Someone who has a low acceptance rate is wasting Istock's money because they have to pay inspectors to look at junk.  Someone who gets a lot of images accepted but who gets very few downloads per image is wasting Istock's server space and bandwidth because they have to store and retrieve the image for users, who then have to look at it (or skim over it) and reject it as unsuitable.  These unsuitable images spam the search results and can make it harder to find the diamonds among the trash, which discourages customers.

Therefore Istock should use the commission schedule to encourage "good" (profitable) uploaders and punish "bad" (unprofitable) uploaders.  A formula can be applied to each contributor, which rates their cost/benefit based on acceptance rate and return per image per month.  New contributors get a low, basic rate, and it goes up from there.  The exclusive/non-exclusive difference should be based on how much Istock charges for exclusive vs. non-exclusive images.  The commission percentage should be the same.  Likewise the best match should take into account the contributor's "kicks" versus "licks" rating - in order to maximize the customers' precious time, so the cream is always on top.

Contributors would probably be a lot more careful about uploading and more aggressive in deleting unsold images, because this diminishes the commission they receive on their popular images.  The focus would shift more to quality and away from shoving as many images as possible into the upload queue week after week.

The advantage of this scheme is that it is entirely objective and based on sound business principles which anyone can understand.  None of this weird, arbitrary assigniment of levels which jump from 150,000 credits to 1,400,000 credits (which looks like they pulled out of their azzes in order to keep certain people in the club and certain people out).  Everyone is happier when the rules are "strictly business" because they can easily see and comprehend why they get $$$$ or why they only get $.

Also, the reviewers should be strictly recruited from customers and not from contributors in order to eliminate conflicts of interest.  All images should be strictly anonymous to eliminate any bias in the reviews based on contributor's name and reputation, country of origin, and so on.

Do you get it, Istock?  "Strictly business" is good for business.

Therefore Istock should...

Yeah right. Where are your port links, Macrosaur? 

I don't care. I just hope they can make some adjustments to keep all their great and wonderful exclusives on board, so we don't have those competitors at the sites that really make money.  
I'm just a pissed off a bit I'll have to remove my referral links everywhere.
I won't cull my port for now. According to the guy with the bleeding heart at the IS forum, half from the sales are from September till December. Will catch those, of course.
After that, dear pet_chia, rest assured I won't clutter up your godly platinum disks any more with my snapshots.  I will be proud looking at myself in the mirror saying: iStock? Been there, done that. Sadly enough, they weren't up to my standards.  

If any business that just has to store other's peoples images can't be profitable with 80% overhead, they'd better size down the corporate jets and the bonuses of their Getty lowlife "managers".

I wouldn't expect anyone who works for iStock to express an opinion on the forum.  I take that back; one inspector did comment, but it was a carefully worded message of support for management.  I doubt anyone who wanted to keep their job would say anything else in this situation.  Free speech may be free, but it's not free of consequences.

I agree that the commision should be based on acceptance but also on sales. I amazed of the quailty of photos that are accepted and passed.

I would not even tried to show this to any of my photo instructors when I was taking photo-101 25 years ago




If pictures like this are constantly sent by a contributor they should be limited by the uploads or removed

I don't care. I just hope they can make some adjustments to keep all their great and wonderful exclusives on board, so we don't have those competitors at the sites that really make money.  
I'm just a pissed off a bit I'll have to remove my referral links everywhere.
I won't cull my port for now. According to the guy with the bleeding heart at the IS forum, half from the sales are from September till December. Will catch those, of course.
After that, dear pet_chia, rest assured I won't clutter up your godly platinum disks any more with my snapshots.  I will be proud looking at myself in the mirror saying: iStock? Been there, done that. Sadly enough, they weren't up to my standards.  

If any business that just has to store other's peoples images can't be profitable with 80% overhead, they'd better size down the corporate jets and the bonuses of their Getty lowlife "managers".

I think you've mistaken me for someone else.  I have never seen your portfolio and I never meant to imply that it (or anyone else's portfolio) is not good enough.  I posted my suggestions above because I wish that IS would come up with a business plan that is more ... (like I said) ... business-like.  If they did so it would cool people's emotions and make microstock more profitable for everyone.

I'm pretty sure DT deletes inactive files after several months to save server space.  So depending on how long you have been gone, you may be starting with an empty portfolio.  Achilles would have to chime in for exactly how they handle things, but memory tells me files eventually get deleted if you don't come back.

There is one AGREE... who is that???

Who can predict the outcome of this?

that one!!!

LOL, definitely not!

Quote from: Orchidpoet on September 09, 2010, 10:03

Who can predict the outcome of this?

that one!!!

I honestly believe that this could be the end of Istockphoto as the overwhelming force of microstock we have known until now.

Their truly breathtaking greed has caused them to massively overplay their hand and they are about to reap the whirlwind of their own actions. More or less overnight they have turned blindly-loyal supporters into individuals actively trying to undermine them in every way possible.

Quote from: gostwyck on September 09, 2010, 10:19

More or less overnight they have turned blindly-loyal supporters into individuals actively trying to undermine them in every way possible.

Why o why?

The Scorpion and the Frog parable.

Quote

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.
"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

LOL . . . . .  that parable also applies to Wall Street over the last decade . . . . I could not help myself. It is my nature.