's all about co-operation, at least within a business.
Bear in mind, that once a file has been inspected and is added to the collection, its overhead is tiny. This isn't like a traditional business. A few years ago (before they banned chocolate in schools) I ran a fair trade snack stall at interval in school. The profit was essentially a flat 10%. I mentioned that to a class, and one of the pupils came back a few days later and said her father wanted to know how on earth I could get as much profit as that, as he was running a (small, independent) shop on a lower profit margin. (my stall was raising money for school children in Malawi and had no overheads apart from buying the stock.) Watch my lips: lower than 10%. Of course, the family wasn't living in a luxury Manhattan apartment, but the three children were well dressed and well cared for. On less than 10%.

Lisa - in reply to your other question...adjusting the RC targets downward is good...isn't it? Andrew's just said they won't be adjusted up. meaning, if anything, if people aren't reaching targets en masse, they'll adjust the targets to be more reasonable.

translation, they want to see contributors producing. that's my take anyways.

I don't think they will raise targets for this year, unless they're trying to get rid of loads of contributers; and if they wanted to do that, they'd just do it.
What they do in the future, who can tell.
As Susan says, we can't take their 'word' at face value. Even if they genuinely mean it at the time, tomorrow, next week, next month, who knows?
The RC targets are very demotivational. I've no chance of reaching the 35% target, and my uploads of the past 18 months aren't selling, so it doesn't seem worth the effort, so if they want to see the humble minions producing, they've gone a funny way about it.

@ Stacey:
on the iStock forum, on which I can't reply, you posted:
"does this pave the way that all sales will result in lowered royalties garnered by contributors? I hate to use the publishing industry as a positive example, because for the most part it isn't a fun industry, but at least when an author gets royalties....their royalties aren't reduced if a book is sold at a discount."
We have always had lowered royalties from all iStock sales and discounts. At least, always since I've been a member there (four years).

okay. so let me see if I understand this... can someone help me out here?

1) have they fixed the 10% thing and made back payments yet? (I am not affected by this, but just wondering)

2) This "sale" results in small savings for buyers which means reduced commission to the contributors.  But hopefully offset by more sales.

3) double RC is only on the Vetta images, yes?  and, they don't show up right away, they'll add them later. 
"I'll gladly you pay you tomorrow for a cheeseburger today"

1. No;  2 Yes and in theory, yes;  3. Yes and yes.

Funny and ironic.

Mr Thompson complaining about Microsoft bugs on twitter.

Why #Microsoft will never get it: http://yfrog.com/5rsjf0p The no anti-aliasing for text under 8 pt still isn't fixed in Mac Office 2011

Please, please tell me that that's not him, or someone has hacked into this account or something.
I just can't believe that he would have the brass neck to post that.
If it really was him, I'm very, very afraid. 

You made me look a bit harder Sue... as far as I can see, only the caption field is asterisked as 'mandatory'.

I've never completed the location fields, and everything is either 'on sale' or 'ready'.  I'm using the 'old version' of the manage images feature.  

Oh, that's interesting, I thought that caption, essential keywords and location were all mandatory. I've just looked and see that you're right.
Don't know where I got that idea from. Thanks!

I only fill in fields (other than the required ones) if I feel I have information that needs to go into them. For example, I fill in the description field if I have more information than will go into the caption.
I do find it odd that the require location on every shot, as it's very easy to think of studio setups where the location is totally irrelevant, again contaminating a search. (If someone keys in New York or Edinburgh or Delhi, they don't want a studio shot of a still life that happened to be shot there.)

From a contributer's point of view, they're not a good thing, as if an image was found in a context which would have needed an extended licence, but none was purchased, you wouldn't be able to have them chased up so easily.

I'd hope at the very least they should explain in detail what exactly they're suspecting/accusing you of and give you a chance to prove your innocence.
But, sadly, I expect it's buried somewhere in their t&c that they can terminate your account at any time.  
Ideal soution/pipedream: Then, when/if you establish your innocence, they should have to pay you e.g. the average pay per day of the two weeks surrounding your suspension for each day you were suspended, for goodwill.

SS used to sell modern buildings like hot cakes when I started in 2008. The rules have changed, but the old images remain in the database. From the major sites DT and IS still accept them but they usually do not sell in such volume as they did at SS.

The agencies should lobby for clearer and more photographer-friendly laws, as in Germany or Austria.

Like other things on iS, acceptance depends on the cautiousness of the inspector. I, and others, have had photos of the same thing accepted by one and rejected, or sent 'upstairs' to 'exectutive', which can take weeks. I've got one of two (horizonal and vertical) at executive just now, while the other was accepted (uploaded  few hours apart, so almost certainly different inspectors).

@ Stacey ~
While you are of course, entitled to your opinion, even if clearly wrong (in it being a conflict of interest) consider this.
Contributors have been shafted and their complaints ignored. There were threads which ran to several thousands into which there was no input from TPTB. In fact, if it weren't for the recent thread about Franky de Meyer, I might have suspected that most of the admins and inspectors had resigned.
Buyers, even if also contributers, should expect a little more respect, and I have to say that if I were the OP, I'd demand a refund for my money and take it elsewhere. And as an exclusive, that could hurt me as much as it would hurt you. It would hurt Lobo not one iota, as he isn't a contributor, unless he also has another account (would that be a conflict of interest?).