Personally I don't care about promo of my shop. (Well in fact I don't care about Zazzle at all - these days I spend at Zazzle appr. 2 hours a week and it's enough to become my second best earning site)...  I have about 20 "Today's Best Awards" - and I don't remember that any of the awarded (and highly visited) products would be ever sold - maybe once..  On the other hand some designs that I find... not good...   are selling well. Right keywording and finding the right category (which is sometimes very difficult at Zazzle) is more important to me than selfpromo.

Just for info - I found my portfoli at this site http://fotky-foto.cz/ -  authorized dealer of Fotolia.
As I am paranoid I was little bit scared so I tried to find something suspicious - but fortunately didn't succeed. Everything seems to be correct.

I think that story about stolen or misused credit cards is more acceptable for iS than to admit that someone hacked their site. Yes - world changes but idea that someone planned very carefully how to make money by distributing images paid by misused cards seems to be to crazy for me but anything is possible.
Anyway,  I'm paranoid android and simply don't trust anybody who needs so long time to explain the situation.

Both eps and jpg versions are approved (I uploaded large - 25 MPx jpegs). It seems that Zoonar creates jpegs from eps up to A4 format only. To send these XL jpgs or not to send them - that is question. It's better to have XL files in portfolio but I don't like having image in portfolio twice if not necessary.

....easiest but little bit unfair way how to get image out of your portfolio could be removing or not inserting any keywords.    But I prefer having possibility of doublechecking my files after uploading before final submitting.

What's next step? iStockVector brings you "Vendetta Collection"? 

Thanks. Seems that it works without problems.

I work for web publishing company as my day job. Of course - none of our sites have even nearly 1/100 of daily visits as iStock but I'm sure that if we would work this way many of our readers would leave to competitors. And our sites are "only" for readers, iStock buyers are exposed to very unpleasant situations with their clients.
I can imagine that iStock  would publish some not public "beta.istock.com" site and would very kindly ask contributors (and maybe in very very polite way selected buyers) to help them to fix the bugs and share their opinions. It's sure that not all of bugs would be found in beta mode but ...   "new" iStock at the moment when it was released was just one fat giant bug. To me it's pure amateurism.
Howgh.

Do you really believe the poll on the right, that they are #9 in sales?   Or better yet, if they are #9, what the heck are the rest of them, #10 and down, doing per month?
[/quote]

Edit:   Just had 3rd download in five days - it's not bad as I thought...

...I don't care who will make me billionaire. 

Ridiculous rejection is when reviewer rejects my vector illustration because of incorrrect white balance.

Seems that iStock - totally drunk from success that's slowly becoming past - forgot that they need contributors to make money as well as we need them. Now they probably don't even need buyers. I'm not iStock contributor but the way they communicate with their "coworkers" is unbelievable for me. Well, they say that pride will have a fall.

Do all of these sites take EPS10 files as the sole EPS file format for an image? Or only as additional files?

I thought that SS was the only site that took just an EPS10 file without an EPS8 file included, but it sounds like that's changed.

For DT you need to upload eps10 as additional file (that is approved sometimes couple days, but usually few weeks later),
To 123 and GL upload eps10 + large preview with same name; same for Fotolia and Deposit (but you have to send them zipped).
Big Stock and Can accept eps files and they create previews and upsized jpg files themselves.

What I really do not understand is why Pixmac's partner is not BigStock directly but Colossus (that seems to be more responsible for this issue in my opinion) and what scares me is fact that Pixmac redistributes pictures to another agency (partly their venture) that is still able to afford to offer affiliate program). No wonder that our commissions must be that low.

... but on the other hand - I don't know why this issue is considered to be such a huge problem. Nobody cares that Thinkstock makes absolutely same mistake. You can find in many cases as photographers names  "Comstock Images", "Jupiterimages (even with copyritht owner � Getty Images!!!") "Brand X Pictures" etc. When it comes iStock Collection - photographer's not named at all.   Well Pixmac put to Colossus "profile" Czech Republic but where's the difference?