Im going to spend a day or something in cleaning up my portfolio, not just pictures with zero DLs but pictures beyond pages 20 or 25 in their searches, gotta go as well, even if they have been DLd, a few times in the past, today they are a waste of space.

At this moment, DT, Im sure has employed some trainee-reviewers who throw everything out and is really only accepting on technical merrit, any old generic stuff. IS,  is accepting any neewbie stuff as long as the neewbie nominates them to Vettas, could be a fish in a pond and sure enough its accepted as Vettas.
FT?  well they are still after 100 years batteling with their search and its wobbling and trembling.

Cleaning out ones port serves two purposes. One:  gets rid of garbage that really doesnt sell, just confuse the poor buyers. Two:  when we start deleting images beyond page 25, in searches, well maybe the reviewers will star to "wake-up"  and do what they are getting paid for, instead of pretending to their respective Admins, they can do the job.

I did this with my SS portfolio once and I think it was a waste of time.  I noticed afterwards that some of what I think is junk still occasionally sells, even with EL's.  My earnings didn't change much, I probably lost out on some sales.  The junk ends up at the end of the search, so why is it a problem for buyers?  Most wont bother looking past page 20 and I don't see the point in stopping those that do.

I don't think everyone is going to do this, so the sites will still think they have too many images and they will still leave the reviewers to decide what buyers want.  Perhaps the best solution is to use sites like CanStockPhoto and Graphic Leftovers that sell images that the big sites reject.  Over the years, they are going to end up with a much better collection of newer images and it might make the big sites realize they shouldn't leave the most important decision in the hands of reviewers that can't tell what will sell and what wont.

I have to laugh when I get something rejected with SS for LCV but it sells with CanStockPhoto when they have less buyers.  The current reviews with SS and DT are going to cost them a lot of money, I hope they wake up to that fact one day.  The buyers are being denied images they would be interested in and any new contributor is going to lose incentive really quickly with these rejections.

Yes, I would encourage everyone else to clean up their portfolios or perhaps delete them altogether. Thank you 

Yes, I would encourage everyone else to clean up their portfolios or perhaps delete them altogether. Thank you 

Quote from: Microbius on June 04, 2011, 04:21

Yes, I would encourage everyone else to clean up their portfolios or perhaps delete them altogether. Thank you  

LOL

(old files pop up on Shutterstock regularly - I even had an EL sale on Shutterstock last month for a file that is 3 years old, probably only had 5-6 sales in all that time)

but I am happy for system like dt no sales in 4 years it gets deleted, but I am not putting work in to do it

Exept Shutterstock, there, everything will eventually sell.


Why is everyone so dead against throwing away old garbage, you all like to sit there and watch them? thinking, Oh! I too that masterpiece back in 2005. Or is it just paranoid delution that it will sell and you might be short of a few cents.

I think it's a waste of time.  The search sorts them out, I would rather spend my time doing something more productive.  I deleted a lot from istock and my sales went down.  I've been more selective with my uploads on some sites but I seem to make more when I just upload everything.  Crestock have probably been the most critical site with reviews and they have really poor sales.

I think the sites want us to get rid of lower selling images and similars because it saves them money but it doesn't improve our sales and that's what matters to me.  I wouldn't mind if they just deleted everything that doesn't sell after a year and they accepted more images but that's not happening.

Exept Shutterstock, there, everything will eventually sell.

Why is everyone so dead against throwing away old garbage, you all like to sit there and watch them? thinking, Oh! I too that masterpiece back in 2005. Or is it just paranoid delution that it will sell and you might be short of a few cents.

I think the benefit varies depending on which site you are talking about.  I've removed a lot of old non-sellers on DT and think it helps there.  I also think it depends on how much time you spent on the 'non-seller' that you delete.  When I look at an old file that never sold, or sold once in two years I look at how populated that subject it.  In most cases my non-sellers are also my weaker shots in overflowing subjects.  I really think that the lost chance to get a sale on an old image it made up by having my better shots appear more often on my profile pages, or in searches.

I do have old ones that don't sell that I hang onto in the hopes they will sell someday, but most get cut after a couple of years without sales...  At DT you potentially benefit from directing more sales towards your higher level stuff.  Other sites are a different story.  If you need credits to hit a tier for higher royalties, it might force a different decision when every credit sale counts.

no ... way

Yeah!  great!  and its exactly this kind of thinking which have led to spamming, 100 million files, where maybe 20% if that, is relevant material, led to best match and general search problems with just about every agency existing, hence, a big part of this forum.
This "keep em coming" attitide is so derrogative to the industry, it will also be its downfall. and for what??

So that you and yours alike can keep a few extra pennies and cents in your pocket?  do me a favour,  wake up!  only because some IS, half assed reviewer accept any old garbage you throw at them?

Just this week I had a fairly large extended license sale (the second one for this photo) for a rather poor shot of an obscure subject (only two sales in 4 years, both ELs).

I've noticed that ELs are often on older files that haven't sold a lot. It's as though buyers are making a 'best guess' as to which photos are least likely to appear on rival products.
So that you don't get this embarassing/annoying scenario:
and

It's up to agencies to remove the files.
No one is going to take take down their own images. It's just another case of it being rational for the individual to leave them up but damaging to the industry as a whole.

So you subscibe to lagereek's ludicrous proposition that buyers say, "Oh, look, there's a photo of a Dwarf Bittern that has only sold once in four years, so I'm not going to buy a photo of a studio model on a white background, or a mega-fantabulous modelreleased photo of an oil rig"?
I thought the idea of a 'general' stock agency was to try to reach as many markets and meet as many needs as possible?

Quote from: Microbius on June 05, 2011, 04:24

It's up to agencies to remove the files.
No one is going to take take down their own images. It's just another case of it being rational for the individual to leave them up but damaging to the industry as a whole.

So you subscibe to lagereek's ludicrous proposition that buyers say, "Oh, look, there's a photo of a Dwarf Bittern that has only sold once in four years, so I'm not going to buy a photo of a studio model on a white background, or a mega-fantabulous modelreleased photo of an oil rig"?
I thought the idea of a 'general' stock agency was to try to reach as many markets and meet as many needs as possible?

Oh! Sue my dear, didnt realize you were an exclusive at IS,  now I get it. Silly me! general stock, yes, NOT general garbage, buyers do agree you know.

BTW, bloody lovely pic of the woman. Thats NOT garbage, btw. Well done!

It's up to agencies to remove the files.

of course! I actually believe that even agencies don�t want that (perhaps DT wants but yes they keep on approving crap), reviewers (good/bad) they were payed no? so I do believe if they want to remove, they must do it themselves, I don�t want to mess with their money or we will get another cut

Do microstock companies want to clean out so called deadwood?  Someone mentioned Dreamstime suggesting something like this, I don't know specifics there.  For other sites, the facts generally state otherwise.  Shutterstock brags that they are adding 60,000 - 80,000 new photos per WEEK.  Dreamstime is adding thousands per week. The other big sites are undoubtedly adding large numbers as well.  New contributors are being added at the rate of many thousands per week among all companies. These sites are adding content at rates much higher than 4 years ago and accelerating.  To compensate, they are constantly tweaking (or making big changes to)  the way searches are done and the way files come up within those searches.  Often to our consternation, but they are searching for a better way to get likely sales in front of buyers eyeballs.  I think they are trying to keep up with each other in total numbers and be searchable at the same time.  As we know, they are not always right when making these changes, especially on a case by case basis.  It hurts all of us when a good seller gets kicked off the front page or two.  Frontloading the search with expensive files is simply bait and switch in my opinion, but that is another topic.  Regular buyers know how to get around these problems as mentioned several times in these forums.  I think microstock companies would like 100s of millions (eventually billions, lets think the future here) of files available, with an intuitive, efficient way for buyers to search through them.  Faceted search as an example of one attempt.  This is where the evidence seems to point if you watch what they are doing.  Afterall, that is what many of the constant changes a iStock have been about.  If someone wants to tidy up their portfolio for whatever reason, that is fine.  Do it for the good of the microstock world in general?  I'll pass, not even a drop in the bucket.  Any effect on their sales will only be negative as a result, once again, you cannot sell what you don't offer.  The sites realize this as well, thus the constant search changes, addition of large numbers of files, and not cleaning house themselves.  Remember, only the judgement of buyers and inspectors matter in this business model.  We are in some phase of a tidal wave surging over the online photo buying world.  Severe dilution and turmoil may seem to prevail on our end of things, but for a buyer that learns to navigate a sites' search engine, it is a wonderfull time.  I think most companies are, like me, happy for the steady income from older poor selling files.  They too have invested time and money, why not leave a potential for a return?  They certainly don't seem to be in a hurry to clean house, or they would just do it themselves by decree (and late Friday notification).  Sorry to be so long winded, my whole point is, if it is worth it to the site to keep "poor"  files available, it is probably worth it to us.  For me it definitely is worth it.  Happy stocking to all.

Perhaps garbagemen would be needed as much as inspectors

Quote from: raclro on June 05, 2011, 00:47

Interesting idea, and I hope lots of people do it.  I for one don't see any reason to delete a file.  My experience is limited to iStock, perhaps it is different elsewhere.  Nearly every day I have 2 or 3 (often several) old forgotten files sell for the first or second time. 

Yeah, it's definitely different at other sites than Istock.  The other major sites have stable search engines.  The best match or relevance searches are actually attempts to put the most relevant images in front of buyers, rather than elaborate and constantly changing revenue engineering experiments, like Istock's best match.  For this reason I wouldn't delete any non-seller from Istock because there's no way to know if it isn't appealing or just got lost in one of the many random best match shakeups.  Today's buried image at Istock can sputter back to life if it is resurrected by some new best match juggle.   

But on the sites with reasonable, stable search engines, like Dreamstime, the one image from a series that has gotten hardly any sales is likely to be the dog in the bunch.  No loss in deleting it if it helps the other better similars get better exposure. 

BTW, not talking about deleting some rare niche image.  More a case of deleting the poorest performing images in a batch after they have had years to prove themselves. 

True!  I have never seen anybody have such terrible problems and battles with their search as IS, ever since the day I joined 5 years back theres been problems, constant hickups, experiments, faults, glitches, bugs, pugh!  its a never ending story. probably a miracle we have had any sales at all, considering.