Author Topic: Micromanaging the istock Forums (Read 32239 times)

jamirae · « **on:** March 09, 2011, 12:29 »

is it just me or does it seem like there's a lot of micromanaging going on in the istock forums?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=309072&page=14

I can understand trying to keep people on topic but geez, locking the thread discussing Feb earnings because people started talking about recent earnings. Give me a break.

this seems to be a trend -- no more "+1", total revamp of the Pimp thread, despite the overwhelming posts to keep it as it was.. etc.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1 on:** March 09, 2011, 12:37 »

Yep. Seems like PCC is trying to justify whatever Istock are paying her by intervening on every thread possible and trying to invent new 'rules' on a daily basis.

lisafx · « **Reply #2 on:** March 09, 2011, 13:02 »

I expect in the very near future that the monthly earnings threads at Istock will be eliminated altogether. Too much bad news. Reading the monthly thread paints too clear a picture of the direction the site is headed in.

I also suspected this was the reason the exact download numbers were hidden. Istockcharts.multimedia.de made it too easy to track the overall sales stats of the site.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #3 on:** March 09, 2011, 13:08 »

Seems a bit heavy handed to me too.

I'm entirely on board with keeping sales discussions coralled - they do spiral out of control if many threads are allowed - but I don't see how anyone is harmed by allowing a February 2011 sales thread to discuss comparisons as well as sales that occurred Feb 1 - 28. And if they allow comparisons to Feb 2010 (or 2009 or whatever) why is discussion of a trend that did/didn't continue into the first week of March a problem?

If someone had been rude, discussing a competitor, or something of that sort, shut that particular post down or delete it. AFAIK nothing of the sort happened.

I don't like being treated like a naughty child by the organization that derives 100% of its revenue from selling our work. Seems there's a "drunk with newfound power" atmosphere following their success in sticking it to contributors with the September 2010 cash grab.

Once again, I'm happy to have a place here to continue discussions truncated over there.

thesentinel · « **Reply #4 on:** March 09, 2011, 13:35 »

Micromanaging?

More like sledgehammers wielded by the new team who've 'gone native' very quickly.

And what on earth does this mean :- "Perhaps, I'll get enough honest feedback that I will reopen the thread."

I was writing her a sitemail to ask what 'dishonest' feedback may be but didn't bother sending it as having seeen her implementation of changes to the weekly pimping thread she will obviously do what she has in mind regardless of any feedback, 'honest' or otherwise.

Risamay · « **Reply #5 on:** March 09, 2011, 13:35 »

Quote from: jsnover on March 09, 2011, 13:08

Once again, I'm happy to have a place here to continue discussions truncated over there.

You said it, sister.

I don't miss trying to have a discussion over there, at all. It's pretty well pointless, if you ask me.

OhGoAway! · « **Reply #6 on:** March 09, 2011, 13:56 »

She needs to get over herself, stat.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** March 09, 2011, 14:03 »

Quote from: Risamay on March 09, 2011, 13:35

Quote from: jsnover on March 09, 2011, 13:08
Once again, I'm happy to have a place here to continue discussions truncated over there.

I don't miss trying to have a discussion over there, at all. It's pretty well pointless, if you ask me.

I haven't quite given up hope that things might improve, but you probably guessed that as I still have the crown

And in particular, there's only a small percentage of exclusives who hang out over here, so if I want to make a point and try to rouse other exclusives to take notice of something, there's still the place to try and do that.

I don't socialize there at all; it's strictly about trying to hold IS's toes to the fire about doing what they're supposed to and raising contributor-related issues. If I want to get an admin's attention, again, IS's forums is where I have to do that. While they're getting exceedingly good at ignoring us, we have managed to keep harping on things like missing subscription royalties and get our money (eventually).

Do you notice how sparse the Woo Yay thread in the off-topic forum is (and we're near the end of Winter; in the past it'd have been huge by now)? Winter 2006/7 257 posts; Winter 2010/11 30 posts... Guess no one feels much like celebrating

OhGoAway! · « **Reply #8 on:** March 09, 2011, 14:24 »

Yup, I'd noticed the woo-yay was looking decidedly lackluster. Lisa may be right; where are the admins & inspectors on the Feb thread with their woo-yaying? (Other than, obviously, now locked out

)

Can't name names without dragging a lot of other people into it, but I saw on Facebook that a certain admin quashed a particularly pointed remark on a THIRD person's wall! Now, if you're so sensitive that you have to go round Facebook tsk-tsk-ing people, then there's something seriously wrong :/

jbarber873 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 09, 2011, 14:25 »

I really like it when someone posts a comment about the istock forums here. I can see the most interesting stuff without wading through the regular garbage. To that point- I never knew there was a woo-yay thread! That is so tacky! So very istock! Woo-yay on jsnover!

jamirae · « **Reply #10 on:** March 09, 2011, 14:54 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on March 09, 2011, 14:25

I really like it when someone posts a comment about the istock forums here. I can see the most interesting stuff without wading through the regular garbage. To that point- I never knew there was a woo-yay thread! That is so tacky! So very istock! Woo-yay on jsnover!

yeah, it used to be if you started a thread about something exciting that happened to you you were quickly sent to the woo-yay thread. Over the last year, tho, I noticed that woo-yay threads are allowed to be started for certain people - usually black diamond or diamond or somethign like that. I can see that is a big accomplishment but a big EL or moving to a new level is also a big deal to a lot of newbies. I personally think that if you're going to make a woo-yay specific thread, then keep them all in there - no special treatment as it just makes things look more "cliquey."

I honestly rarely visit the istock forums anymore. I used to be in there several times a day reading posts to make sure I knew what was going on. Now I pretty much figure if there's any big news someone will post it here.

Risamay · « **Reply #11 on:** March 09, 2011, 14:57 »

Quote from: jsnover on March 09, 2011, 14:03

Quote from: Risamay on March 09, 2011, 13:35
Quote from: jsnover on March 09, 2011, 13:08
Once again, I'm happy to have a place here to continue discussions truncated over there.

I don't miss trying to have a discussion over there, at all. It's pretty well pointless, if you ask me.

I haven't quite given up hope that things might improve, but you probably guessed that as I still have the crown And in particular, there's only a small percentage of exclusives who hang out over here, so if I want to make a point and try to rouse other exclusives to take notice of something, there's still the place to try and do that.

I don't socialize there at all; it's strictly about trying to hold IS's toes to the fire about doing what they're supposed to and raising contributor-related issues. If I want to get an admin's attention, again, IS's forums is where I have to do that. While they're getting exceedingly good at ignoring us, we have managed to keep harping on things like missing subscription royalties and get our money (eventually).

Do you notice how sparse the Woo Yay thread in the off-topic forum is (and we're near the end of Winter; in the past it'd have been huge by now)? Winter 2006/7 257 posts; Winter 2010/11 30 posts... Guess no one feels much like celebrating

You are right. For the purposes you outline, IS is still the place to [attempt to, anyway] raise those conversations, points, issues. And if you make any headway, good on you. Seriously! That is something to WooYay, when it happens.

The death of the social aspect is too bad. I was looking forward to attending a 'lypse one day and meeting more people, but I just don't see that desire returning before such events are ancient history. It's just so [cl]ickish now. The folks I want to meet I'll do so one-on-one, but not in a group with too many other characters I'd likely get in a fight with (most of whom have badges).

No, I hadn't noticed that about the WooYay thread ... as I never look anymore! When I do pop over, I peek in the Main Discussion Forum and the Help Forum, and that's it. I *never* go to the Off-Topic area anymore. What's the point? On the rare occasion when I have peeked in, it couldn't be more boring. What did I say to Lobo it was turning into, per all the rules? The most boring corner of the Internet? Yeah. I think that's what I said. And that it is.

caspixel · « **Reply #12 on:** March 09, 2011, 16:07 »

Quote from: OhGoAway! on March 09, 2011, 14:24

Can't name names without dragging a lot of other people into it, but I saw on Facebook that a certain admin quashed a particularly pointed remark on a THIRD person's wall! Now, if you're so sensitive that you have to go round Facebook tsk-tsk-ing people, then there's something seriously wrong :/

Wait, an iStock admin "quashed" something someone posted on their OWN wall?? That is beyond pathetic. And rude. On Facebook, as far as I'm concerned, it's my wall, my rules. No iStock admin has a right to post something nasty in response to a post on one' own wall. That's what they have their stupid forums for. Their assholery knows no limits!!

Risamay · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2011, 16:25 »

Right on, Sean!

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311882&page=1

Or, +1 Sean.

-1 Dawn and Kelvin.

I still can't get over how quickly and completely those two turned!

So disappointing.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2011, 17:06 »

There was a British TV series called Manor House which was a high-end reality show - people from today taken back to the ways of living of another era. The video diaries some of the participants kept noted how easily they fell into the roles assigned to them - the "upstairs" folks lording it over those playing servants even though that wasn't part of their real lives.

Where you stand depends on where you sit (I think a Don K. Price aphorism, but fits here).

jamirae · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2011, 17:07 »

Quote from: Risamay on March 09, 2011, 16:25

Right on, Sean!

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311882&page=1

Or, +1 Sean.

-1 Dawn and Kelvin.

I still can't get over how quickly and completely those two turned!

So disappointing.

yes, and Sean's thread was also locked. sheesh.

lisafx · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2011, 17:09 »

Quote from: Risamay on March 09, 2011, 16:25

Right on, Sean!

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311882&page=1

Or, +1 Sean.

-1 Dawn and Kelvin.

I still can't get over how quickly and completely those two turned!

So disappointing.

Good for Sean for bringing that up. One of the few people who is high enough up the food chain to be able to post without (too much) fear or reprisal.

Hardly see hide nor hair of the other top exclusives. I am sure they must have opinions about what's going on, but you wouldn't know it by the Istock forums. Or these either, for that matter.

Shame they shut the thread down so quickly, but not at all surprising...

Risamay · « **Reply #17 on:** March 09, 2011, 17:18 »

Quote from: jsnover on March 09, 2011, 17:06

There was a British TV series called Manor House which was a high-end reality show - people from today taken back to the ways of living of another era. The video diaries some of the participants kept noted how easily they fell into the roles assigned to them - the "upstairs" folks lording it over those playing servants even though that wasn't part of their real lives.

Where you stand depends on where you sit (I think a Don K. Price aphorism, but fits here).

I've seen that show! And you are so right. Also comes to mind that little experiment at Stanford that had to be shut down, because folks got a tad too carried away with their roles ...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=stanford+prison+experiment

Risamay · « **Reply #18 on:** March 09, 2011, 17:21 »

Good for Sean for bringing that up. One of the few people who is high enough up the food chain to be able to post without (too much) fear or reprisal.

Hardly see hide nor hair of the other top exclusives. I am sure they must have opinions about what's going on, but you wouldn't know it by the Istock forums. Or these either, for that matter.
[/quote]

You do see the occasional complaint by other Black Diamonds on IS. I've seen good critical posts from more than a few. And a good number of Diamonds. But you're right. Usually just Sean. Thank god for Sean.

If there are Black Diamonds posting here, perhaps they don't use their real names. Who knows.

caspixel · « **Reply #19 on:** March 09, 2011, 17:57 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 09, 2011, 17:09

Good for Sean for bringing that up. One of the few people who is high enough up the food chain to be able to post without (too much) fear or reprisal.

Hardly see hide nor hair of the other top exclusives. I am sure they must have opinions about what's going on, but you wouldn't know it by the Istock forums. Or these either, for that matter.

Shame they shut the thread down so quickly, but not at all surprising...

I like how he brought up the cliques in the Off-Topic forum...one of who PCC is a member. Interesting that that chatter gets to go on there. More examples of iStock favoritism...

jbarber873 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 09, 2011, 20:47 »

There are cliques in the off-topic forum? Another thing i didn't know that I learned in this thread! This is kind of like watching "Jersey Shore". It's bad, but i can't help but look. Now I'm going over to istock and look for cliques...

edit- Report back from the off-topic group: How creepy.

OhGoAway! · « **Reply #21 on:** March 09, 2011, 21:15 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on March 09, 2011, 20:47

There are cliques in the off-topic forum? Another thing i didn't know that I learned in this thread! This is kind of like watching "Jersey Shore". It's bad, but i can't help but look. Now I'm going over to istock and look for cliques...

edit- Report back from the off-topic group: How creepy.

LOL, I know, right?!?!? It's so * perky up in there

KarenH · « **Reply #22 on:** March 09, 2011, 21:29 »

Quote from: caspixel on March 09, 2011, 16:07

Quote from: OhGoAway! on March 09, 2011, 14:24
Can't name names without dragging a lot of other people into it, but I saw on Facebook that a certain admin quashed a particularly pointed remark on a THIRD person's wall! Now, if you're so sensitive that you have to go round Facebook tsk-tsk-ing people, then there's something seriously wrong :/

Wait, an iStock admin "quashed" something someone posted on their OWN wall?? That is beyond pathetic. And rude. On Facebook, as far as I'm concerned, it's my wall, my rules. No iStock admin has a right to post something nasty in response to a post on one' own wall. That's what they have their stupid forums for. Their assholery knows no limits!!

I think I'd be "unfriending" that admin post-haste for something like that.

rene · « **Reply #23 on:** March 09, 2011, 21:34 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 09, 2011, 17:09

Good for Sean for bringing that up. One of the few people who is high enough up the food chain to be able to post without (too much) fear or reprisal.

Hardly see hide nor hair of the other top exclusives. I am sure they must have opinions about what's going on, but you wouldn't know it by the Istock forums. Or these either, for that matter.

I think there are many of them. They do express their thoughts but discreetly, like Sylvanworks. Or like this person (ex inspector) in his istock's blog page:
"I just don't agree with the way iStock is heading and the decisions being made so I couldn't stay officially affiliated with the company."
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?userID=688535?action=view&location=Profile&userID=688535&postID=96305
Why do you think the review time is so long?

Risamay · « **Reply #24 on:** March 09, 2011, 21:37 »

Quote from: rene on March 09, 2011, 21:34

Quote from: lisafx on March 09, 2011, 17:09
Good for Sean for bringing that up. One of the few people who is high enough up the food chain to be able to post without (too much) fear or reprisal.

Hardly see hide nor hair of the other top exclusives. I am sure they must have opinions about what's going on, but you wouldn't know it by the Istock forums. Or these either, for that matter.

I think there are many of them. They do express their thoughts but discreetly, like Sylvanworks. Or like this person (ex inspector) in his istock's blog page:
"I just don't agree with the way iStock is heading and the decisions being made so I couldn't stay officially affiliated with the company."
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?userID=688535?action=view&location=Profile&userID=688535&postID=96305
Why do you think the review time is so long?

That's awesome. I'd heard there was a tussle between another and JJ, but seems like there may be more than a few now. Good on them!!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Micromanaging the istock Forums (Read 32239 times)

jamirae

gostwyck

lisafx

Jo Ann Snover

thesentinel

Risamay

OhGoAway!

Jo Ann Snover

OhGoAway!

jbarber873

jamirae

Risamay

caspixel

Risamay

Jo Ann Snover

jamirae

lisafx

Risamay

Risamay

caspixel

jbarber873

OhGoAway!

KarenH

rene

Risamay

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors