pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I love the new DT search engine !  (Read 13974 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 05, 2009, 05:19 »
0
Just to oppose the posts below that are ranting and raving ;).
It really works GREAT for me since the change in search engine has been implemented.
Dreamstime - keep it up !


« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2009, 05:52 »
0
Can someone tell me when the change happened? I didn't notice it...

« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2009, 06:14 »
0
It was about 2 weeks ago but to be honest I wouldn't have noticed either.

« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2009, 06:35 »
0
I wish I could say I love it but my sales have reduced loads since so im not a fan but im confident things will change :)

vonkara

« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2009, 06:41 »
0
The tradition when you have good sales while other people don't is to do not tell it

« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2009, 06:51 »
0
The tradition when you have good sales while other people don't is to do not tell it

why?

« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2009, 07:09 »
0
I have been very active in that thread, praising DT all the time. I got everybody against me then  ;D

« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2009, 07:11 »
0
The tradition when you have good sales while other people don't is to do not tell it

Well my sales died at iStock recently, while people cheer all the time they have BMEs. Doesn't seem a tradition to me.

vonkara

« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2009, 10:49 »
0
The tradition when you have good sales while other people don't is to do not tell it

Well my sales died at iStock recently, while people cheer all the time they have BMEs. Doesn't seem a tradition to me.
I'm not a fan of tradition myself  :)


why?
Why tradition exist... Ask Santa for this. If it was only me, there wasn't be any. I'm progressist LOL  That post was a silly joke ;)
« Last Edit: April 05, 2009, 10:55 by Vonkara »

« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2009, 15:59 »
0
It seems the Search engine changed again, for the worse... :'(

« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2009, 16:01 »
0
It seems the Search engine changed again, for the worse... :'(

Yap. The whining mob got what they wanted. They're so happy now...

« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2009, 16:27 »
0
It seems the Search engine changed again, for the worse... :'(

Yap. The whining mob got what they wanted. They're so happy now...

Yap. Happy little whiner is doing a happy dance right now, photoshopping like crazy to get back on track. :P

« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2009, 20:24 »
0
Yap. Happy little whiner is doing a happy dance right now, photoshopping like crazy to get back on track. :P

Goodluck, but I'm out of that thread of whiners with small ports, and little downloads. Quite pathetic, as they threatened not to upload any more. As if it would make any difference for DT  ;D
I had to make a few buys for customers this morning and the first I did was revert the search to downloads, as I couldn't find what I wanted with relevancy. Loads of soft-spam images. But something changed anyways as I was playing with the ranking. It wasn't like before so I guess DT will makes changes silently and gently from now on without alerting the whiners  :P

« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2009, 03:38 »
0
It seems the Search engine changed again, for the worse... :'(

Yeah.... for the worse this time.
So what? Now it is time to write a new topic again: "I hate the new DT search engine"

lagereek

« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2009, 04:04 »
0

Well its OK!  but I do find theyre piling up quite a bit of irrelevant and repetitious material on some opening pages searches.
I was looking for " oil refinery"  and got too many similars, too many without people, workers, etc on first two pages.
Still its an OK search.


CCK

« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2009, 04:47 »
0
I just tested the search engine, and I'm still satisfied.

« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2009, 05:11 »
0
The relevance issue can only be solved fundamentally by contributor-assigned relevance weight to keywords, like by ordering keywords in order of importance, the most important ones first. When I was contributing to the Open Source Coppermine keywords module, an algorithm like that showed to slow down searches exponentially, so perhaps it's not feasable in a db of 5M, soon 10M.

A compromise could be to (a) limit the N of keywords drastically (who needs 80?) or (b) to distinguish between essential and extra keywords, the essential ones being the first 10 or 15 in the IPTC. But it's probably unfeasible to readdress a db of 5M, let alone that contributors won't be prepared to do it.

Relevance is further complicated by the fact that buyers only use 1 or 2 keywords to search, then revert to visual search, - and by the fact that textual keywords are a poor way to describe the mood or the concept of an image.

In this respect, categories are helpful to describe the essentials of an image, and the search option is already there to search within categories - but I doubt whether many buyers use this feature.

Rekeywording and retitling my older images, I noticed that one can't change categories. Reading between the lines of admins on the DT forum, I bet that categories are also used to determine relevance, as well as repeat keywords in title and description. And also that less keywords is better, since it has been stressed repeatedly that irrelevant keywords are bad for search result ranks.

« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2009, 05:15 »
0
I just tested the search engine, and I'm still satisfied.

The relevance has certainly been changed: just try the famous "tomato soup" and you will see the similars of a few days ago are gone.

« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2009, 05:29 »
0
Search engine at DT has changed back to "Relevancy" as default yesterday  ;)

If you read the reply from Achilles the reason to change back was due to "Buyers complained". it is not because of contributors interests....

« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2009, 05:37 »
0
If you read the reply from Achilles the reason to change back was due to "Buyers complained". it is not because of contributors interests....

It's amazing how some people fail to read plain sentences. Where did you see the "buyers" complaints?
All I could find from Achilles is: "Yes, the sorting is back on relevancy, as another part of our monitoring. It's not a guarantee that it will stay that way though, it all depends on buyers' feedback."

It says that future changes will depend on buyer's feedback. No mentioning of complaints. The only whiners were some contributors that would better spend their time shooting and uploading  ;D


« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2009, 06:27 »
0
If you read the reply from Achilles the reason to change back was due to "Buyers complained". it is not because of contributors interests....

It's amazing how some people fail to read plain sentences. Where did you see the "buyers" complaints?
All I could find from Achilles is: "Yes, the sorting is back on relevancy, as another part of our monitoring. It's not a guarantee that it will stay that way though, it all depends on buyers' feedback."

It says that future changes will depend on buyer's feedback. No mentioning of complaints. The only whiners were some contributors that would better spend their time shooting and uploading  ;D



Ok, feedback or complaints, whatever. What I meant is for any stock photo business (or any other type business) it is people who pays to buy photos do they take seriously not contributors. On the other hand, DT changed search engine in March only because they want to push more sales. If not for seeing revenue decrease who would care to change the search default back?  Not blaming DT, if I run this business I would definitely do the same. Yes, as a contributor I can only keep shooting and uploading.

« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2009, 06:41 »
0
Ok, feedback or complaints, whatever.


No it's not whatever. "Feedback" can also be positive. You distorted Achilles' words. He will evaluate future changes listening to buyers' feedback doesn't mean he changed it 2 days ago because of buyer's complaints. Bluntly said, you made the quote up. So, plonk  ;D

« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2009, 07:05 »
0
"Feedback" can also be positive.

I totally agree, whatever.  ;D
However in this particular case do you think that this changing search engine back to it was before was based on positive "feedback" from buyers?  :D

« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2009, 11:13 »
0
The default sorting was changed as another part of our update, not because we got these hate and love threads (although we do care about them). The relevancy got tweaked in the meantime as usual. No matter the outcome, the revenue change shouldn't be dramatical for users with significant portfolios (>100 images, more relevant for hundreds). A contributor with just a couple images online may experience a dramatic change, we can't really do this properly unless a certain db. exposure is met.

Achilles,

As suggested in DT forum a while back, maybe you should try to limit the number of images from the same contributor appearing together. Sometimes we see 10-12 images of the same series in a page.  By showing some only, if any of those attract the buyer, he will look further and will see the other images as similars.  Or something like that, I think one needs variety when he looks for something, without having to browse dozens of pages.

« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2009, 11:37 »
0
The default sorting was changed as another part of our update, not because we got these hate and love threads (although we do care about them). The relevancy got tweaked in the meantime as usual. No matter the outcome, the revenue change shouldn't be dramatical for users with significant portfolios (>100 images, more relevant for hundreds). A contributor with just a couple images online may experience a dramatic change, we can't really do this properly unless a certain db. exposure is met.

Achilles,

As suggested in DT forum a while back, maybe you should try to limit the number of images from the same contributor appearing together. Sometimes we see 10-12 images of the same series in a page.  By showing some only, if any of those attract the buyer, he will look further and will see the other images as similars.  Or something like that, I think one needs variety when he looks for something, without having to browse dozens of pages.

I do not think that is the solution. Its not good for those who have a very specialized portfolio who are best on their subject.  The best match 2.0 which iStock wants to implement should be the solution. But that seems not too easy to do :)

« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2009, 12:04 »
0
I do not think that is the solution. Its not good for those who have a very specialized portfolio who are best on their subject.  The best match 2.0 which iStock wants to implement should be the solution. But that seems not too easy to do :)

I can easily second that thought.
As someone who has a specialized portfolio, my sales at DT have always been lower than those at their competition. Many people here rank DT in their top 3 earners - despite much analysis, tinkering, and tweaking I have never been one of them.

« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2009, 12:32 »
0
I'm not keen on that idea.  For instance if somebody put 'happy people' into a search then even totally different images wouldn't be able to be seen just because the they are from the same photographer regardless of whether they are the best images or not. The fact that images share the same basic keywords doesn't necessarily mean that they are very similar. They tried that on Istock and it didn't go down at all well for many reasons. The best thing is to stop accepting to many similar images.    I believe that it was freezingpictures that had problems with this as crappy zoo shots were appearing before his vastly superior images just because he was limited to the number he could have on the first page.

The default sorting was changed as another part of our update, not because we got these hate and love threads (although we do care about them). The relevancy got tweaked in the meantime as usual. No matter the outcome, the revenue change shouldn't be dramatical for users with significant portfolios (>100 images, more relevant for hundreds). A contributor with just a couple images online may experience a dramatic change, we can't really do this properly unless a certain db. exposure is met.

Achilles,

As suggested in DT forum a while back, maybe you should try to limit the number of images from the same contributor appearing together. Sometimes we see 10-12 images of the same series in a page.  By showing some only, if any of those attract the buyer, he will look further and will see the other images as similars.  Or something like that, I think one needs variety when he looks for something, without having to browse dozens of pages.

« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2009, 17:37 »
0
Try "female doctor".  All images but one on the first page are of the same series. See also "chocolate cake" and "granola bowl". 

I am not suggesting to show only a few images from a member, but to distribute members in the results pages. 

« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2009, 20:07 »
0
Try "female doctor".  All images but one on the first page are of the same series. See also "chocolate cake" and "granola bowl".

Gotcha, that's correct. I just posted your remark on the DT forum so you better support me  :P
(my name there is Fleyeing).

« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2009, 20:18 »
0
Flemish,

This isn't news however.  I have done many searches before with similar results.  Some searches give more mixed results, others don't. 

"Chocolate cookie" is a good example of good mixture, although on the 7th page you have 11 images of one series (with 5 more in the next page) and 6 of another.

Observe that 16 images are of the same setup, and another series further in the search result have 15 photos.  Then later they reject images for "overabundant subject"...


« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2009, 02:34 »
0
The default sorting was changed as another part of our update, not because we got these hate and love threads (although we do care about them). The relevancy got tweaked in the meantime as usual. No matter the outcome, the revenue change shouldn't be dramatical for users with significant portfolios (>100 images, more relevant for hundreds). A contributor with just a couple images online may experience a dramatic change, we can't really do this properly unless a certain db. exposure is met.

Achilles,

As suggested in DT forum a while back, maybe you should try to limit the number of images from the same contributor appearing together. Sometimes we see 10-12 images of the same series in a page.  By showing some only, if any of those attract the buyer, he will look further and will see the other images as similars.  Or something like that, I think one needs variety when he looks for something, without having to browse dozens of pages.
Yes, that would be our goal. But there are two issues here: some contributors fill a niche (take Freezingpictures penguins  or Sharplydone's airplanes) without being spamful on similars. Doing it would harm their sales. The other drawback is technological, we rely on scripts, algorithms and math. Not to mention hardware.

It's a permanent process and all this feedback helps us in future updates. Thank you.

« Reply #32 on: April 09, 2009, 16:41 »
0
Achilles,

The problem is that I can have two excellent penguin shots, correctly keyworded, but they will for some reason appear in page 10 of the results, where a buyer may never go.  Of course Freez's 1000+ penguin images shall have a very good exposure, but things should be more balanced, IMHO.  Check the "female doctor" example I gave, with 19 of the 20 first results not just by the same photographer, but from the same series.

« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2009, 17:13 »
0
Achilles,

The problem is that I can have two excellent penguin shots, correctly keyworded, but they will for some reason appear in page 10 of the results, where a buyer may never go.  Of course Freez's 1000+ penguin images shall have a very good exposure, but things should be more balanced, IMHO.  Check the "female doctor" example I gave, with 19 of the 20 first results not just by the same photographer, but from the same series.

Well I wish I had 1000+ penguins  :D Currently I could care less about a slot system on Dreamstime it would not make a difference anyway, check it out. Search for penguin and tell me how you like the search result. Its not about my images. There are of course other contributors with nice penguin images .Look at the general result of the penguin search. The search result could be much better, without a single of my images on the frontpages.

« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2009, 18:39 »
0
Yes, that would be our goal. But there are two issues here: some contributors fill a niche (take Freezingpictures penguins  or Sharplydone's airplanes) without being spamful on similars. Doing it would harm their sales. The other drawback is technological, we rely on scripts, algorithms and math. Not to mention hardware.

It's a permanent process and all this feedback helps us in future updates. Thank you.


I find it ironic you would mention me here - a search on 'airplane' doesn't begin to show my imagery until page 5, and that's using 80 images/page!

« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2009, 19:09 »
0
Well I wish I had 1000+ penguins  :D Currently I could care less about a slot system on Dreamstime it would not make a difference anyway, check it out. Search for penguin and tell me how you like the search result. Its not about my images.
Freez, there is something in the search tool that sometimes give the distorted results mentioned before.  In some cases results are very balanced, in others they aren't.  DT management knows how the search tool works, so maybe they can make it give a more balanced result everytime.

Let me add that I find DT gives the more relevant results - that's fundamental. I am only suggesting sorting images in a way that they may show more variety.

« Reply #36 on: April 09, 2009, 20:06 »
0
I'd like to see the search results organized so that some who specializes - like me - has an honest chance at earning money. As it stands, my search placement is abysmal  - despite my portfolio comprising 3% of the aircraft images available. At one time my imagery made up nearly 10% of DT's aircraft library, but I removed most of my stock because of the unfavorable search engine workings. Sure, I can have hundreds upon hundreds of aircraft images available at DT, but it's all for naught if they're buried so deep that buyers won't find most of the them.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 20:11 by sharply_done »

« Reply #37 on: April 09, 2009, 21:22 »
0
Same boat here under "beach woman" search, I think I get first hit on page 3, kinda depressing.

matter of fact, most of the best beach shooters are missing from that search.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 21:25 by cdwheatley »

« Reply #38 on: April 09, 2009, 21:43 »
0
I find it ironic you would mention me here - doesn't begin to show my imagery until page 5, and that's using 80 images/page!

Switch from relevance to downloads and you're on page 1. That's why I was "whining" in the DT thread when it reverted to relevance default.  ;)

There are 16,000 search results for "airplane" now. DT has grown a lot.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 21:54 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #39 on: April 09, 2009, 21:54 »
0
I find it ironic you would mention me here - doesn't begin to show my imagery until page 5, and that's using 80 images/page!

Switch from relevance to downloads and you're on page 1. That was why I was "whining" in the DT thread when it reverted to relevance default.  ;)

No, as a matter of fact, I don't have -any - images on page 1 based on downloads. I have many page-1-based-on-downloads on every other site, which I think says quite a lot about the fairness of the DT search engine. The point here is that buyers shouldn't have to switch searches to find the best (i.e. most 'relevant') images. New images need to be peppered in with older best-selling ones, but not at their expense.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 22:15 by sharply_done »

« Reply #40 on: April 10, 2009, 02:24 »
0
Freez, there is something in the search tool that sometimes give the distorted results mentioned before.  In some cases results are very balanced, in others they aren't.  DT management knows how the search tool works, so maybe they can make it give a more balanced result everytime.

Let me add that I find DT gives the more relevant results - that's fundamental. I am only suggesting sorting images in a way that they may show more variety.

True its more relevant, but at the same time much more "crappy", especially if get down to searches which are more specific than lets say like business and (..I wanted say nature until I checked the search). The problem with DT's search is that those who manage to get a specific keyword as often as possibile in title, keywords and description will get his image show up on the first page for that keyword, nor matter how the quality is. So of course those who know this and want their images show up on the first pages take a relevant keyword.

 But contrary to other agencies the quality and/or buyers popularity factor in this search is very very weak. You get the impression that Dreamstime has not as good a library as other agencies if you compare them on the default search. Of course thats not true, but thats the first impression of the buyer. You do not even get  of these buyers, because they simply never sign up.
As with the case of Sharply my images as well are much better placed in every other agency of the big Five.
And I do not remember a time when DT ever was better than the fourth place in earnings although I do believe they have the potential to be better. I like Dreamstime, and will continue to submit there, but I do think they have a lot of work to do to catch up with other agencies with their search engine.

« Reply #41 on: April 10, 2009, 02:31 »
0
Same boat here under "beach woman" search, I think I get first hit on page 3, kinda depressing.

matter of fact, most of the best beach shooters are missing from that search.

Another great example, I just checked "beach woman" on the other big 4 agencies. As a buyer just looking at the default search, Dreamstime would by far be the last place I would sign up.


« Reply #43 on: April 10, 2009, 02:52 »
0
Freezingpictures & Sharplydone, you missed my point. I was referring to the one-slot-only type of results, which would restrict your results even more. Meaning it would be worse than what you see now. I've chosen your portfolios because you are more focused than others, not because of performance in search.

The performance within the search results is a whole different discussion. First, one needs to have the right keywords and the correct metadata (and of course "right" keywords is a matter of personal taste). Second, the search algorithm is by far the best in the industry imho, but still far from being perfect. With this test we try to balance things for everyone, avoiding issues like similarity, or favoring just the old vs favoring just the new contributors.

As for the relevancy: "beach woman" should produce results of a single woman on a beach. Not families nor couples.
Try to search once more and see how many single woman on a beach you see in our results vs. others. Then compare the percentages. Feel free to sort by downloads with us and you will see much better looking images, with way less relevancy.

It's true, for the relevancy sorting, there are many similars or images with lower quality, it's what we try to improve now and the latest tests show a great improvement (they would be online in a few days from now though).

If you mean theoretical restrict then yes, I get your point. And I am happy that your agency does not have this policy.
Yes true and I do think DT has the most relevant search. However while other agencies might not be as relevant they do have a much better search result based on quality and popularity.
In my experience most buyers stick to the default search. If buyers would use all features of Dreamstimes search it would be no problem I guess. But they seem not to use them.
I believe the first impression is very very important, and while Dreamstime's search is relevant the impression of quality is not very good I must say. But as you say you plan a change in search, so I am looking forward to how it will be and hope  :)

« Reply #44 on: April 10, 2009, 08:08 »
0
The point here is that buyers shouldn't have to switch searches to find the best (i.e. most 'relevant') images. New images need to be peppered in with older best-selling ones, but not at their expense.

Well that's what caused the "whining" (default=downloads) and in fact, during those days I sold only "old" images with downloads. The tweaking goes on since the last 2 days, I sold about 1/4 very old (2005) and a few very new ones (2009). So there is a mix already now, in the relevance option. Just keep doing your benchmark "airplane" every 4 days or so, and you'll probably see a difference.

« Reply #45 on: April 10, 2009, 10:05 »
0
I agree with this. The relevant search needs a lot higher percentage of proven images rather than loads of images that are not very good and have onlly sold once or twice.


I believe the first impression is very very important, and while Dreamstime's search is relevant the impression of quality is not very good I must say. But as you say you plan a change in search, so I am looking forward to how it will be and hope  :)

« Reply #46 on: April 10, 2009, 17:58 »
0
Freezingpictures & Sharplydone, you missed my point. I was referring to the one-slot-only type of results, which would restrict your results even more.

Achilles, I did not suggest restricting the number of results per contributor, but trying to distribute results a bit more.  Instead of having 19 images of member A in page one and 10 in page two, and then images from member B appear only in page three, the result might be for instance 5 of images tops from a member in each page, so images of member A would be split in 6 pages and member B's images might get a chance to appear in page one or two. 

« Reply #47 on: April 10, 2009, 21:47 »
0
From DT:
Look at the algorithms of modern search engines today. It's no longer a simple link descending amount sort (nobody liked seeing spam results on the first page because the site keyword/link spammed).

Algorithms have matured a bit and the sort by relevancy seems a much better step in the right direction.

« Reply #48 on: April 11, 2009, 16:43 »
0
There is more variety in the "female doctor" search now.

« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2009, 17:00 »
0
There is more variety in the "female doctor" search now.

Yap, it changes all the time. I guess they don't have much of an Easter break there in Bucarest. It's getting pretty good, and less spammy results than on iStock for the moment. (I'm talking here as a low volume buyer).

« Reply #50 on: April 11, 2009, 21:20 »
0
Interesting thread. Most of the posters so far have been photographers, and I can understand their concerns about series-of-images. Just to chime in as a lowly illustrator, my sales at DT have been doing very well since the changes, and I am very happy.

lagereek

« Reply #51 on: April 19, 2009, 05:12 »
0

What worries me in any sites search is when on first two pages, you get loads of similar shots or series and when you check it out, they all got zero or maybe one DL.

Thats occupying important space.

« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2009, 06:08 »
0

What worries me in any sites search is when on first two pages, you get loads of similar shots or series and when you check it out, they all got zero or maybe one DL.

Thats occupying important space.

Thats true. I just tried "animal". You would not believe DT is one of the leading microstock agencies looking at the results. Its not even a very relevant search. Compare that with the iS search. Seems that iS now has not only much better images but also much more relevant images on the first pages. However after a short break sales are back for me, so I cannot complain about that, but I still hope DT will at one time be able to rival iStocks search engine for the sake of us independents and the future of DT itself.

lagereek

« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2009, 06:46 »
0

Yeah! right.  One of my specialities, Industry.  Try "oil refinery"  ( nothing else),  up comes a whole heap of just chimneys, etc, all with a minimum of DLs,  and thats on first two pages.  No good! especially not when on several pages later find highly relevant material with hundreds of DLs.

Designers are busy people, often working against tight deadlines. No way theyre going to waste time, wading through dozens of pages.
If they cant find what theyre looking for on first three pages, chances are they flick over to another site.

« Reply #54 on: April 21, 2009, 12:47 »
0
Yeah! right.  One of my specialities, Industry.  Try "oil refinery"  ( nothing else),  up comes a whole heap of just chimneys, etc, all with a minimum of DLs,  and thats on first two pages. 

I don't se anything "irrelevant" in the first pages.  It's not just stacks.  Many general views (of course stacks prevail, but also high columns).  Some equipment details.  Many tanks and spheres.  What did you expect to see on top?

Number of downloads doesn't necessary mean anything, even less in a specialized subject.

Regards,
Adelaide

PS: In the first page at IS I see an oil rig. That's not a refinery!
« Last Edit: April 21, 2009, 12:48 by madelaide »

« Reply #55 on: April 29, 2009, 02:23 »
0
It's true, for the relevancy sorting, there are many similars or images with lower quality, it's what we try to improve now and the latest tests show a great improvement (they would be online in a few days from now though).
Any update on the search engine? The default search is still "very low quality" compared to e.g. iStockphoto and now in addition also less relevant. It is more than two weeks ago since you said that there would be great improvement in a few days from now. I understand, if there were complications, I am just curious what the status is.

Thanks!
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 02:24 by Freezingpictures »


tan510jomast

« Reply #57 on: April 29, 2009, 08:54 »
0
i am not even sure if i like this new SE, as my sales and views have come to almost a dead halt  >:(

« Reply #58 on: April 29, 2009, 09:05 »
0
Serban, thank you for taking the time for answering!
I did some more searches as you suggested and you are right you do have some very relevant searches. It seems the majority are relevant apart from a few exceptions if you use more than just one keyword. Still, quality is lacking I would say. While I agree, new images must have a chance to be found I think it is a bit exaggerated at DT, because you can find too much of low quality images with 0 dls on the first page. Maybe the time they could be found on the first pages should be shortened by quite a bit so that if they do not get downloaded in a certain time period, they get moved back faster. In this way even new contributors will have a chance. Thanks for listening!


« Reply #59 on: April 29, 2009, 10:45 »
0
Nonetheless, let us know your thoughts, again this is a permanent improvement process.

For heavens sake, don't change it Achilles! I got a great month at DT with no uploads, while SS broke down, with no uploads. There is a great mix now of old and new shots downloaded from DT. New contributors should get downloads too, if they have the patience to wait 2-3 months.

What might have helped is I slowly start to re-keyword, re-title and re-caption my older port at DT. Relevancy is obviously deduced from repeat keywords in title and caption, so everybody should pay attention to the titling. Fancy titles, like "Look here!" serve no purpose.

@Freezing: The similars are gone mostly, and it's ok there are shots with 0 downloads on the front page. Everybody deserves a chance. An eductated buyer can still decide to change the search preference to "downloads", which reflects a Darwinian principle of survival of the best, as defined by the buyer.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 10:55 by FlemishDreams »

tan510jomast

« Reply #60 on: April 29, 2009, 11:02 »
0
Nonetheless, let us know your thoughts, again this is a permanent improvement process.

For heavens sake, don't change it Achilles! I got a great month at DT with no uploads, while SS broke down, with no uploads. There is a great mix now of old and new shots downloaded from DT. New contributors should get downloads too, if they have the patience to wait 2-3 months.

What might have helped is I slowly start to re-keyword, re-title and re-caption my older port at DT. Relevancy is obviously deduced from repeat keywords in title and caption, so everybody should pay attention to the titling. Fancy titles, like "Look here!" serve no purpose.

@Freezing: The similars are gone mostly, and it's ok there are shots with 0 downloads on the front page. Everybody deserves a chance. An eductated buyer can still decide to change the search preference to "downloads", which reflects a Darwinian principle of survival of the best, as defined by the buyer.

FD, it's not true that the new SE favours newbies. I am a newbie (almost one year soon), but since the new SE I have been getting deadsville. Before that I was doing more or less alright as a newbie.

Achilles, if I may say so, I think it's a bit confusing to both buyers and contributors to suddenyl change the SE. Especially for a newbie like me. Once I  thought I got the hang of using the right and effective keywords, you go and change it. This brings me back to Step One.
How many times do we have to re-learn the keywords techniques?
Just my thoughts here, as you invited...

« Reply #61 on: April 29, 2009, 11:35 »
0
Nonetheless, let us know your thoughts, again this is a permanent improvement process.


For heavens sake, don't change it Achilles! I got a great month at DT with no uploads, while SS broke down, with no uploads. There is a great mix now of old and new shots downloaded from DT. New contributors should get downloads too, if they have the patience to wait 2-3 months.

What might have helped is I slowly start to re-keyword, re-title and re-caption my older port at DT. Relevancy is obviously deduced from repeat keywords in title and caption, so everybody should pay attention to the titling. Fancy titles, like "Look here!" serve no purpose.

@Freezing: The similars are gone mostly, and it's ok there are shots with 0 downloads on the front page. Everybody deserves a chance. An eductated buyer can still decide to change the search preference to "downloads", which reflects a Darwinian principle of survival of the best, as defined by the buyer.


Yes maybe everybody deserves a chance, but if you look at the images which are up front you will notice that some are relatively old and have 0 dls and are low quality. Beach woman is again a prime example. BTW many similars.  The similars happen, because they have exactly the same keywords. DT search relevancy is much too strong on keywords over every other factor, like dls, views etc..
I am not saying an image can be up front when it has 0 dls, I am saying it can get a chance, a short time, if it does not get downloaded it should go down in the search.

Look, an example are these two images. Both have beach and woman in keywords, title, description.
This one:

http://www.dreamstime.com/woman-on-the-beach-image4565219


is ahead in search of this one:

http://www.dreamstime.com/woman-on-beach-image6429099

The first one is by far not as nice as the second one.
The first one is older than the second one.
The first one has ZERO downloads, the second over 100.

This shows, that the search is not working properly. I assume it is because some kind of magic combination of keywords, in addition to the keywords beach and woman.




batman

« Reply #62 on: April 29, 2009, 11:44 »
0
Yes maybe everybody deserves a chance, but if you look at the images which are up front you will notice that some are relatively old and have 0 dls and are low quality. Beach woman is again a prime example. BTW many similars.  The similars happen, because they have exactly the same keywords. DT search relevancy is much too strong on keywords over every other factor, like dls, views etc..
I am not saying an image can be up front when it has 0 dls, I am saying it can get a chance, a short time, if it does not get downloaded it should go down in the search.

Look, an example are these two images. Both have beach and woman in keywords, title, description.
This one:

http://www.dreamstime.com/woman-on-the-beach-image4565219


is ahead in search of this one:

http://www.dreamstime.com/woman-on-beach-image6429099

The first one is by far not as nice as the second one.
The first one is older than the second one.
The first one has ZERO downloads, the second over 100.

This shows, that the search is not working properly. I assume it is because some kind of magic combination of keywords, in addition to the keywords beach and woman.






So Dreamstime has a fetish for half naked women, what 's wrong with that?  ;D

RacePhoto

« Reply #63 on: April 29, 2009, 23:30 »
0
First one has 34 keywords, second one has 47. Could be that percentage of matching words in relation to total words, makes a difference. I haven't searched for my images, I don't really bother once something is uploaded, but I can guarantee that if less words helps elevate in a search, I'm going to be towards the top.  ;D

I only use actual words for whats in a photo and don't use concepts or distant similar words. If I was looking for a red tomato I wouldn't type in Crimson Solanaceae. I think most people who search don't use strange and obscure synonyms, but if it makes you feel good, keep loading up those keywords and reducing the relevancy percentage of the search results.

If proximity counts, which is totally illogical for keywords with Alpha sort, but what the heck, who says it's logical? There are 43 words between Beautiful and Woman, and the one that shows first 30 words. Only one more for Beach and Woman in both cases. Both have the same title.

In short, for those who like to search the search, look for relevancy and proximity, see what you find. Maybe it's rejection rate and total sales, by photographer? Could be a whole bunch of things that are not as intuitive and straight forward as what actually matches what a buyer is looking for! Interesting concept, search results that match what someone is searching for?

ps every one of my images uploaded in 2008 shows this, which I don't understand... (and I'm about down to the I don't give an expletive deleted  anymore either) This image has been rightfully reported as having bad keywords and an editor approved the needed corrections. At this time you can add more keywords only through the key-mentoring system.

I don't know why all my images have been reported for having bad keywords? They hardly have any to start with.  ;)
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 13:31 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #64 on: April 30, 2009, 20:01 »
0

The first one is by far not as nice as the second one.
The first one is older than the second one.
The first one has ZERO downloads, the second over 100.

This shows, that the search is not working properly. I assume it is because some kind of magic combination of keywords, in addition to the keywords beach and woman.

Unless quality is assigned at review time, this is something a search tool can not see.  Older with no sales MAY or MAY NOT be more relevant than one with lots of sales - I agree that sales/views must have a weight, but not a very high weight, otherwise new images will in general fall way behind in a search. 

I think Racephoto is right about relevance also being related to proximity, it makes sense.  The first image is in fact a woman at the beach.  The second (beautiful image by cdwheatley, btw) is more a beach scenery with a woman.  Not that this isn't what a buyer typing "woman beach" may be looking for.

« Reply #65 on: May 01, 2009, 01:32 »
0

The first one is by far not as nice as the second one.
The first one is older than the second one.
The first one has ZERO downloads, the second over 100.

This shows, that the search is not working properly. I assume it is because some kind of magic combination of keywords, in addition to the keywords beach and woman.

Unless quality is assigned at review time, this is something a search tool can not see.  Older with no sales MAY or MAY NOT be more relevant than one with lots of sales - I agree that sales/views must have a weight, but not a very high weight, otherwise new images will in general fall way behind in a search. 

I think Racephoto is right about relevance also being related to proximity, it makes sense.  The first image is in fact a woman at the beach.  The second (beautiful image by cdwheatley, btw) is more a beach scenery with a woman.  Not that this isn't what a buyer typing "woman beach" may be looking for.

Madelaide, the difference simply  is that in the first one the woman is more prominent in the image and in the second one the beach is more prominent. I am pretty sure that the buyer prefers the second one, no doubt about that. And I am pretty sure beach woman is the keyword under which the second one has got most of its dls, while the first one got ZERO dls.

As I said new images deserve a chance to show up in the front, I am all for it. When it shows up in the front the quality can be measured, and the image can proove that it is exactly what buyers are searching for (Quality measure views and dls). But if there is no interest it should move back.

Maybe the rest of the keywords of the first image are more related to "beach woman" and maybe the amount of keywords and proximity counts. But I do not think that DT's search engine can do a perfect job with this and than add to this that there is not one perfect keyworder that people keyword very differently, this cannot work right.

Both images should have the same ranking from their keywords, they should have the same positioning, at least pretty closely. The other keywords should not matter so much as they currently do. Now put into addition to that the interest of buyers for the image and how old it is. Clearly the second one should win and should have moved far ahead in ranking before the first one. Seeing how old that first image is and never has been bought, it should have moved much further back, clearly there is no interest in this image for buyers, so what is it then doing so high up in the search?

Dreamstime's concern should be to show the buyer what he or she is searching for. While the images are now doubt relevant to the search term (In fact most times highly relevant), very often the images are NOT relevant for the buyer in terms of what he is actually searching for. What the buyer is search for is GOOD QUALITY IMAGES relevant to the keywords and sadly that is often not what he is getting at DT, at least not in the amount he should be.

I honestly wish Dreamstime would catch up to iStockphoto. Commission is by far better. But if I would be a buyer and compare this two agencies and do a few sample searches, I would clearly decide for iStockphoto. iStockphoto's stepped far ahead of every other agency due to its new search engine. I really really want Dreamstime to succeed. I do believe we all would benefit from it in the long run. And of course there always will be people hurt and complain if search engine changes. But if you produce qualtity images you should not worry about a search engine which is a bit stronger on quality, and DT's leadership should stand up towards quality and bring this message to buyers and contributors alike. Currently Dreamstime sacrifices quality for keyword relevancy. The buyer wants quality relevant to keywords and this is lacking at DT.

« Reply #66 on: May 01, 2009, 20:05 »
0
Freeze,

I did the same search in both sites, and I agree with you that IS is giving better quality results.  They are both giving valid reults, but I agree that DT is perhaps not balancing results very well.  Also it is one situation in which it is still showing many images of the same series together, what looks boring.

I don't think DT considers proximity in the keywords - it could use in description, but I am not sure about this either.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #67 on: May 01, 2009, 21:53 »
0
Look, an example are these two images. Both have beach and woman in keywords, title, description.

Correct. Looking for "beach woman" brings up an image with 0 views and 0 downloads on position #4, while cdwheatley's beautiful level 5 image with almost 6000 views is on page #2 (20 thumbs per page). They must have been playing with the search machinery again, and at the moment it looks awful, at least for this search. The new uploaders should be happy though, for now.

It can't be the keywords/description/title only since "beach" and "woman" appear in Cdwheatley's title, description and keywords. Sorting by downloads still gives the best collection.

I have more luck with "beach jump" : 3 of my shots on row #1 page #1, and that with "relevancy". Look into what buyers use to buy your shots: almost always 1-2 words. Be clever and use the strongest 2 relevant keywords in title/description, and phase out everything above 30 or so, since they are mostly too far-sought.

First one has 34 keywords, second one has 47. Could be that percentage of matching words in relation to total words, makes a difference.

Bingo! ;D (sometimes I wonder whether DT doesn't use semantic clustering and linguistic proximity to determine relevance too; maybe too farfetched.)
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 22:20 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #68 on: May 04, 2009, 09:16 »
0
Is it an upturn in the economy, or the new search engine, or the new flash browser? Sales of my illustrations have started selling after a six month dry spell from July to February. During this period, I only had scattered sales.

Pat


« Reply #70 on: May 05, 2009, 07:24 »
0
Your examples above are for more specific subjects, leading to a smaller pool of images. Our engine is quite spamproof, but when you reach the lower end of the spectrum, we may still face some spam.

Try a search on 'Air Travel'. That's quite a wide subject with over 15k results however 75% of the images (out of the first 80) are essentially the same illustration with different backgrounds.

'Breakfast eggs bacon' isn't much better with one image series hogging 46 of the top slots.

How do these people get so many 'similar' images accepted? If that's not spamming I don't know what is.

« Reply #71 on: May 05, 2009, 09:37 »
0
Your examples above are for more specific subjects, leading to a smaller pool of images. Our engine is quite spamproof, but when you reach the lower end of the spectrum, we may still face some spam.
We have worked with the most popular searches and the ones providing a high number of results.
As time goes by we work to clear the more specific results too so you should continue to see improvements, even if the changes are not as drastic as with the main updates.

A comparison between an agency that had a great engine all the time, with one that was updated recently, may be unfair, especially if you look closer. It would be extremely easy for us to provide eye appealing images and made them quite relevant, but they wouldn't be the most relevant. On the long run it proves bad because fresh content cannot make it and new photographers will not earn enough.
I do agree that we should provide nice images not just meta-data-nice images, that is what we are trying to do.

Serban, I do not think it is unfair, when I compare DT with IS. Don't misunderstand me, I do not want to put DT down, I am sorry if you had that impression. I actually wish Dreamstime would do better than IS.
Its just, if I would be a buyer, I would not care about how long it takes to update a search or that the one company had much more time to develop a good search. What I want as a buyer is simply a good search. What you should aspire to, is have the best search engine and currently reading what you are saying it seems you think you have a pretty good search engine. Although you think its not perfect it seems you are pretty satisfied and only some more minor modifications are necessary to do.

But when I compare for the sake of seeing how a very good search engine works I do think DT's search engine needs some more "drastic" changes and not minor changes. But maybe you are indeed striving for more than only minor changes and I misread you. Thats what I am concerned about.

Let me add I do think DT is a great agency, I like it, I have respect for the people working there and I have recommended it to buyers in the past and wish DT all the best for its future, but that is also why I am writing this.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 09:42 by Freezingpictures »

« Reply #72 on: May 05, 2009, 14:29 »
0

Try a search on 'Air Travel'.That's quite a wide subject with over 15k results however 75% of the images (out of the first 80) are essentially the same illustration with different backgrounds.


 :o

Wonder, why this was not sieved out by "too many of the same..."-rejections!


tan510jomast

« Reply #74 on: May 06, 2009, 06:22 »
0
EDITED FOR POINT
A few months ago, a few contributors were overtaking lots of spots, now this is balanced with more users.
For the other searches, the similars are indeed an issue and we're now addressing that.


Achilles, are you referring to the past where one contributor's images flooded the first page or more burying the others with less images of the searched keyword? If so, I applaud this, as I was wondering how it is always the same contributor with variations of the same theme that dominated the first few pages. What chances do the rest of us have if our images are buried on page  101?
Even when I am searching for my own image to see if my keyword works, I give up by the time I get to page 2 with so many images of one contributor. I am sure the buyer would have less patience than I the contributor.
I hope I explained my question correctly.

« Reply #75 on: May 08, 2009, 03:54 »
0
Ahh, I see you fixed the "beach woman" search result, it is much much better now!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
1527 Views
Last post November 06, 2016, 23:14
by yvallee
Flicker's New Search Engine

Started by cuppacoffee Flickr

0 Replies
1367 Views
Last post May 07, 2015, 14:47
by cuppacoffee
1 Replies
1565 Views
Last post September 22, 2016, 17:10
by krilcis
14 Replies
3305 Views
Last post September 30, 2017, 06:43
by increasingdifficulty
9 Replies
2426 Views
Last post December 13, 2017, 13:15
by derek

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors