iStock�s lack of inspection standards spell more doom.

[dpimborough]

The pile em high sell em cheap attitude 

Quantity over quality what a short sighted view they have.

[BoBoBolinski]

 

[Nikovsk]

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.

[miketravels]

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]

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?

[Nikovsk]

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.

[ShadySue]

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'.)

[Difydave]

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]

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?

Sorting by newest you get stuff that is just wrong. Images of "wild" places, and cultivated fields.

Generally bad DAing.

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.

[gimages]

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

[bunhill]

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]

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. 

[bunhill]

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]

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]

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]

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...

[BaldricksTrousers]

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.

[PixelBytes]

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]

From what I read, I'm not sure buyers would want that extra step or two of hassle.

[BoBoBolinski]

" 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]

It was officially announced that technical standards were going to be relaxed before it actually started.

[BoBoBolinski]

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.

[Hobostocker]

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.

[Mantis]

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.