I love pastorscott...he posts the best comments. thanks for resurfacing that one

fortunately, or unfortunately (in terms of dependence on income), my sales are very good right now....and have been this year. it makes it very hard for me to grow as an artist in both creative imagery and editorial when Getty is pitting exclusives against ourselves in the iStock collections.

Its pretty obvious now that the only reason IStock was allowed to start an editorial collection was so that Getty could dump their old editorial junk on the site and take advantage of Istock's traffic.

I think this is exactly what's happening. I feel the same way, and very frustrated about the situation. I've started a thread in iStock's suggestion forum imploring admins to treat iStock editorial contributors fairly.

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 17, 2011, 13:58

Quote from: pancaketom on October 16, 2011, 18:50

One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.

So you think some agency is going to hack the site to find out who's writing things about them?

Yes, I think this is a bit of paranoia. I understand anonymity, but I think people are taking this way too serious.

I agree...there is no end to what ifs...so at some point Tyler should just make a decision. it may not be the majority, but there is certainly a very close count on yay vs. nay...

Quote from: SNP on October 16, 2011, 18:00

I think the compromise again is identities known by Tyler for the purposes of registering accounts only. that way anyone worried about agency or contributor retaliation can worry less.

That of course assumes we completely trust the administrators of this forum.  Do they have personal connections with people at agencies, or with other posters?  I have no idea.   Could someone at an agency get worked up about something he saw  here, contact an adminstrator and offer a nice incentive in exchange for the identity of the troublesome poster?  It's not hard to imagine.  

I understand being cautious, but surely if you're that worried you wouldn't be here risking your account to begin with. this site is an important third-party resource for all things microstock. IMO it should facilitate open discussion and be a reference for those who might read only if MSG is going to evolve. I think it would be taken even more seriously and used more if it wasn't also a dumping ground for insults and wild speculation. Something a little in between the Lone Gunmen and Jsnover. No one should be forced into the open, but yes, I would have no problem trusting Tyler to know our identities. I'd have thought him already privy to the real names of those using his site anyways. I was surprised he isn't already in the know on our real identities.

Quote from: MatHayward on October 16, 2011, 00:31

It seems any time someone from the outside that isn't part of the "cool crowd" gets ripped up down left and right.  It's a very hostile environment and frankly it is more unpleasant and unwelcoming than anything as is.  

Um - somehow I must be on a different forum than you.

And I am a person who normally prefers harmony.

there are many people who feel this way. not just amateurs, but established pros too. I don't find it hostile, I think that's too strong. at worst, it's immature at times and one big pissing contest, and it has its share of thuggish personalities. at best it's an informative place, with freedom of speech (too much so sometimes). Once you know who's who more or less, it's easier to wade through.

Yeah, that would be important. Forgive the spelling in my last post please, typing on my iPhone is brutal and I keep missing the stupid auto-fill words it THINKS I am typing...

LOL, GREAT question and I have no answer. I'm asking myself the same thing....loved your metaphor though. so true.

gostwyck, lol, you know why I went anonymous briefly. frankly it was an attempt to avoid the harassment I felt was being allowed to occur, largely at your hand. that was years ago though, and we've discussed this and it's not something worth rehashing. I've really appreciated your more conciliatory communication lately. don't worry, I'm not confusing it for respect or deference ;-) and no, disagreement is not what I consider bullying.

I briefly changed my username, multiple times, and then decided that I'm not the type of person who hides behind an anonymous moniker...and I also realized that the way I was communicating was ineffective and perceived as rude at times, even though it wasn't intended that way. I am sarcastic by nature and as someone stated earlier sarcasm comes across far better in person than in writing. before iStock, I had never really communicated in forums and I was not seasoned enough to realize I was taking things far too personally and being bossy myself.

I'm not trying to be a hypocrite. I'm not saying anyone should lose the ability to be anonymous with agencies, since there are indeed consequences to voicing an opinion against an agency. but I do think that some qualification of accounts should be allowed in order to keep people from going off the rails, as so frequently happens here.

Quote from: SNP on October 14, 2011, 14:07

at literally every single photography event I have attended concerning stock, photographers comment about how scared they are to post here and how mean people get. it's completely unprofessional and unproductive.

Really? Maybe, those photographers should grow a pair. I'm kidding.  

Seriously though, I don't think it's really all that unwelcoming. You don't get as much sugar-coating here, but I find that a little more realistic. The world isn't all unicorns and lolly pops or hugs and rainbows. I would think as artists most of us are used to some criticism (I know I am).

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case because minor disagreements seem to quickly turn into name calling. And here we are with a thread about it. Maybe, everybody should get out the metaphorical sandpaper and toughen up their skin.  

growing a pair   okay, point taken. look, no one wants hearts and unicorns. but anyone suggesting that this forum is policed adequately for personal attacks obviously has a different boundary than me. sarcasm and disagreement is totally fine...but it goes well beyond that. anyways, this is why it's a discussion. my earlier post was not an exaggeration, and as proartwork has pointed out, I've spoken to some (who would be considered) major contributors that feel this way about MSG and don't even bother here because of the impression that it's all sourgrapes, gripers and attitude. I come here because despite that, my experience has toughened me up a bit and I still glean a lot of great information here. but there is still too much garbage and insult to wade through.

Although I have no problem using the same ID I use on the agencies, I understand one of the main reasons why people want to remain anonymous (not risking retaliation) and I appreacite the openess of opinions that the anonymity allows. OTOH, there have been a lot of stir that generates extra work to Leaf. If these problems are mainly generated by the anonymous members, than a solution of confirming identity to Leaf only would be a good compromise. If people don't trust him, then, well, maybe they don't belong to his forum.

good point

^ you probably won't see my post since it seems you're lucky #32...but your post makes a point. instead of stating why you disagree, or welcoming discussion, you've posted an inflammatory, dead end response. aren't we beyond the popularity games of high school at this point?

I don't think requiring true identity would be all that good of an idea, especially with at least one agency publicly stating they would take retribution for things said in public fora.

That said, some of the spats and arguments are pretty annoying and childish, and people coming back repeatedly with different usernames is annoying.

A side forum for only people that are verified might be nice though.

Generally I'd advocate for a pretty loose hand on the reigns here, but when people start insulting each other directly as opposed to disagreeing with what they said, it just gets messy, so go ahead and delete that stuff. Sometimes it might be tongue in cheek or meant as a joke, but that can be hard to convey with text. Just because you put a smiley after an insult doesn't mean it is ok.

I do appreciate this forum and most of its members. Over time there are some I have come to value their opinions more than others. Some people just seem to talk a big game but don't really follow it up. Maybe they actually do have a good game, but since they don't follow it up their posts don't carry as much weight for me. When a discussion descends into a pissing contest I usually either grab the popcorn or stop reading.

good post...I agree with everything you said and I like the idea of a side forum with verified identities too.