|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Sadstock
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24
476
« on: March 22, 2011, 08:23 »
just checked my sales for the first time since the change and it looks like a set of stairs going down. Sales yesterday were 1/3 of what I had last monday, both in volume and dollar value.
I have several thousand images going back years, so the age thing seems to to be helping me one bit.
477
« on: March 16, 2011, 22:16 »
More of the sincere and passionate JJ. This is big, this is great, we're going to win you back, we're passionate about the Istock community. [violins swirling] But you need to give it a chance... We've said all this before, but this time gosh darn it, this time we mean it. Oh and please don't sue or audit us, cause that would not be in the spirit of the great pre-September 7, 2010 istock family that we care so much about as we rip it apart. Oh and were not going to give you back the percentage we took away, so the return of that spirit will depend on some contests for a camera back, some new type of bling, and mouse pads, lots of them. I'm tearing up so much I don't know how I've been able to write this.  Oh and he's getting the knives out for tomorrow about the "no best match bugs here" features that is producing unintended results? Who is he going to stab? Is somebody in IT resisting the idea of putting out useful code? Why not test it better then cutting loose afterward?
478
« on: March 16, 2011, 22:05 »
More or less told them (Getty Employees) they are full of BS. Not transparent. All talked the company line. And hope their conscious would eat their hearts out. Nothing to bad really !!  Anyway JJRD banned me. Maybe best. I was getting way to attached to the crap they fed people and, I never was one to hold my tongue. And never will be. So, off to my next venture.
----------------------------------------- I think folks here are a bit more willing to embrace the truth.  Welcome aboard. When you say off to your next venture are you getting out of stock?
479
« on: March 16, 2011, 16:08 »
As JoAnn has said before that she's considered/considering going independent again, I think it is what Rob said yesterday, the belief that independents can't be trusted.
480
« on: March 15, 2011, 23:39 »
Take this FWIW, but I just wanted to add a bit of historical context, the distrust of non-exclusive contributors is ingrained in the iStock DNA. Back in 2003-04 (pre-exclusivity) it was becoming rather common to see people who were contributors one day turn competitors the next. Serban's iStock username was Dreamstime (he even had a FIOTW way back when). Duncan, Canstock's founder, was M5laser or something like that on iStock before he started his site. Tim and Dawn at Bigstock, yep, former iStock contributors. I'm sure there were others, but the point is, this is all old stuff that is hard for them to forget. Around the same time as these contributors turned competitors appeared on the scene there was also increasing heat from the so-called "traditional" stock photographers (most notably a group of Alamy contributors), which further contributed to the siege mentality that exists today.
Of course the irony is that current exclusive contributors largely owe their exclusive benefits to these folks, as the exclusivity program was largely a circling of the wagons reaction to everything happening at the time. So, don't take it too personally, this is all old stuff.
------------------------------ So Rob, what's the name of your competing site going to be? Sylvantime? Robstock? 
481
« on: March 15, 2011, 19:29 »
Not holding my breath.
I am, over the possibility that they could break the search even further. 
482
« on: March 14, 2011, 09:28 »
BTW.. has anyone nominated Lobo 
I don't know, but a few people have nominated Bruce. But it turns out, he's inelible for the same reason as Rob.
http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter
A little factoid that I'd missed.
Peebert is still exclusive
483
« on: March 14, 2011, 09:26 »
I felt in one of KellyK's posts he wished the iStock staff could let the contributers know more of what is going on and how things are going to be resolved - but they couldn't for some reason.
I feel the conference call will be letting those 5 contributers know what they wished they could tell everyone. I feel they want to tell those 5 contributers why / how things will get 'better' so they can tell everyone else that it is true, things will get 'better'. That way it can come from the mouths of someone 'impartial' instead of the iStock staff who most people no longer believe.
So if THAT is all true, the NDA would just be making sure they don't repeat what was actually said but they could (and hopefully would) repeat that yes, things will get 'better'. ... and know why themselves.
Wanted to thank you for providing us with this forum. Its great that we have an alternative.
484
« on: March 14, 2011, 08:56 »
What security measures were in place at the time of the first theft?
What changes in security were made after the first thefts were detected?
Why could additional thefts take place after new security measures were in place?
Can Istock guarantee additional charge backs will not be passed along to contributors?
Thanks for your questions, I was modifying my post at the same time you were writing yours and had added two questions that cover your first two. FYI I have a legal background, your 3rd and 4th questions are not something that IMO should be asked as any answer may be classed as opinion not factual based or are speculative. For instance to ask why it happened again would be the purpose of the investigation anyway, to ask if it'll happen again is not something anybody could answer because any law or conditions of card use that applies now could be amended in the future.
Point taken on the non-fact based question/answer, but I'd still ask none the less, as how they answer questions like the above is equally important as to what the answer is. Certainly they might be advised to not answer any questions like this, but there is no harm in asking and maybe there is an upside.
485
« on: March 14, 2011, 06:24 »
What security measures were in place at the time of the first theft?
What changes in security were made after the first thefts were detected?
Why could additional thefts take place after new security measures were in place?
Can Istock guarantee additional charge backs will not be passed along to contributors?
486
« on: March 11, 2011, 18:26 »
Your Famous, LISA
Darn, I was hoping for INfamous! 
You should blog about it quick on your own commerical site to help google find you. The folks running agaisnt him want to license the images too and they might find your site :-)
489
« on: March 11, 2011, 11:02 »
So the IS forums have become dull and lousy because you're all here!
------------------------------- Welcome! The Istock forums have become both deathly dull but also almost useless aside from learning about what else is wrong. You'll find the conversations here are a lot more interesting as people are free to speak their minds. I was a diamond exclusive until not to long ago and don't regret dropping the crown a bit. I suspect your decision to give up your inspecting job was not easy, but I think a lot of people here and at Istock appreciate that you stated publically why you did it. (Not to criticize other inspectors/admins who have not done so since not everyone is in a position to make such a change). Enjoy MSG
490
« on: March 10, 2011, 20:28 »
I like the idea of requesting an audit (pretty sure some stinking puddles would be opened). Would it really be that expensive if we do it with a couple of peeps? It sounds pretty do-able and about the only thing we can do without having to get very organized in a mass-pull-portfolio action or something alike...
I made a comment about an audit in the angry-thread but I don't actually know how we could even go about doing that. Is that possible if they're a private company?
It always used to be part of the contract (and i presume it still is) that you could pay for an audit to check sales figures.
This?
15 c) Any and all disputes arising out of, under or in connection with this Agreement, including without limitation, its validity, interpretation, performance and breach, shall be submitted to arbitration in Calgary, Alberta, pursuant to the rules of the Arbitration Act (Alberta) in effect at the time arbitration is demanded.
--------------------------- There is audit language in the Getty-through-Istock contract, but don't think its in the Istock contract
491
« on: March 10, 2011, 16:41 »
The OP had a "Corporate Master" icon, so maybe they found another "master" for the company. Have to say "Corporate Master" sound a bit kinky, but in a very dull way.
492
« on: March 09, 2011, 23:37 »
Wonder if the days of the inspectors badge are numbered? Makes it easier to see when somebody leaves so they might do away with it since there might be more.
493
« on: March 09, 2011, 22:57 »
I think there are many of them. They do express their thoughts but discreetly, like Sylvanworks. Or like this person (ex inspector) in his istock's blog page:
"I just don't agree with the way iStock is heading and the decisions being made so I couldn't stay officially affiliated with the company."
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?userID=688535?action=view&location=Profile&userID=688535&postID=96305
Why do you think the review time is so long?
------------------------------- Thanks for posting. It will be interesting to see how long before his blog post is gone
494
« on: March 08, 2011, 19:19 »
I had the same reaction. Then once I read it, I felt teased. The big change is they have more images? Who doesn't?
495
« on: March 08, 2011, 14:09 »
Jan - $1.21
Feb - $1.19
Mar - $1.18
average across all three months was $1.19
Last three months of diamond exclusive my average was $3.81.
Assuming everything else stayed the same had I remained exclusive my new average with a 25% drop would have been $2.86
Dropping from 30% to 17% was a 43% paper decrease in royalties. But I've actually experienced a decrease of 58% on a per transaction basis.
496
« on: March 07, 2011, 17:57 »
Perhaps the Alexa stats are in error. However our own polls show iStock's earnings rating dropping rather precipitously. It is 5.3 as of 3/7, which is as low as I have ever seen it.
Interesting question if the reported earnings rate data over time is available in a graph? Might be instructive. Tyler is this possible? Or already available?
497
« on: March 07, 2011, 17:49 »
Sean McHugh is who sends the e-mail if you subscribe to CiC's newsletter. I am as sure as I can be without knowing that Mr. Shankie has nothing to do with CiC as he poo-poohed an article on it I referred him to way back when. He was wrong about something and I pointed to CiC's tutorial on that subject. He said who had time to read; he just wanted to take photos
Oh I believe you guys that it's not his site, just confused about why he would claim it was!
Well, he's just a little different
498
« on: March 06, 2011, 12:14 »
I'm not surprised. What would surprise me is to find out there's a way to 'sting' contributors that IS hasn'tthought of. But let me be devil's advocate and ask, regarding re-submission vs. just waiting and submitting as new: what the heck is the difference and why should IS care? The photo is either good enough, or it isn't, and any inspector should be able to decide, and past history is irrelevant. Why have a special 'resubmit' process unless it's purpose is just to look closer and find even more stuff wrong?
------------------------ I've been told in private conversations with inspectors that Istock knows the human inspection process is inconsistent. A resubmitted image is flagged for closer inspection since one inspector found at least 1 flaw with it before. They know a "new" submission without that previous submission history is a lot more likely to get accepted even if the original flaw is not fixed.
499
« on: March 06, 2011, 11:36 »
... many of us having got random rejections while they change the rules at a whim, the next 'privilege' is going to relate to acceptance rate.
That would indicate that there are rules. It seems that they are making them up as they go.
Making them up and changing them as they go, as some have had acceptances for editorial, which were subsequently rejected. The initial instructions re captions were unclear/ambiguous and led to many rejections while they clarified them.
I guess it was the office junior's turn to choose something new and said, "Why don't we try editorial?" and they coggled something together, apu.
Bear in mind that it was often repeated, and not so long ago, that they would not be offering editorial.
But having decided that they would, why wouldn't they have got some people experienced in selling and marketing editorial and thrashed out all the issues, including but not only:
- What are our target markets? (share with contributors)
- How do we want images to be captioned? (test with at least twenty users of various levels and experience who have nothing to do with development)
- What will/won't be allowed? Is there any logical/legal reason for this? Explain clearly to contributors.
- Hire and train members for Team Metadata, as there is clearly going to be a rush on new keywords. Urgently, the many words which already have a meaning in the CV, but new meanings for editorial, which mean that important words can't be used, even if they are the main keyword for that image. Of course, the existing team, which is stretched too far as it is, couldn't be expected to cope. Maybe the temps could do the background maintenance work, e.g. the backlog of wiki files, and the experienced team could work on the Editorial keyword issues.
- Hire and train new inspectors.
- Decide whether the 'normal' istock lighting standards are appropriate, bearing in mind that editorial events happen when they happen. If so, at least don't send lighting rejections with all these cookie cutter lighting hints for using artificial light for obviously available light situations (which are useless to natural light photographers anyway).
- Test with a sample of contributors from all levels.
- Launch to the general community.
[/li]
[/list]
I'm sure there are lots more steps, but I've never been in 'business'.
Decide if, at the beginning, upload quotas for editorial should be limited.
OMG. I'd not been into the editorial forum until now and all I can say is what a mess! Once again Istock rolling something out without much thought and the contributor base is the beta test. Crowdtesting at its worst.
500
« on: March 03, 2011, 22:36 »
Sean, I'm getting this error in the console...
Line 84 Error: rows[0].childNodes is undefined
Thanks - we just figured that out. It was an exclusive/non thing. I just put up a new version that should work.
Yay, it works! Thanks, Sean, for getting this working again. And thanks for your help too Lisa and Joann.
------------------------- Awesome! Works for me as well. sjlocke for CEO!
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
