|
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 - tee
26
« on: November 27, 2012, 17:45 »
Are you confident that all sales are being recorded ? Keeping in mind that nothing else works, stats and what not.
Definitely not. Especially when all posts in the forum regarding this are completely ignored. Every question like, "How do we know that the downloads are being accurately tracked when there are all these site bugs?" meets with complete silence. That instills lots of confidence. 
27
« on: November 24, 2012, 23:03 »
iStock code isn't "moving" over to Getty. Getty has a solid system that works, and they would import (copy) files and data from iStock's database, not the other way around. If the bridge between the two sites were to break, it wouldn't affect iStock at all, just as when Vetta was mirrored on Getty those images didn't disappear on iStock. This is assuming they have someone competent at the controls, though. 
28
« on: November 23, 2012, 14:34 »
I have never seen a more duct taped together piece of junk website of this scale in the history of the internet. Can anyone remember a time (especially since the redesign) where all features of the site worked as they should? On the contributor side? Just wow. They're either keeping the status quo until Getty's system absorbs them, or they truly are a ragtag group of inept programmers testing changes live on one of the busiest stock photography websites. Either way, not good. Anyway just venting. 
29
« on: September 07, 2012, 02:22 »
This "cute" angle doesn't work with a large business like this, especially when the website is the business and it's down quite frequently. Oh well, hopefully it will be up before too long. In the meantime they can work on their PS skills a-la masking, as the background image they've used has given Jay a blue booger. Maybe that's why he looks so annoyed. I thought it was because iS was down again.
30
« on: December 07, 2011, 17:31 »
I use it for all my sites and it's terrific. Don't know of any downsides, really. Might as well try it and see what you think of it, since it's easy to install and like you said - free. 
31
« on: December 02, 2011, 13:51 »
I'm seriously starting to worry that sales aren't even being tracked properly at this point. People have asked on the forum but iS hasn't given any answer as to how sales are tracked differently/better than the rest and why they're accurate while the rest of the site remains buggy. I mean, it was working a few weeks ago - why is it taking so * long to fix? Anyway... I'm still stuck on Nov. 1st. My balance has gone up but it's way slower than even the crappy normal of these last couple months so I don't know if that can be trusted either.
32
« on: December 01, 2011, 14:17 »
Sorry if this is mentioned already, but is anyone else not seeing DL stats for pretty much all of november? According to the chart, my last DL was 11/1.
Yes.
33
« on: December 01, 2011, 05:00 »
I don't know why so many of us non-exclusives waste time thinking about istock. Things aren't going to get any better for us there until there's a big change in direction. That might never happen. There's lots of other sites, why do we spend so much time discussing istock? I've gone past caring, if they don't improve soon, I might as well leave. Just think of all the extra time we would have if we didn't need to discuss all these continual problems with istock.
You're right, as an indy it would be much easier to quantify the importance of iS, since you can compare it with other sites. Us exclusives are in the unfortunate position of not knowing if the grass is greener or not, but it's sure as hell looking that way these days. 
34
« on: December 01, 2011, 04:35 »
Apparently just hearing words from JJRD is enough to instill confidence in some...what am I missing? The guy speaks in code and like KK before him puts a positive spin on their failings. Isn't this the same guy who "puts his ass on the line for contributors", as sales disappear, management actively push people to the PP, the site gets continually worse...why do these fools put such faith in this spin doctor???
Yeah I'm always surprised at this point to hear anything overly positive from anyone who's been on the site for more than a year. But the good to bad comments are still like 1/10.
35
« on: December 01, 2011, 01:51 »
They might throw a bone at us.... but not to us.
Heh, you might be right.
36
« on: December 01, 2011, 00:27 »
From the iS forum (my emphasis): Posted By dcdp:
JJRD - do the recent issues point towards significant changes being made in the backend of the site? Or are they just ongoing recent issues? There does seem to be a recent proliferation of problems for which the fixes are being put off for some reason. I'd hope that, in the long term, these would be beneficial to all, even if, in the short term, they are painful.
Additionally, the buyers have been offered a 15% discount on credits purchased because of this outage as a short term apology for their difficulties. I suspect this will be worn by the contributors who have not only suffered from an ongoing inability to manage their own portfolio, upload images, and maintain their portfolio, but now have been unable to sell anything because, in the case of exclusive contributors, their sole distributor is off line. What will iStock do to recompense contributors? Posted by JJRD:
Let's focus on clients at this stage, come on - the site just came back.
Part of this massive technological overhaul is intended to facilitate everybody's experience with iStock - and it will. So yeah, that's a big N.O. as far as I can tell.
37
« on: November 30, 2011, 23:32 »
If they don't, what will you do as a contributor? If they do, will the gesture do anything to boost your trust?
38
« on: November 30, 2011, 21:23 »
There may not be any buyers left so we'll get to keep that 15% anyway.
39
« on: November 30, 2011, 20:53 »
This is one of the weirdest things I've seen from a company of this size. Hacked maybe? Time for a 100% royalty week once they come back online. 
40
« on: November 30, 2011, 13:41 »
Dropping to 30% it looks like. Partly my fault for not uploading much this year. C'est la vie - next year I guess, if the site isn't a smoking pile of ashes that is.
41
« on: November 28, 2011, 12:41 »
Also, as others have said, the holding page they put up looked like a hacker's page. I couldn't believe it when I saw it. Did anyone here happen to snap a screenshot of this? I'd like to see it since everyone's talking about it so much. BTW I love how they say that yes, we know the site is overridden with bugs, but trust us, the sales end of it isn't and all sales will be accounted for. Oh yeah, I'm confident of that. 
42
« on: November 28, 2011, 12:09 »
Are they still down for maintenance ... or, still hacked?
Honestly how can we know? Some of the bugs are super obvious, but others, like the latest downloads, aren't. I'm guessing that the latter is still messed up, since my last reported download was on the 1st of November, but it's impossible to tell what's correct and what isn't from our point of view other than looking at unusual patterns. Are the downloads off but the $ at the bottom correct? Vice versa? It's ridiculous. I mean, if this end of the site is so freaking buggy, inconsistent and unreliable, we're just supposed to trust that the backend that keeps track of sales isn't? There are bugs on the site that have been there for months (probably years). I guess that's why they need the bulk of the contributors' earnings - since their techs take 10x longer to fix bugs than anyone else and they need their pay for a job well done. *head explodes
43
« on: November 20, 2011, 18:48 »
A mass resignation of exclusivity (by giving the 30 days notice) might be more effective... I have a feeling this isn't far off...
44
« on: November 20, 2011, 14:45 »
How was your sale in the weekend?
Whenever they make a Friday announcement or cause a glitch, my weekend sales virtually stop. Does it happen to anyone else?
I actually sold two on Saturday, one today, which is a lot more than I've been selling on weekends these past few weeks.
45
« on: November 20, 2011, 13:52 »
So when our agent makes repeated mistakes in accounting - that they eventually acknowledge - and the whole system is based on trust, it feels like a very big deal to some contributors. I think when you boil this whole incident down this lack of trust is really why people are upset. It's yet another in a long string of negative occurrences that contributors have had to deal with, while iStock basically sits on their ass and says, "Trust us, we'll figure it out for you." Meanwhile we're trying to think of the last time they threw contributors a bone, and it's a looong time ago and a small-ass bone. They're treating us like we're still part of a friendly community, even though they've been shafting us fairly consistently. It's like a friend who is constantly taking things, borrowing money and using you for rides, and the second you ask for any small thing, well look out. Honestly I think they should just ditch the forum all together. They don't want discussion, and they don't want a cheery relationship with photographers. OK enough venting.
46
« on: November 19, 2011, 02:10 »
Since my sales have been so crappy lately 22% of zero and 35% of zero is all the same to me. 
47
« on: November 18, 2011, 18:12 »
My redeemed credits for 2010 and 2011 have reset to zero, with my earnings level being cut to 15%. This is totally unacceptable. I have no way of knowing if they are paying me at the correct rate or at 15% per sale. Is everyone the same?
Yeah, my royalty rate is at the base - 22% - now and no RCs. Hopefully they're fiddling with it and lowering the RC minimums. But - a glitch on iStock? Whodathunkit?!!  Edit: Saw the thread on iS - looks like it's normal for this to happen. Dear God, our lives are in the hands of engineers. - Malcom, Jurassic Park
48
« on: November 18, 2011, 17:56 »
tee, there's no official appeal process on shutterstock; but if you feel its really an unfair rejection you can send a mail to [email protected]; i've done it twice and once it was reversed.
Resubmitting is also an option, but dont do it without a note as you can get "warned "for that.
Thanks for the info
49
« on: November 18, 2011, 17:47 »
Well I've applied and been accepted to SS using their "disable" option for now. Waiting for some response from iS about the current situation (I doubt it will be what I want to hear anyway) before I decide to make the jump off the exclusive ship. SS' uploading process is SOOO much simpler than iS, and they reviewed my application within 12 hours or something. What's weird is that a few of my vettas on iS weren't accepted because they had "limited commercial value", even though they've sold a good number of times at a high price on iS. Is there an appeal process on SS? If this is off-topic never mind.
50
« on: November 18, 2011, 16:44 »
What an absurd example __ you're not comparing apples to apples. There is only one independent contributor (if any at all) that earn 20%, the vast majority earn 17% or less. Exclusives on the other hand can supposedly earn up to 45% and there are certainly several hundred, if not thousands, that earn 35-40%. If you plug those numbers into your little equation you'll find that Istock's take, in cash terms, is roughly the same for each similar sale. It is that way because that's exactly what they designed the pricing architecture and commission levels to provide. OK so let's say that the independent gets 17% - that's iStock earning 4.98 for the medium file. Lets' say 35% for the exclusive - that's iStock earning 6.5 for the same size. Even at 15% for the indy and 45% for the exclusive it's still 5.10 and 5.50 for iStock, respectively, and those are generous numbers, seeing as how difficult it is to reach past the 35% RC level. Over volume this is a huge difference, and my point is valid. No need to get so defensive.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
