Quote from: FD-amateur on March 22, 2010, 08:16

................ I'll probably reupload ..................

that's been my argument for years...  I dont know how many times I have waited a few weeks and reloaded the exact same file...... and it is accepted AND it sells.
     There's no hardcore science in the review process... many times it's just a roll of the dice. Accepted/rejected.  Perhaps I should say,  there may be a science, however, you still have humans applying it. And, they are prone to error. =tom

i agree.
how else do you explain when 3 images from the same shoot bearing the same studio lighting and post processing are approved , with a fourth being rejected . if the reason for it is  "too similar", it's no doubt reasonable rejection. but when the reason is (choose one )..poor composition, no stock potential,  not our ecstatic whatever..lol.. which is more usual with the other 3 never IS..
it has to be a rogue reviewer who just does like  (choose one) your name, your port, his/her life, her/his face,etc..

but in this sense, i beg to differ with some of you who said that IS is inconsistent with their reviews. as for artifacts,etc.. i find IS reviewers the most consistent of the top 4.

i think many of us have hijacked this thread. so let's pull it back into topic.

to reconsider why Getty would want to divert attention from IS.
well, maybe they are not as stupid or insensitive to IS contributors (esp exclusivies) as i initially thought.

we see the other top 4 sites literally going for the mass volume cheap subs marketing. so Getty gets StockXpert and shaft them into Thinkstock. also shaft a lot more of non selling IS images there.
this creates competition for SS, DT , FT,et.. who seem to favor subs , even though we know contributors hate sub with a passion.  but Getty has to fill that need or lose market hold .

now, a buyer can choose between "premium" micro stock that you can find at IS,
or Thinkstock. you probably will find everything from horseshit to one thousand and one golden people same old same old for the next 100 pages in Thinkstock as you would with SS, DT, FT,etc..
this way, Getty buyers are happily served via Thinkstock without having to go outside the Getty fold.

then, when the buyer gets tired of seeing all those same old same old at Thinkstock,
they can come back to IS and pay for something better.

this pleases both contributors of IS, and buyers.
not as dumb as they look... this Getty.

Quote

No, it's not a conspiracy - it's just one of the benefits of being exclusive: no more keyword rejections.

Even if they are bad keywords or spam keywords? That doesn't sound like a benefit to the buyers.

no, the irrelevant keyword(s) is / are removed by the reviewer(s).

still,  i don't even think the buyers even use keywords anymore. with subs, why would you bother with keywords, just take all the XL you see ...     

No, it's not a conspiracy - it's just one of the benefits of being exclusive: no more keyword rejections.

well, i suppose that's fair. considering you're giving up a lot to be exclusive.

we must not forget that it is not only IS reviewers who have xray eyes and see artifacts where we cannot see at 100%.
other sites have Clark Kent working for them too , lol.

then again, it may not be artifacts, but the reviewer having one too many martinis at breakfast. oops, i forgot, you cannot be an alcoholic and a reviewer at the same time 

p.s.
i think that reviewer with IS who seems to enjoy rejections due to lens flare should stop placing his martini glass too close to the monitor screen. it's not lens flare dude/duda , it's your blooming martini glass casting a reflection on your screen 

well, yes, yes, and yes..
starting back to front..

sjlocke..
-agree, we need some form of QA. although i can't say much for bias reviewers who would approve dogshit and then reject a studio shot for poor composition. literally.
-not sure what you mean by "keep idiots from driving pricing to a penny", Mr Locke.
the microsites are already doing that . is it ok for agencies to drive prices down to a penny but not ok for individuals?  maybe i misread your thoughts.

nosaya..
- agree. even now, amongst sites, there is some form of bias in driving buyers to insider's portfolio.
you know it's happening. how else would there be such disparity in a new image where one gets an instant sale while another much better image gets shafted on page 110 of the same keyword search placement. or when in a site's blog by an official, a poorly underexposed image is given credit as "stock sellable " example.
so, of course, Getty will find a way to own the search to still get first ten pages. in failing that, all Getty will need to do is buy over the search engine. and then kill it too.lol.

stockastic..
= i am not advocating to do away with agencies. they do their job and they earn their commissions.
i just don't like the way some of them are controlling contributors, be it not allowing them to opt out, or just plain showing no concern of the bottom line .

good thread. this is the kind of forum i enjoy, where there is some form of unity amongst contributors. after all, if we let agencies shaft us, no one particular contributor is immuned.
that is, unless, you start your own agency. .. and we know how successful that is, lol.

Just because someone -wants- cheap content because their business model or hobby doesn't have enough cash, doesn't mean you have to guve them the same content for cheap that dies sell for acceptable pricing.  An entitlement attitude does not need to be satisfied.  Unless you can offer special licensing, like $250 a month, 250 images, usage period one month for non-advertising purposes.

so true. you're a fine spokeman and a strong voice against giving away the store if ever we need one to represent that school, Mr Locke!

the problem with the officials of the microstock sites is that , to quote a previous prime minister of canada, they "speak from both sides of the mouth".
on one hand, they preach in secret that they really do not approve or like the idea of subs,
but in public they say you have to do it, or as Gostwyck puts it so succinctly, "we'll shove the bats up..."

it's not playing well with the contributors. every day it seems to get worse. at least IS gives you the option to opt out, while some sites , eg. DT , does not give you that luxury.
and the consensus seem to want to see the bottom fall out. even though the consensus on the contributor side
(including Mr. Locke, thank goodness), is openly against the idea of giving away your fine work.

so where is this going?  is it time again for another lube up the rear end for us?

hmm, i just noticed this thread a moment ago.
an hour ago, i had a bit of problem accessing my port via the VIEW PORTFOLIO link to my IS link.
when i hit that, i see an error message.

now, it appears to be working.
so maybe IT at IS is still working at the glitch.

Who benefits? iStockphoto. For them StockXpert became self-competition. Anyway, it's their business, what is the most important thing, regardless of the fact that StockXpert is gone, the same amount of stock photos are sold every day in the world. Those buyers who were @ StockXpert, they are dissolved between the remaining top agencies. It's normal, somebody will not stop buying images because an agency closes. The key is to be present at many agencies (as photographer) so you won't feel the hole.

1) i suppose IS exclusives will benefit , or at least you would think that Getty has their self interest in mind.
self interest being Getty or the IS exclusives?  that's hard to figure.
2) from general consensus, it seems that sales are down for most ppl, at least with BigStock.
  FT, Canstock, were slow anyway, so a snail is still a snail.lol.
but Dreamstime is definitely going blazing guns... at least in my own case.
3) i hung around for StockXpert as they were good to me from the start. but all this switcheroonie loonie toonie
is confusing to my old mind, so i asked StockXpert to pay out and kill my port.   
sad for them as you know here,
i was cheering for a StockXpert resurrection. but Easter did not arrive for me with StockXpert. "god" *read that as *getty
would not allow it

4) your last point. i am not sure if i concur.   i belong to about 10 sites , but only 2 or 3 sites really sold anything.
the rest were just taking in my images for numbers sake. not worth the trouble anymore.
i decided this year to cut their hands off and keep only 3. if i don't reach payout to anyone soon,
i will cut that hand off for the others too.
better to stay with the one that is selling for me . this way, i conserve waste energy to have to upload to those dead in the water , and use that energy to making more new works for the one that sells regular for me.

of course, you're entitled to disagree. it's nice to see so many reviewers approving your work.
but nowadays, i don't give a rat's arse to approvals. i only see what sells for me.

just slightly off topic, but still related to IS...

a moment ago, when i go to my link for IS , and click on VIEW PORTFOLIO...
i get an error message.

is anyone getting the same thing when they go to their own
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id .....
link to click on VIEW PORTFOLIO.

i am thinking that maybe IS has changed the portfolio link, like Fotolia did last year to our link.

Quote from: chasmcn on January 27, 2010, 02:26

i just wish the so called experts on tv would shut up here in the UK they talked us into a recession every time the bbc expert came on tv the stock market collasped we are coming out of it ,they are now being negative again for f***k sake lets be positive and get on with it  they are so doom and gloom .

Talk about 'shooting the messenger' ....

The BBC didn't 'talk us into a recession' at all, they simply reported the facts. The recession occurred because of absurd borrowing, lending and gambling by the banks in a ridiculously unregulated system.

It is laughable that the BBC's reporter Robert Peston is still blamed by some (idiots) for the collapse of Northern Rock. NR collapsed because it fuelled its rapid expansion by borrowing short to fund lending long __ a practice known to be a recipe for disaster for centuries. They inevitably collapsed when the supply of new money dried up, not because of the BBC.

well said gostwyck.
like donding , most ppl get their pulse of the economy on 2 mins soundbites on BBC, and CBC,etc.
and they wonder why their business had dried up.

For those others like donding who think there is a recovery already in place.
... "wow, the worst market correction since the great depression, and suddenly we have instant recovery".  Like everything in the mentality of fast food, we also now have an instant recovery, huh..
lmaorof

btw, collectively to further response to all those who think there is no longer a recession,
read this quote from CARP and Zoomer magazine,  after the Canadian woke up to more news of their new harmonized sales tax...
pg 98 ZoomerMag.com    THE HST . WERE WE CONSULTED ? nO ? written by Susan Eng
... Older Canadians have watched their retirement dreams vanish along with their savings un this market crisis

pg 99 ... CARP CALLS ON PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
... They watch thousands of Nortel pensioners protesting on Parliament Hill... all to no avail...

Don't just take my ramble ... read it yourself,

twitter.com/zoomermag
facebook.com/zoomermedia

Better still, email or chat with the seniors to let them all know you think the recession is over.
lol...
dream on ppl, stop getting your update on the economy from the supermarket tabloids,
talk to the people who actually lost their pension savings ...

and stop smoking those bad weeds left over from your woodstock haze..

being a global economy, majority of investors portfolio does not consist of local investment. a viable investment consists of asian, US, europe, ..etc.. world .
metal, energy, commodities,etc... rise and fall in tandem.
when the market crash, there is a ripple effect even though it may appear that only US affluence and over extending their borrowing beyond their mean to hedge in the market . but really, a company in US is not as US owned as many non-investors think they are.
 As the saying goes several decades ago, Japan may have lost the war, but they won the battle and own USA. This is not comedy. Most US business that top Forbes are not US owned. 
And soon, when the Asian bubble burst, we will see another ripple effect.
Don't celebrate just yet. China's new millionaires are created only via their borrowing power, as once USA did.
In the last crash during the Yuppies generation, USA wealth  was actually financed by borrowing money. When the correction came, many of these properties were foreclosed and the banks were the ultimate losers.
Most of the wealthy did not have a net profit in their balance sheet nor did they own equity. They were always borrowing beyond their means.

This time, China and other parts of Asia has follow suit trying to be as affluent as their once super wealthy US "idols".

No, the recovery is far from being anything near.

Canada?
and for those who think that Canada was immuned from the markets crash in USA, check out CARP and Zoomer magazine. Your canadian seniors and those reaching retirement are hurting more than they like to admit.
Your BOC may paint a happy scenario, that only so as not to cause another correction in TSX. Don't fool yourself. Ask an investor or even those who hold RPP or other private pension plan. They are not snowbirds anymore for a good reason.  Check out those working in the departmental stores. Their work hours after festive seasons did not just get cut to almost nothing for the sake of giving them a rest. Certain dept stores was making money because the seniors were spending lots of money then. They don't do that as much after the correction.

The current markets only recovered very little. In fact the TSX has not even come close to where it was. It only rose to 12K,  and has never shown signs of even coming anything close to  the last high of 15K . not even close.. it hit 13k once or twice, a few weeks back, but  it is now way back close to 11K .

 People panic and took profits each time the TSX rose a little.  They don't even have the ability to wait for it to reach the past high of 15K. They don't have the ability to wait it out.
 You don't do that if your portfolio was "immuned" . You cash in and took profit and claim a loss because you no longer have borrowing clout with a drastically reduced portfolio. If your canuck investors were not hurt, they would have been able to wait till at least 15K. But we don't see any signs of such movement.
Your  " immuned " investors are grabbing whatever they can , because their piggy bank is broken. 
If you think it's bull, ask your bank manager or investment advisor.