|
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 - caspixel
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 41
751
« on: December 24, 2010, 20:52 »
Sounds confusing any way you look at it. They just keep making things more and more convoluted for the buyers.
I don't understand the confusion. There's the EL options, one is checked, and it costs 0 credits. Sorry, I don't see this as an issue. It's a benefit for the buyers that the EL legal guarantee is free. I'm afraid you're just grasping trying to make negatives out of anything that happens.
Actually, no. I think it sounds confusing.
752
« on: December 24, 2010, 18:35 »
Sounds confusing any way you look at it. They just keep making things more and more convoluted for the buyers.
753
« on: December 24, 2010, 10:22 »
Well, I'm just curious to know what they are going to do about people who upload to sites that require an accompanying JPG of the vector image, or want to sell a JPG of the vector image. What then? That's where their definition really falls apart. Once it becomes a JPG is it an illustration or a photo?
754
« on: December 23, 2010, 22:20 »
Breaking up the file exclusivity looks like it's turning into yet another fiasco. Yet another of those "didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type of thing. They keep making this more and more and more complicated that it is inevitably going to fall like a house of cards. Talk about unsustainable.  http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=2
756
« on: December 23, 2010, 10:18 »
More of a ... "we didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type thing.
Seems to be their MO these days.
757
« on: December 23, 2010, 10:05 »
758
« on: December 23, 2010, 10:00 »
Actually, yes, it does make sense. If you are like me and believe the whole "unsustainable" thing to be utter B.S. As far as I know, nothing has been cut at HQ despite the current dire financial situation istock expects us to believe they are in. No pay cuts, no benefits cuts, no vacation cuts, and I'm sure that masseuse is still hanging around the office.
I can't wait for the next big announcement proclaiming iStock is raking in more and more millions and that the price increases on Vetta and the new Agency collection have been successful beyond their wildest dreams (right before they announce they are raising the prices on the regular collection). You know it's coming. That ought to go over real well, things being so unsustainable and all.
759
« on: December 23, 2010, 00:10 »
Gostwyck, you always have a way with words. ROFL
760
« on: December 22, 2010, 21:12 »
And of course, they hope it will all be forgotten about by the time they come back from their paid vacation.
761
« on: December 22, 2010, 20:48 »
Guess the folks at HQ are trying to head out the door early tomorrow for their week-long vacation.
^That.
763
« on: December 22, 2010, 19:28 »
IS does seem to be able to sustain these blunders though. It is somewhat impressive in a sort of train wreck way.
They can also seemingly sustain a full week of vacation for the entire istock office. I'm assuming it's a paid vacation when they're closed next week, and not a furlough. Although anyone with inside info feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I thought the exact same thing.
764
« on: December 22, 2010, 15:45 »
Thanks. I'll give it a try!
765
« on: December 22, 2010, 14:29 »
Aside from using TinEye and searching through all the results, is there any way to find out who the original photographer was of a particular image? It's an image that I think has been around the web a lot. Thanks!
766
« on: December 21, 2010, 19:05 »
The logo program is still MIA. Still no official launch date. Not even a "soon". Not even an indication that it might be launched in 2011. I wonder how many submissions they are still getting. Is anyone even applying to the program anymore? http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=234232&page=1I think there aren't going to be anymore customers left by the time they get the thing launched at the rate they are going.
767
« on: December 21, 2010, 10:59 »
I'm still trying to figure out how it happened so quickly that iStock to tumbled down this road so hard and so fast.
Greed has a way of doing that.
768
« on: December 21, 2010, 09:48 »
769
« on: December 21, 2010, 00:21 »
In my perfect world there'd be a migration to DT 
I'm already there. 
770
« on: December 20, 2010, 22:35 »
Does anyone else think the Lobo pie flirt is getting old?
771
« on: December 20, 2010, 22:34 »
Yeah, well, ya know ...
Just about constantly since I joined they've had a vacancy for a QA specialist "can you break our software?". So I guess in four years, they've never found anyone who can.
Strange, since everyone else seems perfectly able to do it without even trying, even without all the qualifications on the list. Indeed, without even one of the fifteen 'required qualifications'.
Hmmmm.
Too funny.
772
« on: December 20, 2010, 19:05 »
They can kiss chikoppi good-bye:
Search no longer works for me. Not when I click the "search" button (nothing happens). Not when I type a search term in the field and hit "enter on the keyboard (nothing happens).
Do you really think customers should have to spend time troubleshooting or change browsers just to accomodate YOU?
Sorry iStockphoto. Most of your content can be found elsewhere - which is where I'll be.
773
« on: December 20, 2010, 18:54 »
Well, I certainly wouldn't trust them to manage my files, if I were ever to contribute. Foolishly using the 'istock' name doesn't give me much confidence that they have much business acumen.
What does surprise me though, is that iStock never thought to buy that domain.
774
« on: December 20, 2010, 10:52 »
iStock don't seem to be interesting in smaller, low-budget customers.
They seem to be wooing big customers who get heavily discounted credits.
It's that difference between profit and profitability, which I don't understand and no-one has yet explained.
Which I think is putting all their eggs in one casket. Lots of (loyal) smaller buyers are their bread and butter. Corporate clients are nice because they have bigger budgets, but they are not particularly loyal. (BTW, I thought "basket" but typed "casket"...and decided to leave it. Seemed more appropriate )
775
« on: December 20, 2010, 10:26 »
More buyers unhappy that you can't filter out Vetta & Agency:
salamandrin:
I looked around at some of the posts in the help forum to see if I could find an answer before posting this, but there's so many posts and so much going on. Forgive me if I am posting this in the wrong place or if this has already been answered somewhere else.
In the search on the left side, I see the checkboxes for 'vetta' , 'agency' etc.. Well I want to find photos that are NOT in those categories. Currently when I search for photos, the results by default include vetta and agency photos. It seems that the vetta and agency checkboxes should be checked by default so I can uncheck them to filter out the collections I don't want. In the previous istock advanced search there was an option to exclude vetta, but I can't find anything like that now.
Please let me know if there is a way to find only 'regular' collection photos (exclude vetta and agency) and if so how to do it.
Thank you!
reachbcs:
iStock is turning into an absolute joke with Vetta photos.
We are a small web design business who regularly ask clients without imagery to browse iStock. In the past, since these Vetta images have been introduced, we've asked them to use the filter. This saves us time explaining to them that we can't spend 20-30 credits on one image and it obviously saves them money.
iStock, please turn it back on. The addition of the vetta collection in the first place was pretty annoying, but to actually remove the filter? That's just going to be isolating small web agencies like us.
Sort it out!!!!!
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
