Well, if anyone was wondering, Lobo still works there. He just appeared to lock the thread.

Quote from: caspixel on March 16, 2011, 17:40

Quote from: Susan S. on March 16, 2011, 16:52

I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo  that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.

Curt Pickens seems to get away with a lot too. He's said way worse stuff than I ever did and he still has his posting privileges. And when he was threatening to leave exclusivity, Lobo even contacted him directly and talked him down. It is interesting to see how far some people can push it (and how some people get special treatment as well). BTW, Susan, I am glad you can still post. You crack me up.

Cas, no worries. Lobo did not contact me directly. I contacted him. We had a discussion and Lobo being Lobo calmed me down. I relented. Tried being a good boy. But he didn't give me any preferential treatment in any way shape or form. I hope he is still there honestly. I do think he has left. Just wanted to set that part of the story straight.  Best of luck to you.
Curt

LOL. Lobo has a very different effect on you than on me! Our last sitemail exchange was anything but calm. Well, I'm sorry they banned you, because you did speak the truth, and they can't handle the truth! It's just a shame so many good people are getting hurt because of their corporate dishonesty.

I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock.  How worried should I be?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314612&page=1

Quote

Where is this keyword slider people are talking about? I don't see it.

Display settings, bottom left on any search results page. Click on the triangle to open up a panel.

Oh, right, how obvious. 

Why didn't they put it in with all the other filters on the left hand side? That's where I was looking.

Where is this keyword slider people are talking about? I don't see it.

Interesting. Corporate buyer lhministries is back. And still pissed:

This is an update to http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1

since that discussion got shut down eventhough we were in the middle of it. (Thanks iStock moderators)

I submitted a ticket regarding that issue and I've been told they might try to fix it, which to me sounded like they're going to burry it.

So here's the link where everyone can petition istock to make that modification:

http://www.istockphoto.com/contact_ticket_comment.php?id=sgmkDuvS%2Bxk%3D

Bottom Line: There's a programming "glitch" that if not paying attention, the buyer ends up purchasing and downloading a more expensive version of the stock. I'm not going to say anything bad about iStock anymore.You decide if you can live with this or not.

If you would like this glitch fixed send your coments to that ticket i posted.

Either way, following british examples of cases from the UK Online Trading Standards Comitte , if this doesn't get addressed, the FTC will be notified

I predict that thread will disappear: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314832&page=1

I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.

Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo  that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.

Curt Pickens seems to get away with a lot too. He's said way worse stuff than I ever did and he still has his posting privileges. And when he was threatening to leave exclusivity, Lobo even contacted him directly and talked him down. It is interesting to see how far some people can push it (and how some people get special treatment as well). BTW, Susan, I am glad you can still post. You crack me up.

If they were going to hand pick people, however, why go through the process of asking contributors for input?

Probably the same reason they asked for input about PTOTW. To give the appearance as though what contributors say matters. And then they go ahead and do whatever they want anyway.

There is no way they are going to say anything in this conference call that is going to make any of the Fab 5 say anything negative.

I'd say go ahead and organize that audit, folks!

There was a post asking if the votes would be posted for us to see, and wondering why jsnover wasn't one of the 5.

A post that has gone mysteriously absent. Hmmmm.

Typical iStock transparency.

Quote from: VB inc on March 16, 2011, 09:39

Quote from: caspixel on March 16, 2011, 09:18

I predict this whole thing is going to be extremely anti-climactic.

Thats almost a guarantee and the point. A smart move on istocks part to get the community to vote on five who will listen and come back to calm the angry mob.

And look, it has postponed any further talk of audits and legal action for at least a few days...as someone mentioned earlier (maybe caspixel?), maybe enough time to cook the books? 

Not only has it postponed it, but when the trusted Fab 5 come back with, "iStock is on the up-and-up and doing everything they can" it will effectively extinguish it. Who even thinks for a second that iStock is not going to put it's best foot forward in this conference call (which they have complete control over)?

I predict this whole thing is going to be extremely anti-climactic.

So stupid. As evidenced from the more natural photo, there is absolutely nothing wrong with her thighs that they would need that heavy of a hand in PS.

Well, I'm not a contributor or photographer, but it sure has been one hell of a distraction from my work. (But then again, I'm always looking for distractions, so this is a perfect excuse.)

I do wish you guys luck. This whole situation has stunk for far too long.