Who the heck is clerkn-well whatever.... Is this a Getty collection dumped on iStock, I have noticed every time Getty dumps images on iStock the best match is screwed sideways. Looks good for the future as an exclusive :-)

Wonderful, no wonder the best match is screwed, are these people pseudo exclusive as well like yuri? All of us know that in a court of law you have to apply the same rules to everyone in your company except for iStock which makes the ULA only one sided to benefit them. How is the collections move going to make them more $$ I only see it hurting them short term as well as long term.

Although many of the sideways images have been disabled already, there are still a couple like this one:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25406521-juicy-green-apple.php?st=33e00c7

There are images that no one else could even get accepted at all given the terrible lighting, like these:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25406435-close-up-of-orange-slice.php?st=33e00c7
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25405954-oranges.php?st=33e00c7
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25405856-close-up-of-pomegranate-seeds.php?st=33e00c7
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25411556-blurred-view-of-football-players-facing-each-other.php?st=33e00c7

I stopped looking after the first 2000 new Vetta images were all Clerkenwell Images (and it seemed like 1K of them were scientists around greenhouses, which must be a bigger market than I realized)

Getty is dumping whatever it wants onto the iStock site. I find it hard to see how any rational view of what's going on could conclude there is any consideration for iStock exclusives (real ones). People want to believe things will turn around or go back to the way they were. I think that's wishful thinking at best.

Getty has made their intentions (and their competence) manifest.

I thought Getty was crop of the cream. I shoot better than that. How does that crap get accepted onto Getty in the first place. Many top shooters cant get onto Getty, and that crapstock does.

iStock is the only company I know that can take a complete gem and turn it into a turd aka Vetta

Amazing Vetta Price for a crappy image - This is the new direction? This is what buyers want? This is how they love their exclusives?

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25406043-close-up-of-lettuce-leaves.php?st=040ee5e

Lobo: "We have premium content Editors who are actually making these picks. I think we will see just how effective the Editor picks are in the future."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354610&messageid=6907570

The above is an Editor's Pick, as is:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25324187-grass-full-frame.php?st=1857def and all the rest of that contributor's (contributors'?) work.

Oh, in the same post above, Lobo responsed to posts about how bad the search results look in IE8 by saying "IE8 has about 24% of market share ... observing that it is an old browser and finishing, "I appreciate browser issues will always come up, thankfully there are plenty of alternatives." Which I guess will be buyers going to see if other vendors have sites that work on the browsers they are forced to work on, as was the situation indicated in the posts complaining about the IE8 bugs.
I remember when the rest of the IE using world was on IE6, my sister once saying her entire university staff network was forced to use IE4. I didn't believe her and one time I was in her office tried to update it and got a message saying that tampering with network settings was a potentially sackable offence. Honestly.

So, iS is happy to throw away "about 24%" of market share? I'd think good practice would be to check all changes in all browsers down to at least 5% of market share. But then again, website QC isn't iStock's way.

I saw that 2 inspectors are uploading large amount of images this month. Anybody saw anything similar or it's just a coincidence??