If anyone is getting good downloads for new images, then they don't publicize it much...

iStock have 'relaxed' acceptance standards and also have done away with upload limits, so it seems that new images uploads have increased exponentially - to the detriment of new image views, let alone downloads,,,,

This does not seem to be a positive development for contributors IMO - quite the reverse in fact... as our previous-quality-checked images are diluted both in volume and quality...

Whether this is good for buyers, I do not know ...

I could speculate that this was intended to enhance iStock's bottom line (else why do it?),,,  but whether this has had the intended effect, I do not know...

Regards

Positive - istock at least publicly admit they have a problem (site speed) ... 
Positive - istock attempt to address the problem 

Neutral - at first glance, none of the removed features seems to be terrible for contributors (at least for myself, but maybe I overlooked something?)

Negative - do we really believe that this is the best way to target site problems?  For me (as an ex-IT person) - well - doubtful...
Negative - a certain "contributor relations manager" states ....' As noted in the OP, untangling the code is our goal. Site speed improvements will come as soon as we start taking steps to rectify the problems on the back end'     Very worrying is the implication that iStock has little insight to the working of its own computer system (despite the alleged root-and-branch workover of a couple of years ago, which seemed to do little except to pad many of the pages with redundant graphics).

Overall though, I would have to say that acknowledging/addressing this  problem, has to be a good thing...

Regards

@baldrick...  "The uploading is tedious but I've managed to get 4,000+  there ...   made about $1,500 there in the year "

Thanks for the statistic ,,, even though it is a bit daunting as I have struggled to get 100 uploaded in a month...  only another 3900 to go to catch up...   

 

My initial (possibly naive)  reaction was that the relaxation of standards was a really "bad thing'...  [losing a perceived 'quality' perception, and tarnishing the existing tightly-curated collection, with the addition of dross]....   

After reflecting on the possible commercial rationale behind this (unexplained) decision on iStock's part (in combination with the removal of upload limits), I am still somewhat unsure whether trying to play a numbers game with SS is a winning strategy... (if indeed that was the commercial driver..)

Thinking again as a contributor, I am still convinced that this is indeed not just bad, but a horrendous decision...  istock has just reduced my very labour-intensive quality image collection to the same level as mass-produced dreck... 

I am not a buyer, but nevertheless I cannot see why this development would attract more custom - maybe someone more enlightened could proffer some rationale?

Regards

It must be late and I must be getting cranky, but I just hate it that iStock ( in the form of an un-named moderator [sorry - 'contributor relations manager' - which is positively Orwellian newspeak]) refers to our work as 'assets' ...  (see http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355526&page=1#post6929994, in an otherwise uninteresting blabber about why the Getty 'connector' corrupts our images).

Wikipedia informs us that ...  Assets are "...  an economic resource. Anything tangible or intangible that is capable of being owned or controlled to produce value and that is held to have positive economic value is considered an asset. Simply stated, assets represent value of ownership that can be converted into cash..."

From my point of view, I do not like being an asset, or a generator of assets... but aside from my own feelings, I think the terminology just reinforces the view that iStock management view contributors on the same level as as a piece of machinery, or a farm animal.  (Hardly breaking news of course...  but galling nonetheless).

Wikipedia also explains that employees are NOT assets, as they are not sufficiently controlled by the company (my interpretation), but assets DO appear on the company balance sheet.  That is interesting, since I (and all other contributors) do still retain the ability to destroy some of iStock's assets by removing their images, hopefully before iStock drives their value into the ground.

Sadly iStock (and its corporate culture) does not seem to have to have appreciated the value of 'intangible assets' (such as goodwill, which is inextricably linked to their tangible assets).   I have many opinions as to the possible future outcomes of this attitude, but I am sure that everyone will have their own better-informed take on this subject.

Thanks for reading
Regards

Very irritating to find that keyword order DOES have a relevance for new files. Previously, I did the boring stuff first (hz, nobody, etc to), whereas I probably should have done the relevant stuff instead.

What an unnecessary mis-direction of my effort, it would seem. But then again, what does my "distributor" care about my time or effort?

Pshaw!!!

I seem to remember reading a thread about whether a photographer could simultaneously be a member of two legal entities - for example

1 - an exclusive contributor at iStock    and
2 - a partner in another company (e.g. with a family member), which company could contribute as an independent to multiple sites.

Of course, my memory could be flawed...  I also seem to remember that iStock wanted to vet all such enterprises on a case-by-case basis....   

Maybe somebody with a memory could elucidate...

Regards

Just got an email from Yuri about his recent activities and his take on the rationale...

Some interesting points ...

http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why/

After all the 'connector' problems in moving E+ images to Getty,  it seems that this will not now happen ... it is now subject to the 'change in collections' ...

Quote from Oldladybird...
"   Just did a quick run down to Technology to confirm...
Right before we launch, we will stop the Connector. Any files that have not yet been shared will be subject to a change in Collection.
The new collection will then dictate where the files will be shared.
As I said above, Signature + and Vetta will be shared on GI.....   "   End Quote

The initial reaction is that iStock have reneged on their promises ...
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353725&page=20#post6891915

Not a surprise any more....

EDITED TO ADD - seems like iStock are now promising to transfer any pre-existing E+ files (about 180k apparently) regardless of collection changes (if I read the above thread correctly)
Happy to stand corrected...   

iStock remove upload limits and train new inspectors -  so they expect a bigger volume of uploads (seems self-evident). 
But nothing happens without a reason, so the question is ....  Why do they want to do this? 

Question - Why?   
                  First guess is that uploads have been dwindling (certainly applies to me and some other exclusives).   
                  Second guess is that they want more non-exclusive content (since indies are one of the groups impacted by the limits)
                  Third guess is that they want a huge volume of stuff from indies (so-called image factories)

Second Question -    What is the impact ?
                  Big boost in Indie content                         - leads to bigger, better Thinkstock etc
                                                                                    - leads to a collection skewed to images with a higher percentage for "our distributor" 
                  Boost in New/Bronze Exclusive content    -  leads to a collection skewed to images with a higher percentage for "our distributor" 
                                                                                   -  dilutes the impact of the 40% Diamond members

I realise this is a very simplistic post - but I do feel that there is obviously an underlying issue that iStock wants to address - I am just not sure what this issue is, nor what the impact on the contributor base might be (but I am quite sure that iStock cares little about any collateral damage ot teh contributor base).

Thanks for reading,,,



                   

There is something deeply reprehensible and nauseating about the fact that some suited anonymous nonentity, whose wages are wholly paid by contributors' work, can unilaterally take a spiteful decision massively to disrupt one of these contributor's livelihood.

I wonder if iStock/getty really think that they can now put the Googlegate to bed, given that they have given minimal feedback, have side-lined/diverted any meaningful forum discussions (on iStock), and have shown that they are capable of complete ruthlessness in pursuit of their ambition to 'own' our content.

I for one, will never forget or forgive this series of actions.  I see no further point (if there ever was) in contributing to any of iStock's forums. I am not in a position to vote with my feet at present, but over the next year, I will devote my energies to furthering my income from other sources, with the aim of finally cutting off this toxic relationship (I am currently exclusive with iStock BTW).

Regards

>>>  "... Logo (Lobo, I guess)  is pondering on what to do with people who deactivate their images, who want to come back, should they be allowed in the forums etc . . . and his last comment is "well you should see some of the super comments left behind on these deactivated files. I guess that might inform some of our decisions on a case by case basis"   

This seems just the latest in a series of not-so-thinly veiled threats...  This is one of the reasons I have largely refrained from posting in any of the 'discussion' forums in iStock.   Given that Mr McBurney is charged with ",,, He ensures discussions are productive and keeps things on the rails and civil. ..." (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=341795&page=1),  he is doing a great job of agent provocateur, derailing any discussion on the actual issues, while encouraging trolling and intra-contributer back-biting, with his own idiosyncratic mix of impenetrable one-liners and non-sequiturs (at least to a British audience).   

My knee-jerk reaction is to jump in again to the forums, to ventilate my own quite irritated rebuttals, but having let off a bit of steam here, I will probably refrain just to reduce the level of noise. 

On topic again....  I may not de-activate many images, but the reason will be "I completely disagree that my agent / distributor is able to make secret deals with third parties allowing uncontrolled distribution of my copyright material..."

Sorry - that's a bit longer than I wanted to post ...