"Relevancy" search totally worthless!

[Lagereek]

Relevancy and best match as searches are totally useless, means nothing. After years of keywording, spamming, etc and with gazillions of files floating around, some agencies still use these old search engines. The IS, best-match, I would have thought would serve as warning to just about everyone, yet, SS, have started to introduce this search, why?  even if its there as an option, buyers who dont really know how to search will ofcourse think this is the option to use, not knowing that all the lousy keywording, is there all wrapped up in one giant soup.
I didnt know this until lately but the actual alogarithm for all searches must be somehow be changed even if relevancy is only an option, just to fit this search-mechanism.
Relevancy is only relevant to the kind of keywording used and years and years of spamming is its foundation. No wonder it doesnt produce any results.

[traveler1116]

Well mind reading technology is still a few years away so you'll have to wait I guess.

[Sean Locke Photography]

The IS relevancy is only a few years old and works pretty well, IMO.

[heywoody]

A.  The obvious answer is to do something about the outragous spam - a 10 - 15 keyword limit would sort that pretty quickly.

B. What is the alternative to relevancy ?

[cthoman]

Interesting. I hadn't looked at IS's Best Match in a while. It seemed pretty awful. I did a search for "cartoon cat" because that has a lot of results. You would expect images that have a cartoon cat as the main subject. Honestly, I got better results in Google images doing this seacrh:

site:istockphoto.com cartoon cat

Shutterstock seemed to do better with the subject matter, but had too much of the same artist. Again, Google did a better job.

[ShadySue]

We all get different searches nowadays on iStock: my 'cartoon cat' wasn't too bad, though not perfect. Too many of a board game I couldn't find the cat on. As 'cartoon cat' isn't in the CV, (though a very few people have added it, which you can access by searching 'cartoon cat'), it separates into cartoon and cat, for the purpose of best match, not a best match for the phrase 'cartoon cat'. Searching by 'new' was definitely better, and cut out the vetta woman in a sort of blue catty hat/mask thing. I wikied it, obviously.

Yup, in this case, if very few others, Google Image search is definitely better; as is Shutterstock.

[cthoman]

I assume Google is just giving weight to the title, so images with the words cartoon cat in their title show up first. That seems like a pretty simple solution for some of these problems. I guess people could spam their titles too, but that is a little easier to catch.

[gbalex]

Relevancy and best match as searches are totally useless, means nothing. After years of keywording, spamming, etc and with gazillions of files floating around, some agencies still use these old search engines. The IS, best-match, I would have thought would serve as warning to just about everyone, yet, SS, have started to introduce this search, why?  even if its there as an option, buyers who dont really know how to search will ofcourse think this is the option to use, not knowing that all the lousy keywording, is there all wrapped up in one giant soup.
I didnt know this until lately but the actual alogarithm for all searches must be somehow be changed even if relevancy is only an option, just to fit this search-mechanism.
Relevancy is only relevant to the kind of keywording used and years and years of spamming is its foundation. No wonder it doesnt produce any results.

Why did are they manipulating all of the searches at our expense?  Because they plan on making more money by doing so.

The popular search result that helped make SS and some of us successful on SS is no more.  At best they have started to add non selling images to the first pages of the popular search and in time our best sellers will dwindle.

Another thing that most of us do not understand is that SS is most likely using cookies and third party analytic companies to serve different images to each party that visits the site.  Therefore if you use the search term cat, they know you have previously been looking at specific cartoon cats (even on other sites) they can serve you similar cartoon cat images.  And if they know you have been looking at sexy women in a Las Vegas cat house they will serve you sexy images of women.

If we really want to understand how the searches are working, we should try to understand just what SS meant while describing the requirements for a new search programmer. We should be asking our selves what the following terms that SS used in that job description actually mean to SS as well how they will affect the sales of our images now and in the future. (social graph and other factors, dynamic ranking algorithms, tracking search analytics)

I posted an old job listing for a SS search engine programmer earlier on this site a few months ago.  Now they are not going to publicly post sensitive search info in the job listing, but they do give us a few clues as to what the future holds as far as searches.

I know that various sites including SS change out third party cookies at different times of the year. Right now there are only a few cookies associated with third party data gathering services on many of the sites, but a few months ago the sites were using quite a few third party sites to track our activities as buyers.

http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs.mhtml?nl=1&jvi=o46KVfwz,Job&jvs=Indeed&jvk=Job
"Among other great benefits, Shutterstock offers competitive salaries, health and dental plans, 401k, company equity, daily breakfasts, weekly massages, discounted gym memberships"

http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs.mhtml?nl=1&jvi=oIjWVfwC,Job&jvs=Indeed&jvk=Job
"Job Posting for SS Search Engineer

We have a lot of challenging problems ahead of us, including:

    Helping customers find the images they�re looking for as fast as possible.
    Providing recommendations based on a customer�s searches, social graph, and other factors.
    Developing a framework to support rapid development of dynamic ranking algorithms.
    Creating a massively parallelized and real-time indexing process.
    Tracking search analytics and automatically acting on the results.

Our search engine is built on Perl and Solr.  Ideally you will have previous experience working with Solr and programming in Java. Being a JVM or Perl guru is an added bonus.  All candidates should have experience working on search engines and solving problems with large datasets."

[Lagereek]

Hang on a bit!  I didnt know "relevancy" was the default search?!  I thought "popular" still was default, at least thats what it looks like on my monitor. However that would explain the sudden dropp for large portfolios.
With this type of relevancy, well, Im not sure its even worth uploading higher-end files, perhaps wait until they change back to popular or something.

[Wim]

Alright, tried on my lappy where I'm not logged in, search was on popular but since cookies remember your search settings I cleaned history.
RELEVANT seems to be the default search now! not only that but it shows my port in the order I always had with popular.

[Lagereek]

Well, if thats the case, relevant as a default?  then its very poor times ahead indeed,  thats a fact.  I can remember, SS, saying, they were NOT going to change popular into relevancy?

[Lagereek]

Alright, tried on my lappy where I'm not logged in, search was on popular but since cookies remember your search settings I cleaned history.
RELEVANT seems to be the default search now! not only that but it shows my port in the order I always had with popular.

Just tried it, clearing the cookies and youre right! "relevancy" is the default. Oh well, thanks for the coffee, good while it lasted, give it another few months and its just a mess.

[OM]

Interestingly, if I go to SS where I'm a contributor via Google, it gives me 'relevance' as the default search. No stripping out of cookies or history involved.

If, however, I use Firefox private browsing and search via an anonymiser for Google search, I get into SS search with 'popular' as default. I assume this to mean that as a first timer at SS, I get the 'popular' default but as soon as I enter as a 'SS cookie-bearing' computer, I get directed to 'relevance' as default.

[Lagereek]

Interestingly, if I go to SS where I'm a contributor via Google, it gives me 'relevance' as the default search. No stripping out of cookies or history involved.

If, however, I use Firefox private browsing and search via an anonymiser for Google search, I get into SS search with 'popular' as default. I assume this to mean that as a first timer at SS, I get the 'popular' default but as soon as I enter as a 'SS cookie-bearing' computer, I get directed to 'relevance' as default.

Dont know really? some sort of experiment I guess?  all i know is, messing around with searches, is probably the most damaging an agency can do. We have seen solid proof of that quite a few times in the past.

Frankly, Im really surprised! there is a thread in the SS forum and everyone is proclaiming lousy earnings,  yet they keep this up? I could understand IS, when they changed their searches in favour of exclusives but SS, doesnt enforce exclusivity. Still they maintain this type of search? it has not effected me too much as yet but it will.
Relevancy, is in the hands of keywording, spamming, etc and is by most experienced buyers and contributors, regarded as the worst search of them all. For the first time in seven year, this goes beyond me, cant find any reason for this at all.

[OM]

Four scenarios:

I go to SS search using the normal Firefox browser direct via Google (by entering Shutterstock in the Google search)  and I get the default 'relevance' for whatever keyword I enter.

I go to SS search using the normal Firefox browser but via a Google anonymiser (StartpageHTTPS-AU)  and I get the default 'relevance' for whatever keyword I enter.

I go to SS search using Firefox private browsing direct via Google (by entering Shuuterstock in the Google search)  and I get the default 'relevance' for whatever keyword I enter.

Now I go to SS search again in Firefox private browsing but this time via a Google anonymiser (StartpageHTTPS-AU) and the search default is then 'popular'.

My conclusion would have to be that all previous users of Shutterstock automatically get 'relevant' as the default search whereas only first time users get 'popular'.

[sharpshot]

Now all we need is for 100 buyers to pop in here and tell us what their default is.  I'd also like to know why buyers never seem to change from the default search?  Is it really to much hassle to click on one link?
Whenever istock change the search, it seems to have an immediate drastic effect on my earnings.  I haven't seen the same thing happen with SS, why's that?

[gostwyck]

They might also be testing different things in specific locations possibly based on their data of users' preferences or alternatively to collect data.

I'd be much more concerned if SS weren't actively refining the users' experience based on the vast amount of data such a system must generate.

Whatever is happening does not appear to be affecting my sales, either negatively or positively, in any noticeable way.

[OM]

They might also be testing different things in specific locations possibly based on their data of users' preferences or alternatively to collect data.

I'd be much more concerned if SS weren't actively refining the users' experience based on the vast amount of data such a system must generate.

Whatever is happening does not appear to be affecting my sales, either negatively or positively, in any noticeable way.

Maybe I should add that the use of any anonymiser (StartpageHTTPS Au or UK or DuckDuckGo) used in combination with Firefox Private Browsing always gave 'popular' as the default search. Any search direct via Google gave 'relevant' as default. I'm too new and too small at SS to know whether it will make a difference.

[lisafx]

Whatever is happening does not appear to be affecting my sales, either negatively or positively, in any noticeable way.

Wish I could say the same.  This is on track to be WMY for me at SS.  Of course it's on track to be WMY for me everywhere...

[Lagereek]

Whatever is happening does not appear to be affecting my sales, either negatively or positively, in any noticeable way.

Wish I could say the same.  This is on track to be WMY for me at SS.  Of course it's on track to be WMY for me everywhere...

YES! same here, for being SS, its bad!  heck! there is a thread under "anything goes" in the SS forum, gotswyck! go read it, it clearly states the search have changed to "relevancy" and they are all complaining about bad sales, all of them.
Theres another search being experimented with, called "instant" now this one is in its beta format but looks great, fast and accurate, cant see why they dont use that one instead. I have done hundereds of searches using this "relevancy" and its terrible! it knocks you back down on the floor.
Relevancy, was the first search ever used in the old trad-agencies, when they computerized all trannies, etc. Stones, Getty, Image-bank, used it, it was in the beginning of the 90s at that time the only one. They all dropped it like a hot potatoe! why? becuase they realized all bad keywording, spamming, lay as the foundation of relevancy, it was impossible! So, at year, 2012, SS comes along and picks it up!  unbelieavable.

[sharpshot]

They could drop it next week.  I see no need to panic and jump in to istock exclusivity.  It would be a laugh if you did and they immediately switched it back to "popular"

[Lagereek]

They could drop it next week.  I see no need to panic and jump in to istock exclusivity.  It would be a laugh if you did and they immediately switched it back to "popular"

Well thats got nothing to do with jumping into exclusivity. Hell! search changes takes place every month in every singl agency. My reasons were totally differant.

[JPSDK]

If I had some power in this world I would make it illegal for the agencies to have secret search machines.
For both contributers and customers it is important to see how the good is delivered.

Like  in a shop, we can physically see the goods and if the goods are in the shop and not in the backroom, and also where they come from.
If I were a seller of packets of oatsmeal, I would not do trade with a shop that placed the packets "on sale" in a dark room in another building.

I would be able to see that, physically, and I want to know the search machines.

The agencies want profit, and I quarantee you, they do everything to not pay out money.
Search machines might actually be HIDING machines.

[Lagereek]

yes well the moronic thing is, they mess around with the one and only tool buyers have to find the pic, further more, whats the point is showing all generic and everyday stuff on first 3 pages in a search and thereby taking buyers for total idiots?

[JPSDK]

there is such a thing as information entropy.

If all information( pictures) are mixed chaotically they become meaningless, and  worthless moneywise.
I think the biggest treat to microstock are the search machines and the keyword spamming.

That is why a simple search, like newest first, or most popular, is better than all complicated and tweaked searches. Out of ten new pictures from the buyers search, one is likely to be relevant.
If you mix that up in second order searches its more like 10 times less everytime you put a digital intrepretation on things.
Most popular would probably be the most precise search, because it shows what other people found relevant.
witk h20 mill pictures and 50 times the amount of spammed keywords chaos is just around the corner.
I think a large stock agency can die within a month, if there is chaos enough.

[pancaketom]

relevant search is supposed to weight the keywords according to previous searches and purchases.

Imagine you search "orange" - leaving out the disambiguation. a most popular search might return a very popular image of a woman in an orange bikini but a relevant search should return an orange. If you spam a picture of something else with orange it shouldn't come up with a relevant search but if it sells a lot it would come up in a most popular type search.

Also for the images that are actually many many images - for example animal silhouette vectors. If you search on "elephant" they would come up on top of a popular search but probably not on top of a relevant search - or at least not as close to the top of the search.

Now as far as bringing up generic looking images or images that aren't yours - well, to some extent that is the luck of the draw. Hopefully over time great images will sift up to the top and crap to the bottom, but I have seen plenty of images that are poor representations of the activity portrayed at the top of searches to have much faith in that. I think buyers are at least partly to blame for this. Also timing and luck.

I do think the sites need to address the spam issue and they need to be draconian with those who are genuine serial spammers.

[OM]

Four scenarios:

I go to SS search using the normal Firefox browser direct via Google (by entering Shutterstock in the Google search)  and I get the default 'relevance' for whatever keyword I enter.

I go to SS search using the normal Firefox browser but via a Google anonymiser (StartpageHTTPS-AU)  and I get the default 'relevance' for whatever keyword I enter.

I go to SS search using Firefox private browsing direct via Google (by entering Shuuterstock in the Google search)  and I get the default 'relevance' for whatever keyword I enter.

Now I go to SS search again in Firefox private browsing but this time via a Google anonymiser (StartpageHTTPS-AU) and the search default is then 'popular'.

My conclusion would have to be that all previous users of Shutterstock automatically get 'relevant' as the default search whereas only first time users get 'popular'.

That was yesterday! Tonight (01.45 Amsterdam) when I go to Shutterstock (no private browsing and no goog anonymiser) I get popular as the default search! Anyone else care to have a go?

[lisafx]

That was yesterday! Tonight (01.45 Amsterdam) when I go to Shutterstock (no private browsing and no goog anonymiser) I get popular as the default search! Anyone else care to have a go?

Yep.  Me too.  Defaults to popular using Firefox 8:10pm EST.  Hopefully they learned what they needed to with their experiment and we can go back to stable searches and restored sales. 

[OM]

That was yesterday! Tonight (01.45 Amsterdam) when I go to Shutterstock (no private browsing and no goog anonymiser) I get popular as the default search! Anyone else care to have a go?

Yep.  Me too.  Defaults to popular using Firefox 8:10pm EST.  Hopefully they learned what they needed to with their experiment and we can go back to stable searches and restored sales. 

Thank goodness. I thought the missus might have put summat in me tea!

[Milinz]

They could drop it next week.  I see no need to panic and jump in to istock exclusivity.  It would be a laugh if you did and they immediately switched it back to "popular"

Well thats got nothing to do with jumping into exclusivity. Hell! search changes takes place every month in every singl agency. My reasons were totally differant.

You need to back off that cheap wiskey it's making your brain act funny exclusive thoughts are not normal.

[Lagereek]

They could drop it next week.  I see no need to panic and jump in to istock exclusivity.  It would be a laugh if you did and they immediately switched it back to "popular"

Well thats got nothing to do with jumping into exclusivity. Hell! search changes takes place every month in every singl agency. My reasons were totally differant.

You need to back off that cheap wiskey it's making your brain act funny exclusive thoughts are not normal.

Cheap whiskey!  jeez, Im on the Lagavulin right now, Ehhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[Lagereek]

That was yesterday! Tonight (01.45 Amsterdam) when I go to Shutterstock (no private browsing and no goog anonymiser) I get popular as the default search! Anyone else care to have a go?

Yep.  Me too.  Defaults to popular using Firefox 8:10pm EST.  Hopefully they learned what they needed to with their experiment and we can go back to stable searches and restored sales. 

Yeah thank *!  for that!  I was beginning to think nobody wanted my stuff anymore.

[ruxpriencdiam]

Doesn't matter because popular images are all still all wrong according to the way the "Old Popular" was.

[Mantis]

Doesn't matter because popular images are all still all wrong according to the way the "Old Popular" was.

Yea, if they did make a change it sure hasn't help things, for me at least. 

[Lagereek]

Doesn't matter because popular images are all still all wrong according to the way the "Old Popular" was.

Yea, if they did make a change it sure hasn't help things, for me at least. 

Its the old story, if you do a complete search change,  things will never get back to normal again,  once the mess is done, theres no returning back. Its a matter of just hoping for the best. Its exactly the same, identical pattern, IS, went through a few years back. Jeez, I bet they regret this one. Thought they would have learnt better after all these years.