Author Topic: I love the new DT search engine ! (Read 21216 times)

niserin · « **on:** April 05, 2009, 05:19 »

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 !

Dreamframer · « **Reply #1 on:** April 05, 2009, 05:52 »

Can someone tell me when the change happened? I didn't notice it...

fotografer · « **Reply #2 on:** April 05, 2009, 06:14 »

It was about 2 weeks ago but to be honest I wouldn't have noticed either.

anton9 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 05, 2009, 06:35 »

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 »

The tradition when you have good sales while other people don't is to do not tell it

niserin · « **Reply #5 on:** April 05, 2009, 06:51 »

Quote from: Vonkara on April 05, 2009, 06:41

The tradition when you have good sales while other people don't is to do not tell it

why?

null · « **Reply #6 on:** April 05, 2009, 07:09 »

I have been very active in that thread, praising DT all the time. I got everybody against me then

null · « **Reply #7 on:** April 05, 2009, 07:11 »

Quote from: Vonkara on April 05, 2009, 06:41

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 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on April 05, 2009, 07:11

Quote from: Vonkara on April 05, 2009, 06:41
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

Quote from: niserin on April 05, 2009, 06:51

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

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #9 on:** April 06, 2009, 15:59 »

It seems the Search engine changed again, for the worse...

null · « **Reply #10 on:** April 06, 2009, 16:01 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on April 06, 2009, 15:59

It seems the Search engine changed again, for the worse...

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

gaja · « **Reply #11 on:** April 06, 2009, 16:27 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on April 06, 2009, 16:01

Quote from: Freezingpictures on April 06, 2009, 15:59
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.

null · « **Reply #12 on:** April 06, 2009, 20:24 »

Quote from: gaja on April 06, 2009, 16:27

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

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

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

niserin · « **Reply #13 on:** April 07, 2009, 03:38 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on April 06, 2009, 15:59

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 »

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.

Achilles · « **Reply #15 on:** April 07, 2009, 04:13 »

The engine gets tweaked VERY often. I assure you that by doing it we try to 1. acomodate the buyers needs 2. maximize all contributors earnings (not just a part, newer or older).
I stress "try", it's a numbers game in the end and no sorting is perfect.

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.

CCK · « **Reply #16 on:** April 07, 2009, 04:47 »

I just tested the search engine, and I'm still satisfied.

null · « **Reply #17 on:** April 07, 2009, 05:11 »

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.

null · « **Reply #18 on:** April 07, 2009, 05:15 »

Quote from: CCK on April 07, 2009, 04:47

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.

patw · « **Reply #19 on:** April 07, 2009, 05:29 »

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....

null · « **Reply #20 on:** April 07, 2009, 05:37 »

Quote from: patw on April 07, 2009, 05:29

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

patw · « **Reply #21 on:** April 07, 2009, 06:27 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on April 07, 2009, 05:37

Quote from: patw on April 07, 2009, 05:29
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

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.

null · « **Reply #22 on:** April 07, 2009, 06:41 »

Quote from: patw on April 07, 2009, 06:27

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

patw · « **Reply #23 on:** April 07, 2009, 07:05 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on April 07, 2009, 06:41

"Feedback" can also be positive.

I totally agree, whatever.

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?

madelaide · « **Reply #24 on:** April 07, 2009, 11:13 »

Quote from: Achilles on April 07, 2009, 04:13

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I love the new DT search engine ! (Read 21216 times)

niserin

Dreamframer

fotografer

anton9

vonkara

niserin

null

null

vonkara

Freezingpictures

null

gaja

null

niserin

lagereek

Achilles

CCK

null

null

patw

null

patw

null

patw

madelaide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors