I would agree with Dreamstime. 

Dont forget to get teh buyer referal when you sign up the company account

Leaf - maybe on the next version there can be an update button?

Well I have finally joined Galastock.  Not sure hows link I followed.  My first batch got rejected but the second one all got accepted (I sumbitted them in order and the older ones are from my p&S camera and before I knew photoshop).

Are people still seeing sales?

What I don't understand is that if the site is owned by such a giant, why don't they invest some of their funds in the marketing dept in order for 123 to have more exposure, thus more sale

I dont understand this either.  They hav enough photos now that they can start a marketign push.  Sales is the only thing that will make more photags join.

My photos ahve finally been reviewed (all excepted except my brick wall backgounds - not stock apparently).

Note: that StockXpert is 49% owned by Jupiter so there are three micro sites owned by the Macro big boys - iStock being the thrid owned by Getty.

Beteleur - Is the word after in your title?  I think I read that you the title is included in the tags and tags in relation to the title (was it description as well??) cant be removed.

Note that with the most popular, they have a "new photo adjustment" so that a photo that gets a few downloads in the first day doesn't go to teh top of the list.  they have never disclosed what this adjustment factor is and for how long it applies.

My sales are trending up slightly which is what I would expect as my number of photos is trending up slowly.

Amanda - there is negativity in this forum (and everyother one I look at) as they have done something without consultation (and it looks like insufficent testing) which has a direct effect on us as we now have to review our "tags". �Should they have consulted and given warning to the competition?? (would a day have given the competition time to react - no).

You yourself have been negative as you said you dont have time to go though you images and that you wont - that means you potentially have incorrect key words which effect everyone at istock not just you (bad keywords drive buyers way).

In the long run it will be positive which is why I plan to update all my tags. �So to move forward in a postive way, a tip and a question:

tip: if you are not reviewing you tags in one session - make sure they are sorted by a column that doesnt change (ie id number). �If sorted by sales, they will move and you may miss one or do one twice.

question: �this has been asked before but do these tags make the categories invalid. �iStock have said to keep using them but there is no guarantee they wont get rid of them in 6 months time - so is it worth finding all relevant ones or just select one whcih is the minimum requirement.

Ps: I know lisa isn't on the payroll - �it was a joke - �as she has a lot of images to review, it is hard to see why she is so happy.

[Bateleur was a faster typer than me but I posted anyway as I didn't want to delete what I had said.  i agree with all comments]

Geopappas - I see you got yourself a blocked thread on iStock - well done.

The tags come from Getty so they are the non-religious ones.

I agree that it is not good.  HOpefully they dont say anything bad about mohammad as well or things could get real bad!

I only checked one but ahd a nerd as well.  Wonder what word, and in what language, translates to this.

This is going to annoy people with big portfolios if they have to go through every one to correct.  I "only" have a hundred and that is gonig to be a chore!

Well they have announced the change and everyone who doens't like the current upload process as IS, well, it just got harder.

If you type in orange, you now have to specify whether you meant the colour or the fruit.

Oh well.

StockManick - I saw this website when I first started and I think the only thing he updates is the monthly earnings and the graphs (or are these automatic) so all the info is probably out of date unless he can be bothered updating when he updates his earnings.

I've wondered how much of his revenue was from his photos and how much was from the referrals.

I wondered this also but the numbers dont look too skewed toward shutterstock compared to the others to suggest excessive referral income.

... but it seems sketchy when a person tries to hide the fact that it's a referral.

I dont have such a problem with this. �The internet is all about advertising and if you advertise for someone, you should get paid. �it would only be dodgy if the referee was somehow disadvantaged which is not the case.

If I had a website, I would do a similar thing on one of its pages.