Looks like XS files are gone for good. Not sure how I feel about that.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358810&page=1

From Lobo...
"I've seen mention of how newer files are experiencing some weirdness with their similar offerings. This is entirely related to keyword order. However, as newer files have actions performed on them the keyword weight of the more relevant keywords will increase the relevancy of the similar files that are provided. We are going to put together an updated Keyword Guide for early September. In the mean time I would suggest people try and add their most relevant keywords before adding their more general keywords."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355588&messageid=6927338

Lots of gripes about new files not selling, and I wonder if this is the culprit since it seems that the relevancy of certain keywords changes over time. For the large amount I upload, I depend on Deepmeta heavily for keywording, and it alphabetizes everything, so that would certainly explain a lot.

Wow, this really would've been nice to have known sooner.

Also nice too see that this VERY significant piece of info is buried in a thread instead of the contributor news or somewhere else more prominent. I don't understand how their Communications person still has a job.

Quote from: jsmithzz on July 20, 2013, 19:27

Quote from: ShadySue on July 08, 2013, 11:45

Quote from: Ron on July 08, 2013, 11:20

Is there no quality control manager or something who checks that stuff? Why on earth would IS let that stuff be marked editors pick. Its making a fool out of them. Why do they do that? What could be the reasoning behind it?

It must be the deal they make with certain ingested exclusives and faux-exclusives that all their files will be sold as Vetta.

Indeed that does seem to be the case. Looks like it's more by photographer than by image. Now we've got proof that they play favorites. Suspected it for a long time but never wanted to quite believe it. Makes me wonder how they sleep at night.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355134&page=1

I don't see any proof in that link.   It's not just getty stuff that got editors pick, I think they'll probably fix it to be s+ and vetta in the future.

It's pretty clear that multiple photos (whether good or bad) in certain contributors portfolios are getting the Editors Pick designation while other contributors whose work is outstanding have absolutely ZERO chosen. It's even more telling that the admins have not come out with exactly how Editors Picks are chosen. If Editors Pick has any impact on best match (which I imagine it does), I think this is a very significant issue. 

latest from me: DLs up 30% $$ down 32% since the new pricing in June

I've had the exact opposite experience. DL's are down 50%, but $ is up 100% so in the end I'm making the same money with 1/2 the DL's. Also, only old files continue to sell. Nothing I've uploaded this year or last year sells much at all. 

I'm sure it has or will have some influence on best match, otherwise, what's the point?  And the point is obviously to boost some contributors over others.  It certainly isn't applied per image as our Vetta friend OJO+ shows.

However, it's surprising they unveiled it with zero explanation.  To me, it's another attempt to copy something from stocksy.

I'm actually not surprised that it was rolled out with no explanation given their track record. Yet another poorly communicated feature that smacks of favoritism. F*cking pathetic.

Thanks all for the helpful replies. Still mulling my decision...

I'm currently exclusive with iStock but thinking of dropping my exclusivity so I can sell at Shutterstock. At iStock I sell around 40 files per week and take in about $200 which is WAY LESS than I used to. Anyway, looking at Shutterstocks rate schedule, I'd need to sell many, many more licenses to equal my income at iStock. 

Here's my question, with the lower prices and subscription model, do you find that your volume is high but your commissions per file low? And for those who also sell at iStock and made the jump to Shutterstock, how do your sales compare between the 2 sites? Everyone seems to like SS, but the thought of selling my images for 25 cents a DL is a little hard to wrap my head around.

So long as it benefits them monetarily and somehow screws over contributors, it's never a priority. This doesn't surprise me at all. At this point, I wouldn't put anything past them.

Thanks for starting a separate thread about this. Definitely warrants it, although I hope Sean doesn't mind the extra attention.

Truly an unbelievable development, given who this happened to. Everything Sean has done has been with the intention of improving the company and trying to maintain the ability to make a living as an istock exclusive artist. To respond in this way just highlights the true colors of the company that we've seen devolve over the last couple of years.

Best of luck to you, Sean.

Sean was such a huge part of the iStock community. His presence will definitely be missed. As much as a kick in the teeth this was from the iStock management, I doubt Sean will go and pout in the corner. I'm sure his work will do well on other sites and be more fairly represented.  iStock just lost one of the microstock greats. Shame on them.

If you would like to contribute your hard-earned money to a company that is non-communicative, doesn't respect the work of their contributors and doesn't care about the contributors themselves, then by all means join iStock.

C'mon folks! If someone offered you $50 million for your website which one of you would have turned it down? Nobody.

Plus, if he didn't sell out he may not have enough money to do something like a Stocksy.

If I had the opportunity to continue expanding on what I'd created, not sell out to a company that has a long standing history of screwing over its photographers, and raise even more money through an IPO, then no I wouldn't. 

Interesting but nothing to say that he won't be a sellout again.