[ Quite a few people complained about SS changing the sort order from Most Downloaded to Most Popular. 

What's the difference between 'Most Downloaded' and 'Most Popular'?

Does 'Most Popular' mean images that have been viewed the most times?

If it does I'm gonna log on to SS anonymously and spend the whole morning looking at my lovely piccies   

How much do they buy it for? I would never sell an image outright unless I was offered really big bucks for it (unless it was one of those images I took when I pressed the shutter release accidentally     )

Regarding Amanda's post ... (and I guess she won't read this now, but never mind). The reason people are upset is because of the high-handed way that iStock treat their contributors.

This change was introduced with virtually no warning to us contributors and, apparently, without testing it thoroughly. Have you tried to upload an image recently? It's a nightmare. I've just spent at least 15-20 minutes trying to upload my first image after the change. The system won't accept the EXIF information that most people use so, as far as I can see, you have to type in each keyword separately. I could find no way of cutting and pasting from my JPEG file.

Then you have to do the categories.

Then you have to go through a whole long rigmarole of saying exactly what you mean for a whole load of keywords that the system finds ambiguous.

And ... having done all that ... when I got to the end of it I was presented with a screen that said 'Uploads have been suspended'. So all that time was wasted. And that was just for one image.

On top of that, the keywords that I have carefully thought out for exisiting images have been mangled ... and I mean mangled. Have I got to go through the whole lot again and re-do them? Under the present byzantine system? It's going to take me ages.

Is this a good way of treating your suppliers? Remember, without photographers and graphics artists there would be no iStock. I'm beginning to wonder if we aren't selling ourselves too cheaply here, and being pathetically grateful for the chance.

Now, compare with Alamy. They are introducing a new way of uploading, online, without having to send in CDs (which, I must admit, is a pain). They have informed us photogs, they are testing it with selected users, they have run into problems and so have delayed the launch. Isn't that a better way of doing things?

iStock is a big and valuable agency. I can appreciate that they want to get the best keywording in many different languages. Admirable aims. But why can't they treat the photographers and artists who supply them - their lifeblood -  with a teeny bit more consideration?

P.S I'm actually sorry for exclusives with iS. I thought about it hard when my chance came up, but decided against it. I still value the opportunity that iStock gives to sell my images, but I don't want to get right into bed with them, with all the restrictions that entails.

I've just discovered that 'bleachers' is another one. Five of my images have mysteriously acquired that keyword.

But, being a Brit, I'm not entirely sure what bleachers are (Are they a type of clothing?)

What kills me is how many people on the IS forums are saying how wonderful this new change is.

Yeah ... well ... if you enjoy going through all your keywords for every image again it is truly wonderful 

Nice work iStock.

Congratulations, Fintastique, on a sale with Alamy. I've found sales with them are few and far between, but the money's much bigger. And they take licenced images, too, with the ever-present chance that one of those will sell for really big bucks.

18 months ago when I started all this, I would read the SS forums and get so angry with this contributor... his insults and egotistical ideation were ridiculous, just meant to get people's hackles up... why would anybody do that?

I believe that sort of person is called a Troll.

Trolls are a well-known feature of many forums. They get their kicks out of winding people up with outrageous statements and nasty comments. They like nothing better for you to respond to them with shock and horror ... and then they make a whole load more outrageous, horrible or insulting ststements.

Why do they do it? Who knows. They're poor, pale, bitter souls who don't have a life anywhere else outside the internet forums (hence the name 'Troll').

Let's hope we don't get any trolls here. But if we do, the best thing is to completely ignore them. They hate that.

I dont have such a problem with this. 

I don't have a problem with it, either.

What is not quite so good is that, by erasing posts that refer to this, he seems to be trying to hide the fact. Why hide it? It's perfectly legit. He's providing a service and should get paid something for it.

After a four-day retention, people will upload tons of images again.  I really don't see the gain.

Regards,
Adelaide

People won't be able to upload tons of images again ... at least, not people like me who are staying resolutely non-exclusive on iStock (I value my independence  ). At 25 images a week it will take me to the next Ice Age to upload a ton of images.

Interestingly ...

IS have suspended all uploads for this weekend.   

Okay. I have no problem with that decision. It is their prerogative and I guess they've done it for a good reason. (Though I am a bit frustrated, what with having a load of images ready to go.)

However, read the IS forum posts on this issue and I guess about 2/3 of the members are saying something like, "Wooo! Yay! Cool decision. We're so happy."

 

Is it just me, or is there a difference between the tone of the iStock and Shutterstock forums (the two I read most)?

The IS forum tends to have a harsher, meaner tone to it. The people who post on SS tend to be gentler with newbies and those who don't always make the coolest of posts.

Am I right about that? Anyone notice this too? Any ideas why?

Thanks Leaf.

Yeah ... it never ceases to astonish me what sells. That's one of the beauties of this line of work. One day, just on a whim, I took a quick shot of the wood grain on one of the doors in my house. That image has sold a whole lot better (on various sites) than one's I've spent hours setting up, getting the lighting just right.

Ooops ... maybe we photogs shouldn't be giving away our secrets like this. Maybe I should say I spent an age getting that woodgrain shot just right.

 

I sell on Alamy. You get significant money for your sales ... often $100+ for one image ... but sales are few and far between. I've been with them about a year now, I've 500 images with them and I've sold 4 so far.

Given the rate of income from them, I go for the 65% commission and no storage fees. Otherwise I'd have a tough job making a profit.

Thanks for your reply,
Yeah, there are spaces instead of commas. I guess this means i'm screwed    Is there anyway to fix this?

Here's how I do it ...

1.  Cut all your keywords as one big block from the keywords box in Fotolia (or wherever) and paste them into Word, or whatever wordprocessor you use.

2.  Do a 'search and replace'. Search for <space> and replace with <,space>.  I've made this into a macro with Word as I do it quite often, converting between sites, so I just have to press a pair of keys.

3.  Cut the block of revised keywords from Word and paste it back, complete with commas, into the keywords box of the microstock site.

Hope this helps.