Attention: These forums are no longer active. The iStock Contributor forums have moved to the Contributor Community site.

Subtle change

of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 23 matches.
PaulCowan
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:02PM
Acceptance notices now tell us to make sure we fill in three categories as this will bring us to the attention of more buyers.
Is this a hint that iStock will be marketing (? for exclusives ?) on the basis of categories in some way - maybe image collections? In the past, the categories have been dismissed in forums as irrelevancies, with a strong belief that everybody searches the collection and nobody bothers with categories.
If they are getting relevant, is it time they were rationalised?
titaniumdoughnut
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:10PM
It could be to help in the creation of the CD-ROMS that were hinted at.
nano
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:18PM
Were you a bad boy, Paul and only filled in one or two of the categories?
The latest acceptance I had was this Monday, the 24th and no mention of that.

However, one funny inspector did leave a different kind of note
Sirimo
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerThis user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.
Posted Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:20PM
Sounds like that was a kind inspector giving you a hint to put more effort in.
fullvalue
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:20PM
Maybe Istock could add some more categories then?
Right now there are a lot of times when even one category doesn't really fit.
PaulCowan
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:32PM

Sounds like that was a kind inspector giving you a hint to put more effort in. ;)


Might have been . But I'm a bit flummoxed about finding categories that really fit. I mean, does "miscellaneous" or "hi-res digital" do any good (and I'm not certain 6.3MP really is hi res any longer)? For a photo of chocolates, is there really a suitable category other than "food"?
hidesy
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:42PM
That's pretty odd... I've never had anything like that...
PaulCowan
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:46PM
I think Sirimo may have been dropping a broad hint ...
9Lives
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:16PM
Either way, the categories need a brush up if they are going to be used for anything relevant. Especially vector categorie. There are like 5 and there's not even one for people.

(Edited on 2005-01-27 06:19:22 by amanda1863)
elku
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:19PM

Might have been :) . But I'm a bit flummoxed about finding categories that really fit. I mean, does "miscellaneous" or "hi-res digital" do any good (and I'm not certain 6.3MP really is hi res any longer)? For a photo of chocolates, is there really a suitable category other than "food"?


Chocoholics would add "Objects - Everyday".
AzureLaRouxCLOSED
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:55PM
I use that one alot. In some cases it's the only one that fits.
inkspotts
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:54AM
I strongly agree the need for more categories. There are three listed for rasters, but if you select them, they disappear after the upload. ?? Is there a list somewhere of suggested categories?
Lobsterclaws
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:23AM
Yes, more categories are needed, especially if we are always to select three, sometimes there just aren't three that seem relevent and I don't want to put things in the wrong place.
zerocattle
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:36AM
I second the desperate need for vectors to be released from the nonsense categories that they have. Of course vectors are vectors. It's perplexing why these are the only categories available for vectors when there is the ability to separate vectors out in the search by file type.
sylvanworksCLOSED
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:47AM
IMHO ...

I'd just nix the categories completely ... they are a legacy structure that has become irrelevant.

Energy would be better spent on future refinements of search functions (on the back end) and keyword enhancement (on the contributor end).

In terms of creating collections ... we have a wealth of highly managed galleries that are far more relevant than the categories could ever hope to be.
zerocattle
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:53AM
THAT would be lovely.

It really grates on me to choose: Illustration, Illustration: objects all the time. Meaningless!
kemie
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:43AM
categories would be relevant if they were restructured. it would be nice to browse by category if they were not so broad.
sylvanworksCLOSED
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:51AM
They'd have to be restructured and then 200,000 + files would have to be recategorized by the same person (or a group of like-minded people) so that some kind of consistency was applied across the board ... and then they'd be relevant.

I just don't see that happening ... but more could be done to keywords and the search function that I believe would yield more bang for the buck. Heck, just spell checking the existing keywords would be a good first step.

If you want to browse by a category ... just type the "category" in the search field and browse away!
dsteller
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:57AM

IMHO ...

I'd just nix the categories completely ... they are a legacy structure that has become irrelevant.

Energy would be better spent on future refinements of search functions (on the back end) and keyword enhancement (on the contributor end).

In terms of creating collections ... we have a wealth of highly managed galleries that are far more relevant than the categories could ever hope to be.


i agree....
Morgan270
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:10AM
So, if they use galleries for breeding grounds for CD's, would the gallery makers get some kind of credit on the CD?
This thread has been locked.
of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 23 matches.
Not a member?Join