yeah, the .net sounds a bit strange (but thats not based on facts from my part, just a gut-feeling).
I'd contact Fotolia support through the normal way anyways, to ask, or just notify they might be phished

Can't we just put our money together and buy one of these to send to HQ when its CEO meeting? (we could even attack them  )  Would eliminate all the speculating and we'd know what to prepare for!

In this photo taken from computer animation video Friday, Nov. 21, 2008, and released by the U.S. Air Force, shows the next generation of drones, called Micro Aerial Vehicles, or MAVs. The MAVs could be as tiny as bumblebees and capable of flying undetected into buildings, where they could photograph, record, and even attack insurgents and terrorists.

If i'm not too late and there's still a spot i'm in! This sounds fun!
(i also read this too late, thought it was about these virtual postcards peeps send on facebook).

Looks crisp and clear Brian, thanks for the improvements (that payment history was very welcome) and keeping us posted!

Ah, at least you get it to actually 'search' for things ShadySue.
I can click my search button until i weigh an ounce, nothing happening at all. (and the buyers using the same FF 3.0.19 probably are stuck with the same dead 'search' button too)

Quote from: Artemis on January 12, 2011, 09:29

The 3 larges i sold today were $1,90 for each (used to be $2.80- 3.30).
Looks more like a 30-40% paycut than a 3% one but all we can do is hope its correct, right? If i keep seeing these pathetic numbers passing by it'll be easier indeed to ditch them altogether.

It's a 3% cut in your commission. So, reducing 20% to 17% is actually is about a 17% decrease which is how much less you'll earn.

I'm very maths impaired (and thus still dont get why i shouldnt receive $3,00 - 0,09 (=3% of 3) = $2,91; making i'd miss out 15-17% in annual royalties).
But even when i take a 17% cut;  17% of 3$ = 0,51, would still make $2,49 commission...(ive checked, the smallest large ive sold before the cuts was $2,30, minus 17% makes $1,91) I guess ('cuz gussing is all we can do) i just got hit with a discount account.
I cant help but feeling im get getting ripped off twice, once openly and once under the table with untrackable shennanigans. (and i admit: good chance its not true and my feeble mathbrain just cant handle it, but this shouldnt be rocket science in the first place.)

Quote from: jamirae on January 10, 2011, 11:57

Does iStock really think that people will be happy (...)?  

Yes.

Do you think they give rats  *** ? (apart from a select few who just have to be the pianists to shoot at). I always have the feeling over in HQ they refer to us as that bunch of whiners, or put up polls about how many angry replies their next announcement will bring . Pop in in the forums once inna while to soothe things (or just lock them up with a snarky comment) and do whatever fits them without any consideration whatsoever for the contributors (apart from another select few).
(im sorry, i'm not usually such a pessimist but all the things happening there since september are just...a surreal freaky show)

*snip*
All you doomsayers who think that every additional image accepted by Shutterstock is another nail in its coffin, do you have proof that suggests their business is suffering because of it?  Are you a buyer?  Just because you do a search hoping to see your own images and they don't come up, it doesn't mean that the buyer is having a bad experience.  I DO buy images for my day job and I can tell you that I enjoy Shutterstock's search much more than iStock's, so from my perspective, the site offers a good experience and I have never thought "There's simply too much here, I won't come back!"  As long as SS continues to provide an Amazon-like experience, offering a wealth of options for every conceivable need but delivering what the buyer wants most near the top of the search results, it will continue to prosper.  And if you're uploading marketable images that buyers actually want, you will prosper along with SS.

I've heard from more than one stockbuyer in person (one of them working on the publicity department of a pretty big company here that easily spends over $1000/month on stock) that they ditched SS because they didnt have the time to wade through all the junk out there (so yes, im convinced it hurts their business). Their database is just totally clogged...
I agree they're in dire need of a big spring cleaning, as someone said on the SS forums: its not about deleting niche-pics that dont sell so often but have their value, its about the gazillion staplers, strawberries, etc. isolated on gray(ish).

Hmm, so far the general consensus seems steady or up...
Sales for my puny portfolio there have doubled (without uploading much) the past 1,5 months. iStock is a slightly down too here,  but all in all going steady too (a miracle really considering their search engine issues)

I'm absolutely positive that after this (dead chicken) announcement the targets will never ever be lowered again. Doing so (for them) would be the same as announcing it was a bad year, something they'll never do because its nothing but growth, more growth, 'we're doing extremely well' and sexiness there in Lalalistockland.
As we all know and witnessed they'll make sure their favourite pets get their new higher goal RC's (whether it be by doubling them for vetta, or setting up a 'scam' to reward them with a bunch of extra credits), and the other 'plebs'  can bend or drop under the higher RC levels. (am i the only one thinking they actually WANT to get rid of all the non-vetta plebs to replace them with the neverending supply of cheap base canisters (who probably whine less too) ?)

nope

How absurd would it be if they rolled (or tried to...) royalties back to the first when the site is literally falling apart, the EL bonus fiasco still isnt sorted out, and so on..and on..and on...and oooooooon...  
The 10% EL bonus affected only exclusives, and not even all of them, this is about EVERYONE with different rates etc etc... and this is the company that thinks a script for mass-mailing everyone is already too complicated...

I put my money on:
They'll implement it somewhere next week/half january making a total mess of it, peeps will get the wrong percentages, it will take a couple of months to 'correct' it taking and adding some random amounts here and there to claim its fixed, and in the end nobody will know whether they were payed correctly. ( but we are already there, they went out of their way to make the system as untransparant as possible; im going down to 17%, but they can just as well put me on 15% or 18% since there's no way for me to calculate. )