|
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 - KarenH
26
« on: March 04, 2014, 16:29 »
The same people that wrote the code are now fixing it. The same people that are fixing it will write the next code. So I can only see more and longer outages. Eventually we will hit one where the accounting is so screwed up that iStock will have to admit it can't be fixed. Oh that will be a bad day - but I see it coming in the trends.
TPTB see Glory Land across the river. The worker bees are taking bridge parts from behind them and laying them in front. At some point in the middle the bridge is disconnected from land at both ends. And great was the fall thereof.
Prophetic. 
27
« on: March 03, 2014, 20:14 »
28
« on: March 01, 2014, 22:20 »
29
« on: March 01, 2014, 08:49 »
I posted they should give us our money...and they deleted it. Losers.
Strictly speaking, it was never 'our' money, as 'we' hadn't earned it; but they made the very serious mistake, and didn't spot it at the time (how come?) not the contributors.
But really strictly speaking they DO have some of "our money," since they're making smaller corrections in the contributors' favor, supposedly. So that means they've been underpaying us in some cases. Which cases? For how long? Beats me. No transparency whatsoever.
If they've underpaid contributors (and it sounds like they have from their latest explanation where they say ". . . we also have some transaction corrections that will result in additional amounts being added to contributors accounts. . . our review is producing adjustments and in the contributors favor") -- then I don't know why they don't wait until they sort the whole thing out, rather than set up six monthly installments for each contributor involved, and then additional transactions to repay the money they underpaid? Seems like it would be cleaner to me. Because based on history, the potential is there that something will be screwed up along the way and they'll have to make a correction to a correction.
30
« on: February 25, 2014, 20:52 »
Hard time for my finger this wk, after Depositphoto deactivation, I'm on with Istock.
Sean Locke's Greasemonkey script works very well, thank you for your work.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339
It was a hard decision but I will close my account.
It may seem stupid but i feel so much better and proud of that.
If you haven't already closed it, perhaps you want to leave an image or two to keep the accountt open (so you keep access to your stats)?
I don't close it already, I just wait to reach the minimum payment with several images and I close it.
Even if I deactivate my images I don't like the idea they still have them. I hope (naively) if I close my account I have more chance than they delete my images definitively.
I don't think it works that way. When I closed my account the first time and then went back, all my files were still there, even though I had deactivated all of them before closing the account.
31
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:35 »
I'm curious, has anyone here thought of filing a Better Business Bureau complaint against iStock? They have an A+ rating somehow, which means they've settled all of their complaints in a way that was satisfactory to the customer. My guess is, whoever files a complaint online would get to keep their "overpayment" money simply because it won't be worth it to them to tarnish their BBB status.
FWIW Getty Images, the parent, has a C- rating with the BBB. And I say FWIW because I realize this latest is iStock PP, not related to the Getty part of it -- but still, it IS the parent company. http://www.bbb.org/western-washington/business-reviews/photographs-stock/getty-images-in-seattle-wa-37000916
32
« on: February 24, 2014, 19:19 »
Wow, this is really bad. I've seen a couple of four-figure clawbacks reported.
33
« on: February 10, 2014, 14:43 »
Yes that happened to me, where I found out (from a buyer who bought one) that Getty was still selling my images months after the images were deactivated and the account closed. A registered letter is probably a good idea.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
34
« on: January 18, 2014, 20:09 »
It's been a long time ago when I requested they close my account. I got what was owed to me at that time. I could no longer sign on either once I requested they close it. I had no question as to why I should be concerned.
Well about a year later I did a tineye search on one of my images and low and behold it was still on iStock along with all my images that were suppose to have been deleted and they were still all for sell. They changed my name from donding to dondingdelete and had continued to sell my photos. I had over $100.00 in my account. Once I knew the name on the new account I was able to sign on with my password. I did finally get them deleted....at least I think...haven't checked lately. That's been almost a year ago the second time around so a total of two years since the original request. I did manage to get my money.
Just a word of warning folks. If you ask your account to be deleted....tin eye some of those images to make sure they are no longer on there making them money. If I had never run that tineye search I would never have known they were still selling my photos without my permission and they owed me money.
Something like that happened to me when I left. Images deactivated, then account closed - and I learned (from someone who bought one) that my images were still available on Getty months later. And still being sold. After reporting it, I did eventually get my percentage (I should have gotten 100% since they were selling them while I had no account there, when they had no right to be selling them), but it seemed to be awfully difficult to get them taken down from Getty. And yeah, your email name / paypal account is immediately renamed with (name)closed, so I don't know how one is supposed to be able to get their money since they'd be sending it to a paypal account with the wrong name.
35
« on: January 12, 2014, 15:02 »
Ah, you beat me to it.
It's unbelievably unintuitive and a really stupid design, IMO.
And that Manage File function, including viewing downloads from the image page, is inaccessible from mobile devices like iPads. Terribly inconvenient.
36
« on: January 10, 2014, 22:04 »
I discovered that yesterday also. I was never at any time opted into it. Another bug I'm assuming where defaults get changed after some kind of "fix". Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
37
« on: November 26, 2013, 19:35 »
For the last hour.
38
« on: November 22, 2013, 17:47 »
It's ok for me now, but for most of the week I wasn't seeing any updates at all. Seems fine now.
39
« on: November 18, 2013, 18:53 »
I wonder if they will do anything about the spamming, or the files that have been keyword wikied already.
40
« on: September 11, 2013, 18:17 »
Him saying "...iStockphoto is the extreme example for that. We've put 13 people who had never been on the iStockphoto website before in a room and we watched them. At the end of a hour, they had no idea what we were actually doing..."
I have a hard time believing that not one out of 13 could figure out how to buy something on an ecommerce site. After "an hour".
If they were people who had never been on the iStock site and never bought anything on an ecommerce site (which is what it sounds like), who had no idea how to even buy something, I question why in the world he would use them as his test group.
41
« on: September 10, 2013, 20:10 »
I thought only buyer views were counted?
Contributors views are counting -- I don't think they're supposed to, but they do.
42
« on: August 26, 2013, 22:02 »
Did the fix ever show up? I'm guessing no since Tickstock isn't in here crowing about it.
Oh, and BTW, conspiracy theories are speculative, not printed in black and white in the TOS. 
Nope, fix hasn't happened yet.
43
« on: August 19, 2013, 08:01 »
By "report it", do you mean post on the Istock forum about it?
Yes, in one of the bug threads.
44
« on: August 16, 2013, 15:06 »
On IE, I get that, along with an error message that parts of the page will not be allowed to load because of invalid security certificates. I really do not know what that means, and I did report it. However I don't get the error on Chrome or Safari -- and the iStockphoto site will not function at all on this version of IE. So I just put it down to an IE thing and ignore it.
45
« on: July 26, 2013, 00:17 »
I'm missing the 16th and 18th of May, along with the 8th, 9th, 21st and 30th in June.
There must still be some glitch if we are all missing the same days.
It was posted about an hour ago that there was an issue identified with the days June 8, 9, 21, 30. They're going to go over all the logs of June payments.
46
« on: July 13, 2013, 00:45 »
It's back up here.
47
« on: July 13, 2013, 00:15 »
Agree, they've been very good about giving advance notice for maintenance. This was probably an unexpected "oops".
48
« on: July 12, 2013, 23:59 »
Yes, for about 40 minutes now. Some are getting 503 pages, some blank pages, some "Server Error" pages, on all browsers, and at least a couple of us have gotten in momentarily only to get kicked out again after a minute. Currently I'm not able to get in at all.
49
« on: July 12, 2013, 23:50 »
Site has been down for about 30 minutes now -- some people getting a "Server Error", some a 503 page, some a blank white page, and it doesn't seem to be browser specific.
50
« on: July 09, 2013, 18:44 »
Well..... not picking any individual......
I did a search for "arkangel" (a recent submission that probably would have got in anyway under the former soviet republic) and sorted by newest. I still can't believe my eyes...
Wow, what piss poor inspectors allowed those in...technically they seem okay, but subject-wise...what. I still see folks getting rejections in their forums...I'd like to see what they reject now if those are an example of what they allow.
And again the keywords that are being allowed . . .
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
