Talk:IStock

message: iStockphoto/video is a subsidiary of Getty, so they don't compete with them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.40.155 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: iStockvideo

message: The last paragraph of the community section (about the conventions) seems pretty anecdotal and not very encyclopedia-like  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.40.155 (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: iStockalypses

message: I want to make sure that portion of the article which I just wrote up is balanced; if someone is interested in writing a counterpoint, I'd be interested. I just feel like, as a designer, I've seen the site change a lot in mission and purpose in the last couple of years, and it no longer seems to fit the niche that it worked best at. The price increases need to be mentioned somewhere; we're paying three times as much as we were back in 2005 for the same quality of image. - Stick Fig 00:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bit on rising prices

message: Any reason given for the instability of the site server? Drutt 19:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Server issues

message: I think this needs to be better explained in the article or at least referenced somewhere else than one individuals weblog. I read their rant-like entry and for the life of me, I still can't figure out how it's a double standard.  I admit, the writer likely feels wronged over the image rejection, but it seems to me that offering 3 different generic versions of a generic picture would be counter-productive to a site like istockphoto: they would find themselves with many copies of photos instead of lots of original content thus reducing the overall demand for their images. Anyway, that's my take on the issue.  I do find it hard to call it a "double standard" however, and definitely think that such a weasel-word filled statement needs better support.  --ABQCat (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Double Standard? 

message: I've removed some hype here, but there is a lot of overenthusiasm in the wording: e.g. "the coveted 'diamond canister.'" Coveted? - Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hype 

message: The controversies section is wretched. The controversies are 'that they're breaking the mold for stock photography', and mentions all sorts of stuff about its low price and profitability. I've marked the entire page as a potential ad, with a banner for the controversies section. Controversies, if anything should be theft, and the occasional catching of people who didn't buy the images. Ftc08 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on IStock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061015170446/http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=217 to http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=217
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080405183450/http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=67521 to http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=67521
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509155246/http://www.istockphoto.com/license_purchaser.php to http://www.istockphoto.com/license_purchaser.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed this section from the article as it's a textbook example of WP:SYNTHESIS. If it is to be added again, we need reliable sources which draw the conclusion that raising prices is notable or controversial. Here is the section I removed:
:Since iStockphoto's launch in 2000, purchase prices have slowly increased, from initially bartered (based on accumulated contributions), to $.25 and then $.50,web.archive.org February 7, 2003 and more recently tiered at $1, $2 and $3,web.archive.org May 10, 2005 to a higher-cost tiered pricing of $1, $3, $5 and $10 or more for extra-high resolution,web.archive.org February 3, 2006 to 2016's pricing scheme where images cost between 1 and 250 credits, and credits sold for $9 each or from $8 to $5.81 each in bundles of 3 to 3000. Best rates for photos, vectors and illustrations are available through monthly or annual subscriptions.
:
-M.Nelson (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 'Pricing controversy' section