Ok, now I understand what you�re talking about! And yes, I know about this kind of problems. With older Windows versions you needed to install a memory manager to get your memory back. Or doing a restart.

Since I use Picniche I left my browser sometimes open all day and indeed I had some problems lately with a slowing down computer. Thought it was a harddisk that�s nearly full!
Did you try this? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/11922/

After doing a search on the internet I found also that there is a problem with a memory leak in Windows7 too. Microsoft said they planned to solve this this month August with SP1.
It seems that there is a connection with the FF problem when using Win7 and FF together on one computer. It was found by accident by a group of people responsible for the computers in a company when installing new PCs. (Don't know how to call them in English. I.T.'s?) They asked Microsoft, for they couldn�t found a solution on the M�s website. Microsoft told them about the planned fix in SP1. It is not in English, so a link is useless I think.)

When this can happen, there is a serious problem with FF:
�This will eventually slow down the system and in the worse case lead to a password leaking i.e, your password will be displayed publicly due to memory leakage in Internet browsers.� (quote from the blog you linked.) 
By the way: there�s no date on the blog and the only reaction is from March 2009. So at first I was thinking it is old news, but it seemed not to be solved yet.

Perhaps a good idea to try Opera instead, but then I can�t use Picniche anymore�
At least it will always help not to install too much add-ons, being careful with toolbars and don�t do too much �personalizing� in FF.
Thanks for the info!

Technical issues? Ideas?
I think we have to make Yay a compliment!
Uploading is easy, submitting is a pleasure, acceptance and rejections are mostly relevant and when there is a small technical problem sending an email is enough to get the problem solved in 1 or 2 days!
Two wishes are left here: Hoping that Yaymicro will get more sales in the future and that other stockagencies will learn from the way you run your site.

you're correct - newsworthy is one of a number of possible editorial definitions, not the ONLY one - but some reviewers can't seem to grasp that concept --resubmit them and they may be accepted  by another reviewer

I had a series of the same subject split up in two batches. First batch were all accepted, second batch all rejected for "not newsworthy enough". 
So perhaps you are right! Seem to me that the second batch had another reviewer!

Step by step you reached this mountain top. You are really a model to follow!
Congratulations with your well deserved black diamond status!
I wish you lots of luck for the future (and lots of downloads of course!) 

yesterday I had to laugh when I found this:
http://www.mostphotos.com/841256/Businessman-smiling
http://www.mostphotos.com/841235/Man-Praying
http://www.mostphotos.com/841241/Trendy-European-Suit-and-Tie
http://www.mostphotos.com/841260/Businessman-Making-a-Call
(I placed links for I don't know if I am allowed to copy and past photos from others)
Photos are made by Yuri Arcurs. Few examples, there are more...Seem selfportraits.

Thinking at all the comments about leaving copyspace, too much cropping, poor ligthing etc. that I would get when I had posted this... even the nose is cut off...!
Con licet jovi, non licet bovi.

When starting to submit to a stockagency they ask you a lot, but they forget to ask for your sense of humor. And that is what you just need the most!

This looks like a John Lund photo.

From the first time I saw it I'm pretty sure it is a John Lund photo. If it is, I'm asking myself where the big watermark is he always uses.

Perhaps the moderator can close a topic when it is outdated?
Then it can be seen immidiately.
It is so easy to overlook the date...! 

Hopefully they will bring comissions to up from .25c

They will not.
In the new Artist Image Upload Agreement you have to agree with:

12.1.
Crestock will pay you a Royalty equal to:
12.1.1.
twenty percent (20%) of Licensing Fees collected by Crestock from its clients until one hundred (100) Accepted Images in aggregate have been licensed by clients (but not through subscriptions); then
12.1.2.
after one hundred (100) Accepted Images have been downloaded by clients pursuant to Section 12.1.1, the Royalty will increase to thirty percent (30%) of Licensing Fees collected by Crestock from its clients; and
12.1.3.
a fixed fee of twenty-five cents (US $0.25) for each Accepted Image downloaded through any subscription sold by Crestock.

Yes, understand what you mean! I find it difficult how to deal with this. There's nothing what you can do about it yourself, for this rejection has nothing to do with quality of the images, overabundant subject or something like that...
I uploaded some editorials and did a search before. They had none of that subject at all on their site. None the less they rejected some of the series for ' too much of the same series'. Elsewhere they are nearly all accepted.
When going on doing so with the images of every contributor, they will through time end up having smaller collections of different subjects than all other stocksites have. Not the best way to attract buyers in my opinion. But perhaps I see that wrong...?

Now we have to wait for the first stockagency demanding a signed property release for photos with the moon in it... 

So the buyer can choose a 2mp or 18 mp for the same '25 a day' download price.
Perhaps the size doesn't always matter, but not many people need 25 images per day. I suppose they save them as a collection for later use. But you don't know what size you need in the future so the bigger download the better for your collection.
For the same reason we shoot our photos as big as possible. Better resize than upsize.

If this is true I was asking myself: why do some contributors resizing their images to the minimum for SS? Then you have less chance that your image will be downloaded.
Also for the enhanced and OD's. There's a smaller maximum image available for buyers.
Or do I oversee something?

First I did a search, but couldn't find anything that answers my question.
If this is discussed before, I would appreciate if you would send me the link.

At Shutterstock new photographers are only accept with 4 mp images, but older contributors can still submit 2 mp photos (or bigger).
Some have 6 mp, others 20 mp cameras.
Does SS offer all the images at the size they are submitted and also all for the same price?
I mean for contributors as well as for buyers.
When submitting a 2mp and a 18mp for example: contributors receive and buyers pay the same price for a download?
I have read that some of you save the images at lower mp to submit to SS, but if SS offers all the sizes for the same price, should buyers choose for the largest available downloads?