This is what got my iStock forum privileges and sitemail access revoked

[dgilder]

So here is what I posted on iStock that caused them to revoke my ability to post in the forums, and lock me out of sitemail.   Make of that what you will:

So lets take a step back and look at all this from a different perspective. Lets change our base assumption of corporate greed and look at this from a protective iStock point of view.

Individual sales have slowed for many people as prices have gone up. Ultimately, that has actually increased the amount of money iStock has paid out to us. Now lets assume iStock is looking out for the contributors more than itself. If sales are going to slow down severely, it would make those previous cannister based royalties unsustainable. It would take much longer to get to each level. If, however, you switch to this 'credits redeemed' system, each sale carries more weight, and the targets can be adjusted to help people reach those next royalty levels on the same pace they would have if the sales had not historically dropped due to price increases.


So where does that leave us? Kelly says you will make the same or more under the new system. If iStock is truly the benefactor in this situation, then the credit cost for images stands to rise dramatically in the new year. This is why they would need a new system, because sales quantities will drop, and they would need a way to keep people on track for their royalty levels.


iStock is going Midstock

Buyers Beware.

[gostwyck]

Sorry to hear that Dave. Looks like they're starting down the road of heavyweight enforcement on this issue.

At least you've still got this place!

[traveler1116]

Apparently posting a link to the thread and saying that it was ridiculous for JJRD to say:
"As stated many times over, some people have mastered iStockphoto's standards & our system takes that into consideration.

Now, if you don't mind, I shall be going back to work for the rights of each and every iStockphoto contributor.

Thanks, and drive safely in this thread."

In response to sjlocke's question about the Expedited Exclusive Queue will get you banned as well.  I guess this counts as attacking the inspectors? 

[loop]

One or two forum bans after about 10,000 posts in three threads, some of them let's say "overenthusiastic" in their criticisms and showing a variety of adjectives it's no as much... At another sites that would had last about ten minutes...

[jamirae]

I dont get it. what's so offensive?  there was a lot more in that thread then this.  guess I need to go catch up. havent read any of that since last nite.  sleep and spend time doing housework and I miss all the excitement!

[dgilder]

My suspicion is that I struck too close to the truth.  I felt I was actually being pretty fair and even favorable to iStock, taking a point of view I think many hadn't considered yet.  Its also interesting that they did *not* revoke my access this morning when others had their rights removed, it was only after that particular post.

[SNP]

I don't think it was that post. I'm not sure why you spent as much time in there as you did. you're moving on, you wielded it as an ultimatum and they let you hang around for over a week anyways. it was simply time IMO. I was scratching my head at your constant presence in there too. I have to say, I see the importance of contributors voicing their concerns. I've been intolerant of that in the past, but I see many positives about it. despite that, there is a small contingent of really loud and offensively negative people in there that I'm personally tired of listening to.

so enjoy it here where you can post that stuff to your heart's content. we're all freaked out but some of you take it so beyond the pale, and I'm not sure what you realistically expect to accomplish with constant negativity.

[caspixel]

I got my forum privileges blocked too. And I haven't even been posting. Maybe ten times out of 9000 posts.

[jamirae]

I caught up and read what I missed. nothing much, really , if you ask me.  I was almost worried I was going to be blocked, too, because I announced that I put in to quit exclusivity.  But I was able to post. 

weird - wonder why they picked who they did.  Maybe Lobo wanted a break and didnt was just worried that some people would stir things up while he was away.  who knows. 

[dgilder]

Recall that I had a strong connection with the iStock community for over six years, and consider my past week of commentary advocation on your behalf, attempting to provide helpful information for people who can't find it in the long threads, and generally attempting to keep some kind of accountability in play.  I hate to see people being mistreated, especially people I have been associated with for many years.  So yes, I stuck around, like any good friend would do.

[SNP]

you're playing the martyr thing a little thickly. you've made your decision. I think it was the wrong one, and I'm sorry to see you go. but there aren't any violins playing either. I think you knee jerked and stuck around hoping more would follow suit.

[dgilder]

Your comfort with exploitative business practices tells me all I need to know about you and your opinions.

[loop]

Your comfort with exploitative business practices tells me all I need to know about you.

Now that you are leaving... have you though that maybe some of the places where are you going won't let you express any discomfort you could get and that if you do it anyway maybe you will get something more than a simple forum and sitemail ban?

I just say that because you seem the kind of people that needs to express your opinions, in a reiterative way. Against what I have nothing, of course.

[dgilder]

Loop, if they don't treat people fairly, I won't do business with them.  As I have no real community history with any sites other than iStock, I would feel no obligation to do more than remove my portfolio.

[zzz]

You don't seem to get it. Read these comments thoroughly:

hawk_eye: I was scratching my head at your constant presence in there too. I have to say, I see the importance of contributors voicing their concerns. I've been intolerant of that in the past, but I see many positives about it. despite that, there is a small contingent of really loud and offensively negative people in there that I'm personally tired of listening to.

hawk_eye: you're playing the martyr thing a little thickly. you've made your decision. I think it was the wrong one, and I'm sorry to see you go. but there aren't any violins playing either. I think you knee jerked and stuck around hoping more would follow suit.

loop: I just say that because you seem the kind of people that needs to express your opinions, in a reiterative way. Against what I have nothing, of course.

I concur with their opinions.

[dgilder]

Read my comment thoroughly, maybe someday you will understand it.

[dgilder]

.

[SNP]

Your comfort with exploitative business practices tells me all I need to know about you and your opinions.

since exploitative is being used subjectively....in any case, I do sincerely wish you the best. I'm sorry you feel the need to lash out, but if you knew me better, you would know that I'm neither comfortable nor supportive of exploitative practices in any context...unless you count once in a while shopping at Walmart--I buy my favourite curry powder there since it isn't available anywhere else within 50 km of my home.

[Eireann]

So now they're banning users.
Deleting posts, locking threads and banning users.
Can't find SJLocke's thread anymore. Gone, moved without a trace.
Is this their way to deal with the problem?

Don't worry DGilder  
Lobo is nothing but a forum moderator. He obeys orders, like a good employee. Lobo didn't leave the mega thread open out of personal sympathy; he left it open because he was told to do so.  
Likewise, he banned you - and the others, because he was told to do it.
Lobo is the guy who gets told. Ordered around, a peon.
You're not.
You've got talent, you've got your port, and you've got all the other sites to join.
And so far not one of them has gone quite as low as IStock.
Something tells me that they won't do it anytime soon.
They're fair, they're successful, they sell images and you'll be fine
Good luck

[SNP]

he's shown more control in that thread and shoveled more sh*t than we could possibly imagine IMO. with all due respect, I don't think you've been on iStock long enough to make most of the comments you just did make. you've uploaded what, 100 files in over a year?

[dgilder]

Who are you hawk_eye, what is your port on iStock?

[gbalex]

.

This graph showing traffic to secure.istockphoto.com should make you feel better

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/secure.istockphoto.com/

                                Unique Visitors      Monthly Change     Yearly Change
istockphoto.com           1,663,169            -3.47 %               -19.48 %
secure.istockphoto.com      130,328            -32.83 %               -64.69 %

Period

[caspixel]

Likewise, he banned you - and the others, because he was told to do it.
Lobo is the guy who gets told. Ordered around, a peon.

I'm quite sure no one told him to ban me. He pretty much told me via sitemail that he does not like me. Such a nice thing to say to someone who frequents your business as a purchaser.

[Eireann]

HawkEye,
This is a common attitude. At least on this forum it is.
When they're incapable of finding a better argument, some people turn to my port - 'but you've 'only' been doing this for a year!' - they tell me. 'Your images are crap and you don't have any sales!'
But of course.
Kindly let me remind you that my port has nothing at all to do with the topic. It's my opinions, not my port that bother you.

Right now, IStock is a farce. A joke.
Banning people won't do them any good.  
That's my opinion.

And speaking of ports, I don't seem to be able to find yours. Would you care to show it? Man-up for a change?

[Kngkyle]

I find it hard to believe that post is what got you banned. I actually give iStock credit for allowing us to rag on them so much. Fotolia and Dreamstime certainly wouldn't allow any of that.