MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStocks lack of inspection standards spell more doom.  (Read 7551 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 06, 2014, 04:18 »
+27
iStocks lack of inspection standards spell more doom.

We all know IS accepts anything. Reviewers only seem to be looking for trademark and property release issues.

To see how bad it was, I uploaded a test photo. It was slightly out of focus and I was hand-holding at 1/40 so there was blur. The exposure was off so I opened up the shadows and exposed the noise. A total reject of an image.

The photo was accepted!

The ramifications of this run deep. As critical buyers download this kind of approved garbage they will stop buying from istock in greater numbers than they already have. The reputation will further spread that IS is an overpriced (and confusing priced) wasteland of too many technically unacceptable, low quality images.

Getty management appears to be sailing istock harder and faster into the reef even as it continues to sink. I feel, even after all the research last year, they still dont understand their buyers or the microstock marketplace. Corporate greed created a mid-tier price category that at first appeared promising, but eventually sent market share seeking cheaper images at Shutterstock. Constantly in damage control they make shady deals with online content providers and offer subscription pricing. Then open the upload limits and kill inspection standards all while crushing the morale of contributors with a toxic forum/communication environment

Somehow I think these narcissistic idiots think they are brilliantly adjusting to ever-changing market conditions by exploring new business models. And again, they will be wrong.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 09:41 by Holmes »


« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2014, 04:21 »
+4
The pile em high sell em cheap attitude  :'(

Quantity over quality what a short sighted view they have.


BoBoBolinski

« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2014, 04:55 »
+2
 :-\
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 07:59 by BoBoBolinski »

« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2014, 05:12 »
+3
When I was starting micro in february I did a test myself with a handful of ancient pictures with a P&S from the early 2000's - just to see where would be the acceptable standards. Really bad quality images, nice composition but rasterized, with noise, and not that much in focus. They were all approved. And sold quite a few times, hopefully in small size. Needless to say, all the other agencies rejected them.

There is absolutely NO quality inspection, zero. At first I thought it was better than SS with their subjective reviews but now I realize IS went waaay too far. And they do reject quite a lot of my images due to potencial copyright and missing releases, normal stuff that other agencies would take. So it's all backwards, I don't know how TS is my top seller. With the given time, customers will migrate to SS and FT.

« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2014, 07:28 »
0
Lets hope the initial inspection keeps out most of the garbage and most of the pep that get in know what they're doing.

It seems we want rejections lol. I know I do when I'm tired and submit something which needs more work.

I often submit to ss as a quality test. If they're happy, then I think the quality is good enough for other agencies.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2014, 09:06 »
+1
And total lack of inspection of keywords.
Try a Best Match search on 'animals in the wild', which is a DA of 'wild', to be used only for wild animals taken in the wild. Not horses or other domestic animals, not animals in zoos,  not women with long hair, not berries in a bowl, flowers, plates of prepared meat or fish, etc.
What on earth would a buyer looking for "animals in the wild" make of that alleged 'best' match?

« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2014, 09:18 »
-1
They still inspect keywords, but this whole keywording system is a big waste of time.
But as far as I know, no other agency inspect keywords so I'll give them credit for that.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 09:25 by Nikovsk »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2014, 09:38 »
+2
They still inspect keywords
Keywordzilla is still there, rejecting correct keywords at random, but other than that I see no evidence of keyword inspection. Just about any search is horrible, certainly by newest; also best match QED above for at least some searches. Most Popular for 'animals in the wild' throws up a lot of 'isolated' animals, which are also not supposed to be tagged 'animals in the wild'. (Wild animals in zoos or isolated can get the tag 'wildlife'.)

« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2014, 09:53 »
+1
They still inspect keywords
Keywordzilla is still there, rejecting correct keywords at random, but other than that I see no evidence of keyword inspection. Just about any search is horrible, certainly by newest; also best match QED above for at least some searches. Most Popular for 'animals in the wild' throws up a lot of 'isolated' animals, which are also not supposed to be tagged 'animals in the wild'. (Wild animals in zoos or isolated can get the tag 'wildlife'.)
Although it's wrong to keyword a lot of the images there as "animals in the wild", you can sort of understand it in some cases, getting mixed up with "wild animals" for instance, unless people happen to have read what a term is supposed to be used for they are going to get it wrong, and there is no manual AFAIK.
Sorting by newest you get stuff that is just wrong. Images of "wild" places, and cultivated fields.
Really though it doesn't matter what search you do, bad keywording varies from "I can see how they did that but it's not right" to "How could anyone ever think that is right?"
I thought that correct keywording was more important in some ways than image quality. Very little point in having images of any quality that can't be found in a search, or that are incorrectly keyworded and  in such quantity to push legitimate results off the results. 
 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2014, 10:28 »
0
They still inspect keywords
Keywordzilla is still there, rejecting correct keywords at random, but other than that I see no evidence of keyword inspection. Just about any search is horrible, certainly by newest; also best match QED above for at least some searches. Most Popular for 'animals in the wild' throws up a lot of 'isolated' animals, which are also not supposed to be tagged 'animals in the wild'. (Wild animals in zoos or isolated can get the tag 'wildlife'.)
Although it's wrong to keyword a lot of the images there as "animals in the wild", you can sort of understand it in some cases, getting mixed up with "wild animals" for instance, unless people happen to have read what a term is supposed to be used for they are going to get it wrong, and there is no manual AFAIK.
I was going to point out that there are several articles on the site specifically about correct keywording, but if they're there, I couldn't find them under keywording, tags or K is for tags, which IIRC was one of the titles. I wonder how significant their removal (apparently) is?
Quote
Sorting by newest you get stuff that is just wrong. Images of "wild" places, and cultivated fields.
Quote
Generally bad DAing.
Quote
Really though it doesn't matter what search you do, bad keywording varies from "I can see how they did that but it's not right" to "How could anyone ever think that is right?"
I thought that correct keywording was more important in some ways than image quality. Very little point in having images of any quality that can't be found in a search, or that are incorrectly keyworded and in such quantity to push legitimate results off the results.
Indeed.
It's one of the things iStock could have got very right. Why they veered off that road is a mystery.

« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2014, 10:59 »
0
When I first got into this micro thing years back I tried on a couple of occasions to get in without any luck.My work didn't stand up. Now that everyone wants a piece of the pie,I decided to try again a couple of weeks ago.BANG! They wanted my work. Still the same work never change much same style whatever. Anyway I think it ALL ABOUT
EATING A PIECE OF HUMBLE PIE DROPPED EVERYTHING  AND JUMPED IN WITH THE OTHERS WHO KNOWS WHERE IT WILL GO FROM HERE

« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2014, 11:12 »
+2
I was going to point out that there are several articles on the site specifically about correct keywording, but if they're there, I couldn't find them under keywording, tags or K is for tags, which IIRC was one of the titles. I wonder how significant their removal (apparently) is?


???

K is for tags

Keywording Guide

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2014, 11:15 »
0
I was going to point out that there are several articles on the site specifically about correct keywording, but if they're there, I couldn't find them under keywording, tags or K is for tags, which IIRC was one of the titles. I wonder how significant their removal (apparently) is?


???

K is for tags

Keywording Guide


Thanks.
Wonder why I couldn't find them.  ???

« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2014, 11:21 »
0
Thanks.
Wonder why I couldn't find them.  ???

I expect you tried using the site search. As we know since years it does not work. FWIW Google is best for text searching this site too - and every other site I ever text search at. It isn't just an iStock issue - most native site searches are inferior to Google. Finding those articles using Google took the time it took me to type. They were the first two results.

keyword article site:istockphoto.com

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2014, 11:31 »
0
Thanks.
Wonder why I couldn't find them.  ???
I expect you tried using the site search. As we know since years it does not work.
I did - I thought the action search wasn't as bad as the forum search, but clearly it is every bit as bad! Tx again.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2014, 15:59 »
+7
Part of the problem I think is demoralised inspectors not knowing what the vision of iStock is anymore, management not looking and not caring and just passing any old cr@p just to pick up their paycheck.

Goofy

« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2014, 17:51 »
+1
Part of the problem I think is demoralised inspectors not knowing what the vision of iStock is anymore, management not looking and not caring and just passing any old cr@p just to pick up their paycheck.

Did realize that they are now government employees... 8)



« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2014, 04:00 »
+1
With luck (from my point of view, anyway) this will persuade buyers to go to old-established portfolios from people who have a record of being able to meet the standards iS used to apply in its better days.

« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2014, 18:18 »
0
With luck (from my point of view, anyway) this will persuade buyers to go to old-established portfolios from people who have a record of being able to meet the standards iS used to apply in its better days.

Hope your right.  Not showing in my sales but maybe soon.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2014, 19:15 »
+1
From what I read, I'm not sure buyers would want that extra step or two of hassle.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2014, 03:58 »
+6
" With the unfortunate lowering of quality standards, Inspectors are pretty much solely on the lookout for legal issues and are very much held accountable for approving things they shouldn't have.".

 Donald Gruener,  IS forum moderator


It's bad when even people who work there admit standards have gone down the pan. This was Donald responding to a request in the critique forums.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2014, 04:47 »
+1
It was officially announced that technical standards were going to be relaxed before it actually started.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2014, 05:08 »
+1
It was officially announced that technical standards were going to be relaxed before it actually started.

I didn't realise that. At least he admitted it was unfortunate.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 05:33 by BoBoBolinski »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #23 on: August 08, 2014, 06:10 »
+1
i'm not convinced this is a bad thing, i think they realized buyers are more interested in fresh images than in a stale creative collection, besides they must find a way to clearly diversify IS from the main Getty site but it doesn't mean the quality has to go down the drain as their search algo is still providing the best results on top and leaving the cr-ap sandboxed.

it's just a different approach, that's all, of course it will lose some sales to exclusives but they couldn't care less.


« Reply #24 on: August 08, 2014, 07:38 »
+2
Well, inspectors might be giddy about the "let anything in" guidelines. They can plow through more images and, thus, make more money. And I don't suspect any inspectors were let go because the pipeline went from a squirt bottle to a fire hose.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
6202 Views
Last post April 21, 2007, 02:47
by Dr Bouz
35 Replies
8786 Views
Last post November 23, 2008, 12:11
by hali
13 Replies
2363 Views
Last post April 29, 2012, 18:06
by santosa laksana
57 Replies
6882 Views
Last post November 15, 2015, 12:09
by etudiante_rapide
2 Replies
589 Views
Last post December 23, 2015, 19:39
by Hildegarde

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors