|
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 - ShadySue
13976
« on: March 15, 2011, 16:13 »
Apparently Istock is planning to be "... doing a push that includes optimisation for the search engine ..." either today or tomorrow.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&page=1
Although it hasn't happened yet I thought this belongs in the 'Epic Fail' thread based on past performance. The only real unknown is just how bad the outcome is likely to be.
Site seems to be down as of this moment. Hmmmm, strange, it's my connection. I can get on here, but not to iStock or Wikipedia ...
13977
« on: March 15, 2011, 06:42 »
(snip)
Of course the irony is that current exclusive contributors largely owe their exclusive benefits to these folks, as the exclusivity program was largely a circling of the wagons reaction to everything happening at the time. So, don't take it too personally, this is all old stuff.
But with all the bad things going on at iStock, more and more people, including your good self, of course, are handing in their crowns, so there's no saying that the 5 might also do so in the near or far future. Especially as they have taken big or huge hits and are presumably at least 'considering their options'. I've cast four votes via sitemail, very soon after the voting thead was opened and was interested to see that three of my four choices have been largely the main people nominated by most people (the fourth was a wildcard, way out in left field). However, I'd be more than delighted to have you, LisaFX or PaulCowan (for example) representing independents.
13978
« on: March 14, 2011, 19:58 »
Really insightful list of questions JoAnn. Wish you'd reconsider the panel.
+1. So do I.
Me3
13979
« on: March 14, 2011, 19:12 »
This whole thing is a facade in my opinion. They all sign NDA's. So the inference you can get from Kelly's comments, "They can be the ears of the entire community and see if we're doing anything out of the ordinary" means that all the five will be are additional non-employee block & tacklers in the forums, helping take the brunt of the legitimate issues contributors bring up but don't get answers to. The five wont be able to give us answers either, but they will be able to speak to us in useless code like the admins do when the bother to post anything telling us we are wrong but I can't tell you why.
You are aware of the legal concept of sub judice, I presume? Try this for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice
13980
« on: March 14, 2011, 11:23 »
I have spoken... 
The Voice of the People becomes the Choice of the People. Go to it, Sean!
13981
« on: March 14, 2011, 08:58 »
What other conclusion could the five possibly return with, other than "Things will get better"? Could they possibly get worse? iStock wouldn't initiate this conversation unless they had some type of action plan to show off to them - whether its feasible, whether it even goes forward, can't possibly be known by the 5 selected. All they can possibly do is say, "What they have planned will help. Things will get better."
It's also about whether the reason the frauds went on for over two months is valid or not. That's the point that is probably sub judice.
13982
« on: March 14, 2011, 08:02 »
edited: @Shadysue - great minds think alike 
Thought that was really funny.  - if only it weren't so true.
13983
« on: March 14, 2011, 07:54 »
Anyone else experiencing long reviewing times? I have a batch of editiorials pending since 24feb and my oldest non-editorials pending are from 3mar. I've never experienced such long waiting times at IS.
The queue is standing at 92593. Seems there's trouble at'mill, and constant editorial rejections while they change their minds repeatedly about what the caption should look like can't be helping.
13985
« on: March 14, 2011, 07:10 »
Don't bother if you want to upload editorial images. There's some sort of bug which is causing <No UBB characters to be used in caption> errors, even if you don't have any UBB characters in your caption. And I guess it's still another four hours 'til work starts for the day in Calgary.
Added: and that includes the resubmission I had to make for not having a comma between the month and the year. Of course that wasn't what the rejection notice said. The rejection notice said I had to put month-date-year.
I am totally hacked off with inaccurate rejection notices.
I am totally hacked off by the way they didn't design an upload form that made all these stupid caption rejections unnecessary.
One of the first editorial submissions I made was rejected because there was 'limited commercial use in RF' for the image. Given that it was an editorial submission, I would nope there would be NO commercial use. We'll see what Scout says.
13986
« on: March 14, 2011, 07:00 »
BTW.. has anyone nominated Lobo
I don't know, but a few people have nominated Bruce. But it turns out, he's inelible for the same reason as Rob.
http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter
A little factoid that I'd missed.
Bruce?? well not sure about that, he sold this place to Getty in the first place, fully aware of the Getty reputation of messing up things. So did Tony-Stone and Stan-Kanney BUT in them days Mark-Getty was the chairman and everyone was earning a fortune.
The point was that he's not now exclusive to iStock.
13987
« on: March 14, 2011, 06:44 »
BTW.. has anyone nominated Lobo
I don't know, but a few people have nominated Bruce. But it turns out, he's inelible for the same reason as Rob. http://www.istockphoto.com/bitterA little factoid that I'd missed.
13988
« on: March 13, 2011, 20:40 »
I've nothing against that, but in the context of the fraud, which I believe is all the conference call is about, I don't think it's vitally important. I'm not even sure whether the (top) Vector/Video/Audio/Flash contributors were affected proportionately to the (top) photographers by the fraud (?)
Oh, we vector contributors were affected, believe me.  [/quote] Right, sorry. I just checked on a few pages on the clawback thread and didn't see any vector-only contributors there. Unrepresentative sample, poor science. 
13989
« on: March 13, 2011, 19:08 »
I think the group chosen should include contributors that represent all types of interests including vector. vector artists are certainly marginalized these days.
I've nothing against that, but in the context of the fraud, which I believe is all the conference call is about, I don't think it's vitally important. I'm not even sure whether the (top) Vector/Video/Audio/Flash contributors were affected proportionately to the (top) photographers by the fraud (?)
13990
« on: March 13, 2011, 17:49 »
I always find it strange that someone would bother with fake credit cards to buy photos. I think of many other things I'd grab first, especially when you look at the number of pirate sites full of stock photos. last time I look Heroturko was pushing the big 4 for traffic. why not just grab a pirate copy if that is your inclination.
There's always the 'disgruntled employee' or 'pissed off contributor' theories.
13991
« on: March 13, 2011, 17:22 »
Something else, mentioned before...
Wow, I knew the search was broken, but i didnt realize HOW broken! Searching anything with more than 1 term is totally screwed up and usually gives just 1 page with results. (for example all my "dog" searches did)
A miracle we even get sales at all...
Oh yes, but it's kinda random. e.g. I clicked on my BS for 'more like this' (usually many). ATM, it's showing only one image. Not even my alternate image which has the same keywords. Click on the alternate and you get the same one image, not my BS. But 'more like this' from some of my other pics give the sort of results you'd expect. Plus random searches giving you instead the keyword 'source', which seems to be all the images in the collection, while other searches take you to the forums ... Not many buyers are finding me these days. This is my worst week for ages (in a long decline) DESPITE the introduction of editorial (6 editorial dls this week, mostly XSm).
13992
« on: March 13, 2011, 13:49 »
I have no idea whether BigStock's quickly stopped fraud was of the same nature and by the same perps. (Anyone know?)
Well, we know it took place during the exact same time period. In fact, when it BigStock got hit, it coincided exactly with a lull in fraud activity at Istock after the staff got back from Christmas holidays. We also know it was the same sales pattern - largest available size, and around the same daily quantity (judging from my fraud sales) as the ones at Istock. It went on for two days, then stopped. And resumed at Istock.
Do we know for sure it was the same people? No. The sites may know, but all we have to go on is deductive reasoning, which points to the same group.
Yup, seems to.
13993
« on: March 13, 2011, 13:36 »
I'm sure that Sean for one would be happier knowing that this was a genuine, unpreventable, major fraud assault (assuming for the moment that it is) and not just his agent's negligence or worse.
If I were in Sean's position, I would be letting my lawyer do my talking with Istock at this point.
Well you've certainly got a point, but sometimes you need to know if it's worth throwing good money after bad.
13994
« on: March 13, 2011, 13:28 »
Not an epic fail, but still kind of funny (and apparently annoying, LOL)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313022&page=1
They did a little change overnight GMT whereby you can turn it off my clicking the x at the extreme right of the orange strip. I guess it means they're using some code that doesn't render in IE6. IE6 can be limiting, but obviously they need to support it as so many people must continue to use it if they have no choice at work.
13995
« on: March 13, 2011, 13:16 »
One other thing to consider, and I'm only whistling in the dark, is that the authorities might have needed iStock to let the fraud to on so that they could find the perp, because only then was there a chance of catching them and preventing the work which was stolen being passed on, e.g. on illegal DVDs, websites etc.
That thought crossed my mind...that it was a sting operation. BUT if they agreed to that, I don't think they should have taken the money back from contributors. The other thing I have to wonder is why it was let on for so long and at such an extensive scale. Still smacks of incompetence and negligence more than anything else. Otherwise, why wouldn't the other affected sites have engaged in the investigation or a similar investigation?
I have no idea whether BigStock's quickly stopped fraud was of the same nature and by the same perps. (Anyone know?) Alamy also had fraud, but it was totally different (hacking in to accounts by guessing passwords). I didn't read about any others, but I seldom hop into the forums of the other groups unless I've time to kill.
13996
« on: March 13, 2011, 12:53 »
Ah, someone even more cynical than me (if that's possible, LOL):
As a non-exclusive my opinion counts for nothing here - but if asked (which I won't be) I would not trust any of the 'so-called' Community voices elected here. They, to a man, will be so honoured to be in the 'Getty family' all you will see is a sycophantic 'tow-the-line' message to the exclusive members but they'll be rewarded with a special bonus (or shres options) to stuff the rest of you and not rock the boat. And you can bet they will be more than eager to sign an NDA as well. The very fact that this 'list' is only open to exclusive iSP contributors should be warning to you all - a captive (completely finacially reliant) and sycophantic group. Smart move iSP, really, a smart move.
Note: I do not agree with their speculations.
That person may indeed be even more cynical than you, but lost credibitily with me when they revealed their choice of an 'independent'. They clearly know nothing of them; nor have they read the forum posts of the most-nominated exclusives.
13997
« on: March 13, 2011, 12:51 »
One other thing to consider, and I'm only whistling in the dark, is that the authorities might have needed iStock to let the fraud to on so that they could find the perp, because only then was there a chance of catching them and preventing the work which was stolen being passed on, e.g. on illegal DVDs, websites etc.
13998
« on: March 13, 2011, 12:45 »
I think it's a good move and seeks to create a bridge of communication between HQ and contributors in a language that won't further alienate the community.
Just for a change why don't you put some thought into your comments instead of what looks like a 'hope the iStock management read this grovelling statement' type reply. How could this possibly be a "bridge of communication between HQ and contributors" the contributors are being asked to sign a NDA 
If iStock wanted to communicate with contributors without alienating the community here's a novel idea - get somebody with an ounce of intelligence to explain what's happening on their forum that isn't made up of obvious PR created BS. Of course that's not what they want, they want five cheerleading dimwits who they can hoodwink with some corporate waffle that they know will then come back and tell everybody else things are just fine.
I'm not on the side of TPTB, but knowing of someone whose (small, UK) business went under [1], several years ago, because of credit card fraud (originating in the Far East - Thailand, IIRC) which police and his credit card transaction company said there was nothing he could have done to prevent, I'm willing to cut them a little slack on the fraud business. (Yeah, I know, easy for me to say, who hardly lost anything.) If what they've been telling us so far is true, then it is an ongoing investigation and they will not be at liberty to tell the full story until it's all sorted, which could be months or years down the line. IF what they're saying is the truth, I guess his is the only way they can relay this message to the masses. [1] which though a very small company had an incredible ripple effect on several others when it went down, eventually being a considerable contributory factor in their demise.
13999
« on: March 13, 2011, 12:09 »
I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.
I can't see how it's the remit of the five to answer any questions. I think they should have a list of questions that TPTB have to answer, but not reveal them in advance. Too much chance for spin that way.
14000
« on: March 13, 2011, 11:07 »
I can't imagine signing the NDA. It doesn't really seem like you have much to gain from it. It seems better to just not know.
I'm sure that Sean for one would be happier knowing that this was a genuine, unpreventable, major fraud assault (assuming for the moment that it is) and not just his agent's negligence or worse.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
