Fotolia

Stupid think is that you can fill only one survey.
If you have splited port 50/50 or 30/30/30% like as illustrator and photographer or videographer???
Anyhow I checked everything as very poor like as is.

Seams that they guts are not empty jet. They really have fat cheek to suggest anything after greedy mess what they produced.

I dont like them from the first day. For now I still dont like them (I hate them precisely) + I dont believe them anymore.
Anyhow I don have any good or positive word about them.
I always hate tricky little pussies geeks with primitive foxy attitude.
Its really not coincidence that they name on my language is iStock, Cattle and *insult removed* (all in one word)

Better for them to cover themselves with ears, shut up an crawl under rock where they come from.

Sorry for trolling again, I am very tired of them and with they new insanely or other lunatic future offers which cant surprise me anymore in anything...

Can someone confirm my bad dreams.
Somehow I think that first founder dady Getty in his days was blackmail by mafia, and after that he made Getty foundation to avoid blackmail. After few decades somehow foundation was on free market?! and bought by the same mafia covered by suspicious venture capital. I dont know if it is H&F or some hidden investors under H&F.
If it is true this means that hidden mafia guys are black mailing Getty again and raping them more and more every year. Now Getty is like goose without feathers and now It is turn to rape iStock to feed mafs....
And that is all about...
Only in this case I will somehow understand this mess what is on iStock this days

Can somebody verify my bad dreams 

Almighty Angry Parokeet, guide us through this iStock mess.

I just like way how somebody who wrote this on Wiki legally try to ruin they reputation just little bit.
I dont looked if same is added on iStock wiki too...

I just wonder in what drugs are iStock and Greedy???

what
Upload your finished jpeg before the end of Sunday September 5 at www.istockbattleroyale.com.
Please note that clicking this link will take you to away from iStockphoto.com. We are using a third-party site called Strutta.com to host the Qualifying round. You will be asked to register � all this requires is a name and email address.
Haw haw
+
Execution: The technical meat & potatoes of your blow: the isolation work, lighting, layering, and use of effects.

Poor: You used the magic wand tool, didn't you?

Needs Work: Edges are jagged or fuzzy where they shouldn't be. Effects aren't uniformly applied and we can see where the layers meet. You need to take more time on the details and work on your Photoshop skills.

Average: There may be inconsistencies in where the light comes from. Isolation and masking work could be better. The use of transparencies and layer effects is a little obvious and could be better integrated. But all in all, not bad.

Very Good: You've attempted some difficult isolation and effects, and for the most part made them work. Any complaints are minor � well done.

Perfect: A photo-realistic, seamless effort. The viewer has no idea how you pulled this off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In my experience from iStock they reject my isolations are mostly under "Needs Work" as nonexclusive while beardless kids from school grabbing money from them in explanation how site is horizontal and "will be priceless better (for they pocket) if it will bee vertical"

Anyhow I dont want play this iStock peewee game... ad that is 1/4 reasons why.
I just cant imagine sadomazohistic combination of rejections which are mentioned below
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Composition: The artistic strength of your blow: your use of space within the confines of the image dimensions, the unity of your colors, lines and shapes, and the immediate visual impact of the blow.

Poor: Sorry, but did you look at this before uploading it?

Needs Work: There's nothing visually exciting or distinctive about this blow. Your layout, your color choices, your tone, all need more time and care.

Average: You've used the canvas well. Things are well laid out but not necessarily striking.

Very Good: This is a good-looking blow. Nice design choices, strong color, and a really clear visual identity.

Perfect: A work of art. Whether it's the intricacy of the elements, or the sheer boldness of the design, it's a thing of beauty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Elements: How well did you incorporate the existing elements from the previous blow?

Poor: A complete wipe. No effort to use any previous elements.

Needs Work: We can recognize elements from the previous blow, but things might be a bit clumsy, or poorly integrated.

Average: Visible elements are well-integrated, but nothing really stands out in the way you've used them.

Very Good: Not only are the elements there, but you've established some continuity with what happened before: we've got a narrative now between the two.

Perfect: You've not only cleverly manipulated the main elements into a completely new concept, you've created some narrative continuity and found neat ways to work in radical alterations as well as minor details
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originality & Creativity: Did you re-hash a haggard old cage concept, or are you showing us something we've never seen before?

Poor: You took the original blow and put it in a picture frame. Boo.

Needs Work: You've moved the elements around but without any real sense of why. None of the elements add up to something new or innovative.

Average: Your science-fiction space battle is pretty good, but we get a lot of science-fiction space battles around here.

Very Good: ... We get relatively few science-fiction Prom-dances though. Nice work on the martian spiking the punch.

Perfect: We thought we'd seen it all, then we saw this. Outstanding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from many aspects of view it is just PITA

Anyhow another site which will pluck our rare feathers away, with or without they ability to impement that in easy way... grrrrrrrrrrrrr
Blahhh
iStock is laughing on this lets say problems........

Looks like they fixed it a few weeks ago according to the normal views of my images.

It is lat say fixed for new uploaded files but I was talking about files which are affected with that.
That is not fixed.
I complain to them thru mail and they just answer me after 2 weeks that they perceive that problem but without any word that they will solve it for affected files.
I think I will upload this files like as new ones without waiting they nebulous explanation and ignorance...

They didnt fix it jet and I think they dont want or they dont know how fix it.. grrrrrrrr

My views on uploads from july 14th is zero.  Never happen before.
Maybe a week before but not this long.

Believe me or not that is better than that you have 500 or more views on iStock in few hours after accepted upload and ofcourse without any sale.

Well, the good thing about "this type of nonsense" is that geologists get more money for research.

Maybee in this case I can get some money for research "this type of nonsense", how global warming have influence on Stokas reviewers.
 

I dont try to upload after that "marvelous lets say redesign iStock thing" (Are they enlarge box for keywords or it is same dimension like this when you post something here in MSG or other forum I mean 15 x 5 cm
Or it is just CCS smearing in front page and all same pain in the ass structure is stay the same???
I think old manners are never changes. If Someone is iStock always stays iStock.
I go to vacation for 2 weeks now (so all people who put me on ignore list can pop up cheese from they ears) and I will not be surprised if after that I couldn't upload anything to iStock...
Stay well is only what I can tell in (Haiku)