I'd be interested to check it out.

Hmmm...maybe we have a different definition of "calling out" but I really feel this thread is a little discourteous.

Put yourself in the shoes of the photographer who's images were linked ... if you were to read the sarcastic thread title, and click on the thread only to find it's about your images and the relative pricing of one of your Vetta's being "a joke" while some people join in to have a good chuckle over it, how would you feel?

If by any chance the photographer does think that image is worth the Vetta price then you've flat out insulted her judgment. On the other hand, the Vetta approval process seems to be just as subjective as normal iStock approvals and there has been frustration expressed on the contributor end too when trying to figure out how some of their similar images made the cut or didn't.   You can't really know how this particular file ended up at Vetta pricing.

I know my opinion probably means about as much as threads like these mean to iStock management I just don't like seeing the frustration that should be aimed at the company itself being taken out on individuals who aren't here to have their say. 

I can definitely say as an exclusive I had no sense of what people make at the other sites, but I'm happy to be finding out and significantly less worried than I was when I hit that cancel exclusivity button.

FYI iStock apparently deletes your stats tab if you deactivate your portfolio So if any of you who are deleting want to keep your past stats to compare I'd make sure you grab them first. Fair warning.

Don't worry, I have big plans. I have been testing out over a dozen other sites with a specific batch of images to get a feel for their policies, sales potential and uploading process.  More exciting (to me at least) I've been working like crazy on getting a new site built as my own outlet for selling directly.

Edited to add: I was going to go into why I think this was a viable option before I realized that was wildly off topic Let's just say I'm setting out to prove that we can make money in this business without someone taking up to 85% commission on our sales.

Posted by Joyze: "We test a variety of features on the site for usability and performance. Remember when we tested the color change of the download button?

Some of these changes (like this particular one) may be temporary and others may become permanent. This kind of testing will help us ensure we balance the needs of the contributors, the customers and the business."

Since when are unannounced price fluctuations considered testing a "site feature"? To compare that to changing the color of a button is downright ridiculous. So it's completely okay to them that buyers for that week paid more than would normally, hoping they wouldn't notice? Was that the test? And don't we have a contract that we sign as contributors and rely on the posted prices to know at what price point our work is being sold?  They really love to play with that "may change at any time" CYA clause these days it seems.

And why for the love all that is holy did it take 10 days to get that answer, despite pleas by the vector community.  Really? Does this mean Jenn (Bortonia) tried to look in to it over a week ago and they kept her and ostensibly all other admins with access to the help forum in the dark?  Or were we just not worthy of an answer.  Because it feels more like the latter.  

I think I'll go delete my last five illustrations.  I have enough confidence in my work and in the many other avenues for licensing it that I don't need to stick around and be treated with such blatant disrespect.

Well I did day "what I perceived" as pretend confusion and to be clear I was referring to the company line not the person who delivered it. Maybe that's too harsh but it's absolutely the impression I got. In my opinion, this thread speaks for itself: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252412&page=1

I personally felt the "answers" that were given insulted the intelligence of contributors. I fully believe that no one was authorized to say anything else but what was said, and at the end of the day that's a reflection of company policy not the employees.

I also understand that bill collectors and mortgage holders don't care about your moral high ground.  Personally that wouldn't stop me from getting out of there as soon as possible if I felt very strongly that what was going on was wrong.  Everyone has different circumstances in life and I very much empathize with anyone who's personal situation forces them to work for an employer who's policies they no longer agree with. It should be noted however, that we don't actually know that any current employees do object to what's going on at iStock. It's all speculation at this point.

Just wanted to add (because tone gets lost in writing) that I wasn't arguing with Retrorocket, or even disagreeing really. Just explaining how it looks from where I sit, and trying hard to keep a balanced perspective. Not easy these days!

I couldn't do it personally.  But then I've always been allergic to BS and corporate red tape.  I suppose this is just my last few shreds of loyalty that have yet to fall away. Old habits die hard. But really the non response and what I perceived as pretend confusion in "answering" why vector contributors targets are double photogs was the last straw.  Had I not already metaphorically jumped ship, that is

Sure, it's not a huge change but at this point it's a respect issue. To not even clarify for the people that did ask whether this is a bug or planned price hike (and I can't for the life of me figure out how this could be a bug,) is downright ridiculous. To hear from the admin that's supposed to be in charge of the vector community "we are looking into it." as if it's news to the admins and to still not have an answer three days later is crazy. 

Does this mean we are supposed to believe no one was able to tell Bortonia whether it's a "bug"?  Because the only other option there is that they either a) raised prices and didn't even tell essential staff or b) we are being given the run around. (Again.) I should add here that I like Jenn and this isn't in any way an attack on her, more directed at the brutal lack of communication apparently going on not only to contributors but within the company as well.

The thread on this was moved to the help forum.  That seems odd. I would think less people would see it there if they have the same question.

Thanks Bob!

I will try that out, the rest of the sites work perfectly and I really love the toolbar.  As a newly non-exclusive contributor your tools are super helpful and I've recommended them to a few other who are just coming out of contract lockdown.

Quote from: 9lives on October 07, 2010, 14:47

I'm going to bet they had the keyword "setting" maybe outdoor setting or something of that nature that got "disambiguated" to setting the table within iStock's lovely keywording system.  And perhaps since they all got dumped in so fast and have other special privileges the keywords are not being reviewed at time of upload.  I looked at  a few of the images keywords and setting the table is the only really funky one in there and its there for a ton of them.  The one that irritates me more is "business" on an image of a young guy in a t-shirt with no business props clothing or backgrounds, mentioned earlier.  I'm quite sure under normal circumstances that wouldn't fly.

yes, it was an admitted keyword CV issue, but STILL... the fact that this "Agency Collection" is allowed to do the following (listed in no particular order) really stinks:
1) have the exact same file for sale on other sites
2) get uploaded in bulk without regard to quotas
3) get listed as an "exclusive" photographer (see #1)
4) have higher weight in the best match, especially after it has been written in the FAQs that they would not
5) have a huge price premium for shots that mostly do not stand out from other non-Agency images thus causing buyer confusion (and outrage)

Totally agree.  I have given up on anything making sense there anymore, there are just too many  crap things over the last month to list.  If this wasn't affecting every aspect of my business and to some extent my sanity it might be comical how many errors are being made on the part of iStock/Getty management. It's like a course in how not to run a business.

That's true, I forgot to add if you are going to mess with expanding things start simple and I highly recommend having a plugin to check for open paths too, it can get messy

Quote from: peter_stockfresh on October 04, 2010, 11:39

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 04, 2010, 11:27

Hi Peter! There a few pretty small agencies approving and reviewing photos pretty soon with 3 or 4 persons.. I just don't understand why you aren't? Are the reviews like IS, more than 1 week? I dont get it sorry..! I am talking about GLO

No, usually reviews are done within a day and we'd like to keep it that way. If you don't get it, do the math. If 700 new contributors are trying to upload their whole portfolio at the same time with a 25 images / day quota, there's no way you're going to be able to inspect everything properly with 3 people.

sorry but GLO is in fact being strict and are doing a great job.. just like in stock, ones do more other not.. sorry but this is the truth!

GLO seems to be a different sort of site all together.  Also when an agency is being run by someone with this much experience I don't think it's necessary to keep trying to tell them how to do their job.  (Or at least that's how it seems to be coming across.)  I think it's really great that Peter comes in here to update us on things and I'd hate to discourage that direct communication with continuous bashing on the point.