Want to earn a living? I'd say it's possible but the people that it's possible for probably already know they can do it. They already have sellable images, business accumen, SEO skills, ability to adapt to change, and a bunch of other skills to be successful. The better someone is at those things the more chances they have of meeting their expectations.

That is probably true. If you have an understanding of what sells, if you are able to produce such photos and to deliver them to the right agencies or sell them yourself, you'll still be able to earn a living. On the other hand with that skillset you'll equally be able to earn a living by photographing weddings, naked ladies or racecars...

My sales on DT now exceed my sales on SS and have for over 12 months now.

Wow! With the same (or at least a comparable) portfolio? Even in their best months DT never was higher than 1/3 of my SS income...

But I would probably by a dustbin if it was designed by Jony Ive and explained to me with his cool,smooth voice...

Oh, but you can... http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/ 

Accumulating empirical data seems to suggest they are handing out port demotions based on the years we joined. I have seen three tiers of image placement demotions and have been at SS since 2004. And yes the drops show up on a graph very clearly. Sudden drops with no recovery.

I don't see that at all and I'm with SS since October 2006. I add around 300 to 400 photos a year to my port which is now at around 3.500 photos. My income has been stable over the last five years, which I consider a success given the rapid overall growth of the database and the nature of the majority of my port (editorial sports).

Of course I see seasonal variations, my Marches are always better than my Julys - much like everyone else's, I suppose. What I don't see is empirical evidence of an active demotion of my port just because of its age. Newcomers always enjoyed an exposure bonus at SS, but (a) this wears off after around six months and (b) the effect used to be stronger in the past - but this might also be due to the evergrowing database.

There seemed to be some experimentation with the search engine during July and August, because I sold photos which otherwise never see the light of day. With the beginning of September, sales are back where I expect them to be...

By the way, I wonder if restrictions for editorial use are compatible with the freedom of the press

Exactly! I was wondering the same thing...

True, very selective and I only upload one photo from any shoot. I don't want to confuse buyers. (yes really, one best shot of a subject most of the time) Exception is a racing event when I might do two or three of a driver, in different settings.

Interesting. I don't do this and upload more than one photo from a shoot, not 50 similar pics either, but definitely more than one. Nevertheless, I usually have a favourite, one photo that I think will sell better than the rest. More often than not, buyers do not agree with me... 

According to the IS forum any sort of uploading has been iffy for a few days.
"We are looking into the upload issues that are affecting some contributors and we are aware that site performance is currently pretty slow generally but especially in the forums. We will post updates as soon as we have them. Thanks for your continued patience."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362518&messageid=7038050

*icy wind can be heard in the background* cue deep voice: "September is coming..." 

Quote from: Ploink on August 22, 2014, 09:30

*sigh* After clicking through 30+ pages, I found 4 images (among 600+), some of them even listing the keyword with which they were downloaded. Still, to me this suggests a more innocent explanation, like promotional use...

Thanks for your feedback (+1) so now we can be sure there are files downloaded and not reported.
I didn't agree to sell images for free.

They might also be lost during aborted connections/downloads or for any number of reasons. In my case we are talking about four downloads over the course of eight years...

What is your relation between "lost" downloads and files with 1 download?

Personally, I think that it is an illusion, that a database the size of the SS catalog is (a) bug-free itself and (b) that the data in it is perfect...

Quote from: Ploink on August 22, 2014, 08:44

Quote from: Nikovsk on August 22, 2014, 08:28

In my observations I took files from the same batch, where time is not a factor. Other contributors are having the same results and so would you, if you take the time to look into your files.

You see, I did. I have 3457 files in my SS portfolio, 2606 of which have sold at least once. My "undiscovered" tab contains 851 photos, exactly as it should - so color me unconvinced...

That's because you counted from the end of the 1 files in Image Gallery Stats. If you would be so kind to find a 0 downloads image in the middle of the 1's and search it like a buyer in undiscovered you won't find it there.

I counted the sold files from my private database, the mother of all EXCEL-sheets...

There is also a time factor to be considered. My Image Gallery Stats page says that it's only updated once per day, which might be an explanation for the TO's observations.

To be honest, I find it rather courageous to use a title like "SS not reporting sales!" based on the evidence of a beta tool - at least put a question mark there...

I have uploaded 6 batches so far this month inspection times have varied from 1 day to 3 days for me

If they are accepted, that is. If they are rejected, you have to wait almost a month, as dbvirago said above. Plus everything you submitted in the meantime will be rejeceted, too.

The site's gone all flaky again. What a surprise!

Yes, it is - usually they wait until September before messing up the site