What's the over under on when he disappears again?

Well Perseus/Batman disappeared. It must be something like the seven-year itch. Anyways, I feel 'unworthy' to be on Thinkstock.  

On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock.

Thinkstock is 0.25$ for independents, no growth path. That's where it all started. If they had announced 0.30$, there would hardly have been this kind of opposition.

It is a shame they have categories, that slows things down.  The worst problem I find is that a lot of my titles are too long, that really does waste my time editing those.

Not only that. If either title or description contain quotes (like "fishermen's boat"), the title and/or description will be reported as too long.
Then, 160 characters for the description is really too short. Most of mine are truncated. I settled for the 220 limit on SS.
Finally, the title is taken from the IPTC field "object name", as most sites (except SS) do, but if there is something in the IPTC field "headline", it takes precedence. That's very annoying for me since no site uses that field, and I use it to put in the model's name. I have to replace manually the title of all images with a model. I wish they sticked at least to de facto rules of IPTC usage and size of the other sites.

Could you tell me please, how can I remove my name from rank listing?

Only you can see your rank. Others can't. That's why this thread was made, for people that want to communicate it.

Is it the opt out button for Extended Licence I should click?

How can you do anything on iStock if you're exclusive on Dreamstime?

Some of my images automatically were migrated over to Thinkstock, although it was mostly moldy oldies that don't sell. I was thinking maybe ThinkStock is a place where IS plans to dump non-sellers, and that seemed like a good idea.

Not so. Very often low sellers on one site sell well on another. When I deleted my port at SX a few days ago (to avoid those convenient "mistakes" of TS) I had a good look at what sold there over 3 years, and that was totally different from other sites.
But it would be wrong to blame iStock for all this, since they gave a button to opt out of TS. I think the iStock people had to fight hard for this with Getty.

Where did you get that? I think it's not true, I mean the part about the PPD sales.

I thought stinkstock was a subs-only site?
They have to be by design or they would compete with iStock, something the exclusives there won't be amused with.

And watch his mouth !  

I don't watch my mouth for loud spammers, chap, that don't understand the concept of exclusivity.
Your "exclusive" image on Dreamstime is also on bigstockphoto, fotolia, istockphoto and 123RF.

FYI: I didn't spy for it since I blocked you a long time ago, but a long term reviewer (that wishes to remain anonymous) on one of those sites sent me a message about it. Some reviewers have memories like an elephant.  

Happy shooting! (no reply needed)

I don't know why.  Care to elaborate? 

You've got mail.

istock's edge is its current (18 months) exclusive content, none of which will be going to thinkstock. savvy buyers know this.

If this is true, it won't be much of a competition to SS, since SS will have the newest stuff (18 months is long enough), just like IS.  In fact TS will look slightly as a leftovers site then.

To Racephoto: yes there is a big difference between SS and TS. Agreed, SS starts at 0.25$ too, but there is a fast growth path to 0.36$ (if even an amateur like me is already there). On TS there will probably only be a growth path for IS exclusives (to keep them happy).

By supporting TS (don't we need an abbrev for the new stock?) in masses, we give the higher paying sub agencies clear message that we don't mind lowering our commissions.

Exactly. If there is a lot of grumbling from IS exclusives, it might well be that the 0.25$ on TS goes up for IS exclusives only, according to their canister level. Then IS will, but for the exclusives only, have a SS and FT scheme.
Putting the price as low as the initial level on SS now will give TS a huge profit. So perhaps this is a strategic reserve to please the exclusives later with a canister-based reward. The IS forum will cheer all over praising IS as never before.  

I'm not the best and certainly not expensive, but I'm not cheap enough to let my things be on thinkstock for peanuts. I don't like to feel that cheap. It's a question of pride.

I don't want to undercut DT and SS with their generous subs compensation at 0.35$ (level 1) or 0.36$. It doesn't make sense for them to keep these kinds of royalties up if we offer our images - out of short term greed - behind their back at 0.25$ at the first new cheap site that pops up.

Yesterday morning, I deleted my port at SX (800 since 2006) one by one. I looked at the images with 5, 10 and more downloads. They were totally different from other sites: the kind of images that IS never would accept because too artistic, too off-mainstream, too "distorted". I'm probably not the only one with the observation that SX (also by JUI and photos.com) sold totally different things than other sites. That type of niche content is lost forever for Getty.

The SX, photos.com, JUI customers just won't evaporate, and they won't find what they were used to on thinkstock. The lazy part of them will stick with IS and discover a whole new world. The other part will roam around till they find SS or DT or perhaps FT (but it has a weird acceptance policy).

DT and SS have approximately the same content as SX had, just a bit more. They will find themselves at home there. By murdering SX instead of keeping it as B-site next to A-site IS, Getty destroyed assets it payed for.

Also, DT has now emailed me stating they will not send me my $65.00 payout as it has not reached the $100 mark.

You should have posted that on the forum and made an agreement with another contributor to buy his images with converted credits. He could send you his earnings then by paypal. At least you wouldn't lose the full 65$. (obsolete)

I have to add that neither YAY, LO or CC offered me payout of my below-threshold earnings when I left there, so it's common practice.