MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock SEO Testing‏  (Read 19353 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: October 28, 2014, 18:20 »
0
istock: "Hello there,

As noted in our October Newsletter we are actively working towards educating our contributor base on Search Engine Optimization and their content. We are reaching out to a number of our contributors to request for their participation in our Search Engine Optimization testing. Our plan is to adjust the titles and descriptions of 19,000 images from a number of our contributors to meet the testing requirements. You are one of those contributors we were hoping to have participate in this testing.

You can view our article SEO | Help Customers Find Your Images if you would like some additional information on what Search Engine Optimization can do for your images.

The purpose of this test is to understand what the ROI is for updating and optimizing asset titles and descriptions and to understand how description length plays a role in how ADPs (Asset Detail Pages) are ranked in search engines. The 19K assets were selected based on iStocks site analytics data based on visits coming from search, along with customer download behavior. Assuming this test provides the lift we are expecting, it will give us great information to help convince contributors that there is value in having them optimize their incoming / existing asset submissions. Our expectation is that the test will yield a more positive customer experience and increase their purchasing of your assets.

If you are happy to participate you dont need to respond to this email. We will just keep you on our testing list.

If you would like to request a full list of the images and/or videos from your portfolio we will be testing with please use this IMAGE LIST link. We will then send you a breakdown of the files we will be using for the test. Please understand we wont be able to remove specific images nor add any additional images. We will need you to contact us before November 4, 2014.

If you choose not to participate please respond to this email please use this OPT OUT link and we will immediately remove you from our test list.
We will need you to contact us before November 4, 2014. 

We would greatly appreciate your participation."


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2014, 19:01 »
0
It's interesting how they're focussing on description instead of insisting that keywords be accurate.

« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2014, 19:55 »
0
I got one too.  I don't mind being part of the test as long as they don't expect me to do anything.  I won't be manually changing my descriptions tho, and if they want that they are S0L

« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2014, 20:14 »
+4
"Our expectation is that the test will yield a more positive customer experience and increase their purchasing of your assets."

Buyers don't care about the titles and descriptions.  They don't even care about keywords anymore than they allow them to find what they are looking for.  Automating some change on 19,000 images to the titles and descriptions isn't going to make buyers happier.

« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2014, 20:28 »
+6
I got one too.  I don't mind being part of the test as long as they don't expect me to do anything.  I won't be manually changing my descriptions tho, and if they want that they are S0L

I know it will sound a bit Eeyore (doom and gloom), but suppose whatever changes they make were a mess (sales stop completely for those images)? I'm sure you're supposed to change things back if you don't like it. Depending upon how many images you'd have to edit to fix what they did, you might want to ask for a promise that if they break it they fix it :)

« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2014, 20:54 »
+1
Great that they are taking steps to help educate contributors on SEO. Personally, I feel a proper SEO test should involve a bit more than a single title and short description tweak. Those 2 actions alone won't make much of a weight change in the Google algorithm .. unless they plan on moving to 500-800 word image descriptions.  :P .. Nonetheless, education is always good.

@ShadySue - Yeah, I'm thinking that focusing on good keyword practices would be a higher priority. That would make buyers very happy.

« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2014, 22:26 »
+1
The thing is, if it works they expect YOU to go change all your image titles and descriptions to whatever the criteria is.

« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2014, 22:39 »
0
I got one too.  I don't mind being part of the test as long as they don't expect me to do anything.  I won't be manually changing my descriptions tho, and if they want that they are S0L

I know it will sound a bit Eeyore (doom and gloom), but suppose whatever changes they make were a mess (sales stop completely for those images)? I'm sure you're supposed to change things back if you don't like it. Depending upon how many images you'd have to edit to fix what they did, you might want to ask for a promise that if they break it they fix it :)

Good point.  Sales are so bad there ATM I'm not sure it much matters.

Mark Windom Photography

« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2014, 23:41 »
+4
Unless I misunderstand their email it sounds like iStock is asking certain contributors to help them (iStock) better understand how SEO works.....shouldn't they already know that?

« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2014, 03:57 »
+1
"Our expectation is that the test will yield a more positive customer experience and increase their purchasing of your assets."

Buyers don't care about the titles and descriptions.  They don't even care about keywords anymore than they allow them to find what they are looking for.  Automating some change on 19,000 images to the titles and descriptions isn't going to make buyers happier.

Missing the point, Sean - if the search throws up better results the customers will be happier. If it just promotes irrelevant files, they won't.

« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2014, 04:47 »
0
But titles and descriptions aren't part of the search, so messing with those won't directly affect buyer happiness while using the site.

« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2014, 05:27 »
+6
But titles and descriptions aren't part of the search, so messing with those won't directly affect buyer happiness while using the site.

I think you may be missing the point Sean. They're not talking about the internal Istock search but about the external search on Google (or other search engines). Google does use the image title and description to determine what the image may be of.

I know I was guilty in the early days of using puns or other light-hearted plays on words in my image titles but I now know that it's a bad thing to do! For example I once titled an image of UK Sterling banknotes as "Notes from a small island" ... obviously a reference to Bill Bryson's excellent book. It amused me at the time but I now realise that it wouldn't help my image be identified in a Google image search.

If you notice SS, IS and DT add the words "Stock Image" either before or after the image's title. I think they only started doing that a couple of years ago to promote the image in Google image searches.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2014, 05:28 »
+2
But titles and descriptions aren't part of the search, so messing with those won't directly affect buyer happiness while using the site.

They're part of Google search. Which of these would you rather see in the Google search results? Which would show up higher in Google search results for someone looking for Jumping Goldfish? Which would drive more relevant traffic?

Image #216
Goldfish

Goldfish Jumping Between Fishbowls on White - Stock Photo
Stock photo of a goldfish jumping between two round fishbowls isolated on a white background.

« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2014, 05:45 »
+3
No, I understand they're trying to figure out how to game the Google.  I was specifically speaking to: "Our expectation is that the test will yield a more positive customer experience and increase their purchasing of your assets."

It won't have anything to do with yielding a "more positive customer experience".

Besides, are we talking web search or image search on Google?

« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2014, 05:47 »
+1
"Our expectation is that the test will yield a more positive customer experience and increase their purchasing of your assets."

Got that email too. I wish that they focused on promoting a more positive seller experience. I would be so happy if I could upload to iStock the way I do to every other agency. I don't remember the last time I uploaded to them just because of the pain it is to put the files online. :(

« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2014, 05:58 »
0
No, I understand they're trying to figure out how to game the Google.  I was specifically speaking to: "Our expectation is that the test will yield a more positive customer experience and increase their purchasing of your assets."

It won't have anything to do with yielding a "more positive customer experience".

Besides, are we talking web search or image search on Google?

You'll have to ask Lobo what he meant by the statement. He signed it off in his name as 'Contributor Communications Manager'.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2014, 06:03 »
+1
No, I understand they're trying to figure out how to game the Google.  I was specifically speaking to: "Our expectation is that the test will yield a more positive customer experience and increase their purchasing of your assets."

It won't have anything to do with yielding a "more positive customer experience".

Besides, are we talking web search or image search on Google?

I'd guess it's both to give users a more consistent experience across all search options.

If I search Google or IS for "Fruit on White" and most contributors are keyword stuffing titles, descriptions and keywords with "fruit" when the picture is a plate of meat on a brown table I'm going to start looking somewhere else.

« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2014, 06:16 »
0
If I search Google or IS for "Fruit on White" and most contributors are keyword stuffing titles, descriptions and keywords with "fruit" when the picture is a plate of meat on a brown table I'm going to start looking somewhere else.

Well, that's two different things.

This wouldn't address spamming meat pictures with fruit when actually on IS.

A person looking at pictures on Google won't start looking somewhere else, because they weren't looking at IS specifically to start with.  And if the image is spammed with irrelevant terms, putting those in the title and description certainly won't help.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2014, 06:57 »
0
I'm not part of this experiment, and if they'd be inserting stupid descriptions like their example of the boy and dog, I'm very glad.

Ha, back in the day, I was told NOT to write things like "X is a migratory species which winters in Southern Africa and summers in western Europe" in my description, though IIRC that wasn't admin advice but that of those already well established in stock, and no admin contradicted the advice.

Besides, win on Google today, lose tomorrow when they change again.

« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2014, 07:48 »
+2
My comments at iStock.......

I got the letter as well.

So I was thinking that iStock already knows what keywords were used to buy any image. The keywords we see on the image page are to be sorted by this sales data. Why manual edit a lot of file names? iStock should just append the top 3 or 5 selling keywords to the SEO file name. With a special character or something this could be a running demon that updates the SEO file names as the keyword order changes and could be done on the whole site, not just the files where people get excited enough to do the manual labor. Yes?

« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2014, 07:58 »
+2
I got the letter too and am happy to go along with the proposal.  Maybe it will help to get sales moving.  :)

As we all know SEO can have pretty significant impact on search response function.  And, limited as I am with my own direct knowledge on this topic, would be happy if someone who knows more would test out alternative wording.  If it works thats great! If it doesn't, well, I honestly feel I wouldn't be losing too much.

« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2014, 08:04 »
+3
I got the email and I requested to see what images they want to use. In any event, I am in support of them trying something new but in all honesty it "seems" like they are continually trying to figure out why their system isn't working and this appears to maybe be grasping at straws.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2014, 08:25 »
0
My comments at iStock.......

I got the letter as well.

So I was thinking that iStock already knows what keywords were used to buy any image. The keywords we see on the image page are to be sorted by this sales data. Why manual edit a lot of file names? iStock should just append the top 3 or 5 selling keywords to the SEO file name. With a special character or something this could be a running demon that updates the SEO file names as the keyword order changes and could be done on the whole site, not just the files where people get excited enough to do the manual labor. Yes?

The trouble with this system is that you can be stymied by 'odd' search successes (i.e. bought on lesser, though still relevant keywords) at the beginning, so your file can be lost on its 'main' keywords.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2014, 08:29 »
+1
I got the email and I requested to see what images they want to use. In any event, I am in support of them trying something new but in all honesty it "seems" like they are continually trying to figure out why their system isn't working and this appears to maybe be grasping at straws.
I'm pretty sure that's true. Or 'they' aren't listening to the people who know.
In any case, almost every time they have been excited to announce something new, dls and $$s are reported by most people as going down.
(I know it's not a scientific sample of people who self-report, and I know they only care about their bottom line and not how individuals are faring. Still, with all the pasta they're throwing at the wall, it suggests their bottom line is falling too.)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2014, 09:07 »
0
I'm not part of this experiment, and if they'd be inserting stupid descriptions like their example of the boy and dog, I'm very glad.
Though clearly, WDIK?
'according to Lobo' "Please review the SEO article to get a better idea of what we are planning to do. The examples in there are terrific."
 ::)

« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2014, 09:18 »
0
A Google search for "an adorable little boy and dog in the sand" shows the iStock image turning up 3rd in the images listed.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 09:22 by rimglow »

shudderstok

« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2014, 09:29 »
+8
But titles and descriptions aren't part of the search, so messing with those won't directly affect buyer happiness while using the site.

I beg to differ. Titles and descriptions have always been key in finding an image. It's known as the IPTC. Been in use since the 70's and vital to finding images everywhere. Just sayin.

That said, I think IS has a lot more than SEO problems. GI needs to understand they can't keep screwing everyone over, both buyers and contributors for the sole benefit of themselves.

Also it seems a silly thing to do by Lobo to send out an article on SEO in a matter of fact manner, then a few days or week later send out emails to the select few and ask them if they can use their images to test if this is true and works. - That is kinda dumb and also shows how messed up the company is.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2014, 09:32 »
0

I'm not part of this experiment, and if they'd be inserting stupid descriptions like their example of the boy and dog, I'm very glad.

A Google search for "an adorable little boy and dog in the sand" shows the iStock image turning up 3rd in the images listed.
Maybe so. I wonder how many buyers would search on that string?
And we don't know where it was on Google Search before, if you searched for its previous title or description.

One of my files shows top on Google under "Young adult male African Elephant wading in the Chobe River" which is the first sentence of its description, but similarly, I doubt if (m)any buyer(s) would search Google with that search looking for a stock image to licence.

In Google Image Search, I have files at #3, #5, #11 and #12 for "Iceberg in Trinity Bay, Newfoundland"

All it proves is that the title and description should be relevant. It doesn't prove that their stupid story about the 'adorable' boy building a sandcastle and the dog knocking it down has done anything to improve its position.

Added: doesn't Google take into account your previous searches when serving you up results? So what I get and what someone else gets could be very different.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 09:35 by ShadySue »

« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2014, 09:38 »
0
All it proves is that the title and description should be relevant. It doesn't prove that their stupid story about the 'adorable' boy building a sandcastle and the dog knocking it down has done anything to improve its position.
You sound very angry about this, maybe you should just leave your titles and descriptions alone.  I don't see how trying to get a better search position in Google is in any way harming you? 
BTW there is another image in the series showing the boy building a sandcastle with the dog so it's not so ridiculous if you look at it in context.

« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2014, 09:39 »
+4
I had also googled "an adorable little boy and dog in the sand". No results on main page. The image was in the first line in "pictures", though. However, it was not the istock one. It was the repost of the image, leading me to page 1 of this very discussion!  :D


« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2014, 09:41 »
+1
In Google Image Search, I have files at #3, #5, #11 and #12 for "Iceberg in Trinity Bay, Newfoundland"

All it proves is that the title and description should be relevant. It doesn't prove that their stupid story about the 'adorable' boy building a sandcastle and the dog knocking it down has done anything to improve its position.

Added: doesn't Google take into account your previous searches when serving you up results? So what I get and what someone else gets could be very different.

5, 11, 13, 28 are the positions I see for that image search - and I've never done it before - FWIW.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2014, 09:43 »
0
In Google Image Search, I have files at #3, #5, #11 and #12 for "Iceberg in Trinity Bay, Newfoundland"

All it proves is that the title and description should be relevant. It doesn't prove that their stupid story about the 'adorable' boy building a sandcastle and the dog knocking it down has done anything to improve its position.

Added: doesn't Google take into account your previous searches when serving you up results? So what I get and what someone else gets could be very different.

5, 11, 13, 28 are the positions I see for that image search - and I've never done it before - FWIW.
I've never searched Google for these images or with that string before either so that's interesting.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 09:55 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2014, 09:50 »
-2
All it proves is that the title and description should be relevant. It doesn't prove that their stupid story about the 'adorable' boy building a sandcastle and the dog knocking it down has done anything to improve its position.
You sound very angry about this, maybe you should just leave your titles and descriptions alone.  I don't see how trying to get a better search position in Google is in any way harming you? 
BTW there is another image in the series showing the boy building a sandcastle with the dog so it's not so ridiculous if you look at it in context.
Stop getting personal. And don't attribute emotions that you know nothing about. Thank you.

I just wish they would focus on what's important, especially keyword spamming.

The fact that another image shows the sandcastle thing better is totally irrelevant to that particular image.

I was just questioning whether their recent change to the description has done anything to improve that file's position, as I have no idea what the previous description was or how highly it previously ranked on Google.

Also it's unproven by how much improving Google SEO would actually lead to better sales. Maybe we should monitor that file to find out. Improving its SEO might not do harm, unless more people would find images and steal them (removing watermarks or not, as lots of us have examples of usages of watermarked files).
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 10:00 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2014, 09:54 »
+1
I had also googled "an adorable little boy and dog in the sand". No results on main page. The image was in the first line in "pictures", though. However, it was not the istock one. It was the repost of the image, leading me to page 1 of this very discussion!  :D

Yes, that's exactly what I found.
Clicking on the photo in Google images brought me to this thread, NOT to the iStock page where one could purchase the image.

I've noticed before that msg has very good SEO.

If iS believes that good Google SEO would help sales, they should study FAA, which whatever negative one might have against them, at least has excellent SEO.

« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2014, 09:56 »
-1
I just wish they would focus on what's important, especially keyword spamming.

The fact that another image shows the sandcastle thing better is totally irrelevant to that particular image.
The image is part of a series.  One image shows the dog and boy building the sandcastle another shows it being destroyed. 

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2014, 10:00 »
+1
I don't know whether this approach will help or not. But it seems to be an iStock problem rather than a title/description problem. When I search "boy dog beach" I get some DT and Getty images up pretty high in the results, but I gave up looking for iStock results.

The question is, who's going to use a different title/description for iStock uploads vs. uploads everywhere else? It just adds another layer of * complexity to their already complex * upload process. I guess it might help exclusives, if it works.

My Symbiostock images usually appear fairly high in google search, alone with my Shutterstock images. But I use the same title/description/keywords everywhere.

("t i m e - s u c k i n g" is a no-no? Weird.)
I guess we'll see.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #36 on: October 29, 2014, 10:06 »
+1
I just wish they would focus on what's important, especially keyword spamming.

The fact that another image shows the sandcastle thing better is totally irrelevant to that particular image.
The image is part of a series.  One image shows the dog and boy building the sandcastle another shows it being destroyed.
The description on the better image is also relevant to the image "Adorable little boy and dog build a sandcastle together and place a feather for the finishing touch - on the coast of Oregon." (I accept that 'adorable' is an American usage, although it grates on me.)
Surely it would make more sense to have the description indicating it was part of a series, and for the links to show thums of the alternate image, rather than just words indicating a 'similar' image, which could mean anything, not necessarily that it was part of a series.
I also question the value of putting 'Oregon' on such a generic image. Someone looking for Oregon wants to see evidence of something recogniseable; and it might put off someone wanting to use a generic beach (or might not, but why take the risk?).
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 07:55 by ShadySue »

Lightrecorder

« Reply #37 on: October 29, 2014, 10:10 »
0
LMAO ! If I search for an adorable little boy and dog in the sand I get this as first hit http://www.shutterstock.com/s/beach+cute+dog+little/search.html

That is just too funny. Well done IS... hahahaha


« Reply #38 on: October 29, 2014, 10:15 »
0
LMAO ! If I search for an adorable little boy and dog in the sand I get this as first hit http://www.shutterstock.com/s/beach+cute+dog+little/search.html

That is just too funny. Well done IS... hahahaha

Not me the first stock image result (3rd overall) is the one from istock.  I'm not sure what your link is supposed to show, it's a Shutterstock search using different keywords and the first image is of a little girl with a dog.

Lightrecorder

« Reply #39 on: October 29, 2014, 10:19 »
0
I don't know whether this approach will help or not. But it seems to be an iStock problem rather than a title/description problem. When I search "boy dog beach" I get some DT and Getty images up pretty high in the results, but I gave up looking for iStock results.

The question is, who's going to use a different title/description for iStock uploads vs. uploads everywhere else? It just adds another layer of * complexity to their already complex * upload process. I guess it might help exclusives, if it works.

My Symbiostock images usually appear fairly high in google search, alone with my Shutterstock images. But I use the same title/description/keywords everywhere.

("t i m e - s u c k i n g" is a no-no? Weird.)
I guess we'll see.


I have a feeling Lobo read this thread http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/new-site-stocktal/ and figured he would tell the bosses to give it a shot, since they have no clue anyway, they went with it. LOL

Everyone creaming over SEO lately, tomorrow its all different again when Google changes their algorithm.

Worst part is, what if all agencies start to demand differentiating titles and descriptions....  brrrrrrr

Lightrecorder

« Reply #40 on: October 29, 2014, 10:20 »
0
LMAO ! If I search for an adorable little boy and dog in the sand I get this as first hit http://www.shutterstock.com/s/beach+cute+dog+little/search.html

That is just too funny. Well done IS... hahahaha

Not me the first stock image result (3rd overall) is the one from istock.  I'm not sure what your link is supposed to show, it's a Shutterstock search using different keywords and the first image is of a little girl with a dog.
You are a bit slow, no? When I search for an Istock image title on Google, the first hit is a link to Shutterstock. Irony. Get it?

« Reply #41 on: October 29, 2014, 10:23 »
0
This just shows how much thinking went into selection of examples for that article... If only the author would pick a unique image, not part of the series! Or the other one - with the feather....  Than I would simply read the article through and bin it without second thought. Humbly submitting my work for re-editing - I am not a native speaker after all.

IMHO the testers shot themselves in the leg allowing that slip. Twice - with Lobo deciding to defend the bad example.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 10:25 by Anchan »

« Reply #42 on: October 29, 2014, 10:43 »
0
LMAO ! If I search for an adorable little boy and dog in the sand I get this as first hit http://www.shutterstock.com/s/beach+cute+dog+little/search.html

That is just too funny. Well done IS... hahahaha

Not me the first stock image result (3rd overall) is the one from istock.  I'm not sure what your link is supposed to show, it's a Shutterstock search using different keywords and the first image is of a little girl with a dog.
You are a bit slow, no? When I search for an Istock image title on Google, the first hit is a link to Shutterstock. Irony. Get it?

I guess it might be ironic if that were the case, I like others see the istock image first though and your link shows a search on Shutterstock not Google for different keywords than the one you said you searched for.  I must be slow because I don't get why you would show a different search result on Shutterstock to illustrate what a search on Google is.  I wouldn't expect to see an exclusive iStock image show up first on a search at Shutterstock.

« Reply #43 on: October 29, 2014, 10:47 »
+3
just put...
"free stock photos" in front of your description and you will own Google

« Reply #44 on: October 29, 2014, 11:11 »
+5
It's interesting that Istock is going after organic customers now. I thought one of the major arguments against self hosting was that serious customers went directly to the agencies and wouldn't bother with the search engines. If google truly is a viable source for customers and you need to redo all of your descriptions anyway, why not do this on your own site, price the images the same price as istock and keep the other 85%? I don't understand why anyone would go to all of this effort for only 15-20%. Especially when super specific search terms like they are describing are as likely to be found on your own site as they are istock, shutterstock or any other agency.

« Reply #45 on: October 29, 2014, 11:15 »
0
It's interesting that Istock is going after organic customers now. I thought one of the major arguments against self hosting was that serious customers went directly to the agencies and wouldn't bother with the search engines. If google truly is a viable source for customers and you need to redo all of your descriptions anyway, why not do this on your own site, price the images the same price as istock and keep the other 85%? I don't understand why anyone would go to all of this effort for only 15-20%. Especially when super specific search terms like they are describing are as likely to be found on your own site as they are istock, shutterstock or any other agency.
I think the idea is to bring more eyes to the site not necessarily just for people looking for stock photos.  Some people may never have thought about buying stock before but if the Google results bring them there they might be turned into buyers.  Getting more people looking at the site through SEO is like free advertising.

Lightrecorder

« Reply #46 on: October 29, 2014, 11:19 »
0
It's interesting that Istock is going after organic customers now. I thought one of the major arguments against self hosting was that serious customers went directly to the agencies and wouldn't bother with the search engines. If google truly is a viable source for customers and you need to redo all of your descriptions anyway, why not do this on your own site, price the images the same price as istock and keep the other 85%? I don't understand why anyone would go to all of this effort for only 15-20%. Especially when super specific search terms like they are describing are as likely to be found on your own site as they are istock, shutterstock or any other agency.
For me 2200+ x 80 words = 160,000 words. Ouch

« Reply #47 on: October 29, 2014, 11:21 »
+1
I totally get why Istock wants to do this. I don't understand why a contributor would do all of this work for them when the results are just as likely to drive customers to the contributors personal website or even another agency that pays a higher percentage.

Lightrecorder - It is a ton of work but why do it for 15%? If you are going to do it at least you should make a higher percentage.

« Reply #48 on: October 29, 2014, 11:22 »
0
I totally get why Istock wants to do this. I don't understand why a contributor would do all of this work for them when the results are just as likely to drive customers to the contributors personal website or even another agency that pays a higher percentage.

Lightrecorder - It is a ton of work but why do it for 15%? If you are going to do it at least you should make a higher percentage.
If you are selling the same work on your personal site and on the stock sites you are already competing against yourself.  I guess people that are already doing it have determined that they are are ok with it.

« Reply #49 on: October 29, 2014, 11:26 »
0
I totally get why Istock wants to do this. I don't understand why a contributor would do all of this work for them when the results are just as likely to drive customers to the contributors personal website or even another agency that pays a higher percentage.

Lightrecorder - It is a ton of work but why do it for 15%? If you are going to do it at least you should make a higher percentage.
If you are selling the same work on your personal site and on the stock sites you are already competing against yourself.  I guess people that are already doing it have determined that they are are ok with it.

Not if your SEO is better (and isn't that what is being discussed here?), also not if you upload to your own site first or are particular about which images go to which agencies.

« Reply #50 on: October 29, 2014, 11:35 »
0
I totally get why Istock wants to do this. I don't understand why a contributor would do all of this work for them when the results are just as likely to drive customers to the contributors personal website or even another agency that pays a higher percentage.

Lightrecorder - It is a ton of work but why do it for 15%? If you are going to do it at least you should make a higher percentage.
If you are selling the same work on your personal site and on the stock sites you are already competing against yourself.  I guess people that are already doing it have determined that they are are ok with it.

Not if your SEO is better (and isn't that what is being discussed here?), also not if you upload to your own site first or are particular about which images go to which agencies.
I think the big agencies have better SEO than most personal sites don't they?  If you have different images on the sites wouldn't you still want to optimize both sets of images?  If you decide to upload the same images to the stock sites and your personal site you have already decided that competing against your personal site is best so I doubt that deciding to have lower sales on the stock sites (assuming better SEO will increase sales) is a good decision.

« Reply #51 on: October 29, 2014, 11:40 »
0
Yeah but that is not what we are discussing. Personal sites are as likely to have just as good or better SEO for very specific search terms like they are requesting. The issue is $18-$19 on a $20 on-demand sale versus $3. Istock has to outsell you by 6 times on this specific and unique search to justify the effort.

I agree that the agencies are going to win on "isolated apple stock image" but not necessarily on "dog digging in sand on beach".

« Reply #52 on: October 29, 2014, 11:43 »
-3
Yeah but that is not what we are discussing. Personal sites are as likely to have just as good or better SEO for very specific search terms like they are requesting. The issue is $18-$19 on a $20 on-demand sale versus $3. Istock has to outsell you by 6 times on this specific and unique search to justify the effort.

I agree that the agencies are going to win on "isolated apple stock image" but not necessarily on "dog digging in sand on beach".
Wouldn't the best thing be to not sell the same images on both iStock and your personal site then?  Rather than spending time uploading to iStock only to limit sales potential by not getting the best SEO.  It doesn't seem like a good plan to spend time and effort if you are going to intentionally limit your sales at the site.  If giving a little SEO boost to your site compared to the stock sites is good for business wouldn't giving all of the better SEO to your site be even better?

« Reply #53 on: October 29, 2014, 11:43 »
0
It's interesting that Istock is going after organic customers now.

Really? Organic customers? Istock actually want customers that haven't been sprayed with synthetic pesticides or chemical fertilisers?

I never knew that.

« Reply #54 on: October 29, 2014, 11:47 »
0
Yeah but that is not what we are discussing. Personal sites are as likely to have just as good or better SEO for very specific search terms like they are requesting. The issue is $18-$19 on a $20 on-demand sale versus $3. Istock has to outsell you by 6 times on this specific and unique search to justify the effort.

I agree that the agencies are going to win on "isolated apple stock image" but not necessarily on "dog digging in sand on beach".
Wouldn't the best thing be to not sell the same images on both iStock and your personal site then?  Rather than spending time uploading to iStock only to limit sales potential by not getting the best SEO.  It doesn't seem like a good plan to spend time and effort if you are going to intentionally limit your sales at the site.  If giving a little SEO boost to your site compared to the stock sites is good for business wouldn't giving all of the better SEO to your site be even better?
Yes, but now you are preaching to the choir. And this is what I have been saying for over a year now. Obviously the exceptions would be images that are generic enough that you can't win the SEO battle. But again this isn't what Istock is trying to do with this initiative.

« Reply #55 on: October 29, 2014, 11:50 »
+1
According to Alexa, 22% of customers comes to Shutterstock directly from Google
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/shutterstock.com

How about Istock than? The same 22%
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/shutterstock.com

I wonder whether this shows that in general people google a lot? Or that designers do know how to google for istock content?

KB

« Reply #56 on: October 29, 2014, 12:59 »
+4
It's interesting that Istock is going after organic customers now. I thought one of the major arguments against self hosting was that serious customers went directly to the agencies and wouldn't bother with the search engines. If google truly is a viable source for customers and you need to redo all of your descriptions anyway, why not do this on your own site, price the images the same price as istock and keep the other 85%? I don't understand why anyone would go to all of this effort for only 15-20%. Especially when super specific search terms like they are describing are as likely to be found on your own site as they are istock, shutterstock or any other agency.
I think the idea is to bring more eyes to the site not necessarily just for people looking for stock photos.  Some people may never have thought about buying stock before but if the Google results bring them there they might be turned into buyers.  Getting more people looking at the site through SEO is like free advertising.
Is this an effort to try to make up for all those blog buyers who left when they stopped selling XS sizes? Or all those blog buyers who left when they stopped selling any size, other than the maximum?

Either way, I wonder how long it would be before the new buyers discovered there are other sites around that sell smaller sizes, at cheaper prices?

« Reply #57 on: October 29, 2014, 13:01 »
+4
According to Alexa, 22% of customers comes to Shutterstock directly from Google

The Alexa data relating to iStock, Shutterstock etc is estimated rather than measured according to Alexa. My understanding is that this means it is extrapolated from the data collected from users who have the Alexa toolbar installed. IMO this raises 3 key issues:

1. I have never met anyone who has the Alexa toolbar installed. I am not convinced that a typical sample group of stock buyers have the Alexa toolbar installed.
2. The last time I Googled it various of the main anti malware security vendors had the Alexa toolbar blacklisted for blocking or marked as malware.
3. The toolbar is not even available for Safari which is the default browser on Macs. As we know, many stock buyers are Mac users.

For these reasons I doubt the value of Alexa anything with respect to stock.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #58 on: October 29, 2014, 13:14 »
+2
I think the big agencies have better SEO than most personal sites don't they? 
For at least five of my seven years on iS, images on my personal, non-commercial site ranked higher on Google than similar images on iS, even though for all of that time my website was effectively moribund. I think that has reversed, no doubt precisely because my personal site is still moribund. Though I just checked one of my test searches, and neither I nor iS are in the top couple of hundred for that search.

« Reply #59 on: October 29, 2014, 13:23 »
+2
I got the email that I have been added to the SEO testing list and I just sent an opt-out. I usually pay a lot of attention to my titles and descriptions and I don't want anyone else meddling with them. Somehow I don't feel that I would benefit from this at all.

« Reply #60 on: October 29, 2014, 16:10 »
0
bunhill, thank you very much!

« Reply #61 on: October 29, 2014, 20:24 »
+2
I totally get why Istock wants to do this. I don't understand why a contributor would do all of this work for them when the results are just as likely to drive customers to the contributors personal website or even another agency that pays a higher percentage.

Lightrecorder - It is a ton of work but why do it for 15%? If you are going to do it at least you should make a higher percentage.

From Istock's letter, it doesn't sound like they are asking contributors to recaption their own images.  If they do I won't be doing that.  Not for the % they pay me.  I'd rather people buy some place that pays better anyhow.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #62 on: October 29, 2014, 20:33 »
+1
I totally get why Istock wants to do this. I don't understand why a contributor would do all of this work for them when the results are just as likely to drive customers to the contributors personal website or even another agency that pays a higher percentage.

Lightrecorder - It is a ton of work but why do it for 15%? If you are going to do it at least you should make a higher percentage.

From Istock's letter, it doesn't sound like they are asking contributors to recaption their own images.  If they do I won't be doing that.  Not for the % they pay me.  I'd rather people buy some place that pays better anyhow.
At this stage, they're only doing a couple of files from each contributor they've contacted (if they agree). I wonder how long would be reasonable to see increased sales on the particular files, for contributors to know whether it would be worth rolling it out themselves.

B8

« Reply #63 on: October 30, 2014, 01:57 »
+12
Bottom line, this tells you that things are really breaking down and they don't have enough direct image buyer traffic when they are trying to turn people searching for free images on Google into photo buyers when they are not. If they think Google Image search is going to drive worthwhile buyer sales to the site then they seem to be grasping at straws.

People often use Google Images to locate stuff in lo-res that they can perhaps use on a blog for free. If they are a real stock photo buyer they normally go directly to a stock photo site and not to Google Images.

Even if they do click through from an iStock image in Google Images to the iStock site, they are bound to click off when they realize what it will cost them for a low-res image on iStock. 

It all seems like an exercise in desperate futility as with almost all of their changes ever since they pressed the self destruct button the first time in September 2012.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 02:04 by B8 »

KB

« Reply #64 on: October 30, 2014, 09:56 »
+13
It all seems like an exercise in desperate futility as with almost all of their changes ever since they pressed the self destruct button the first time in September 2012.
+1

Except I think the first press of that self-destruct button was in September 2010, when they created the RC system, reneging on the "Grandfathering" contract many signed, and creating ill-will among many exclusives and indies alike. When the History of iStock's Rise and Fall is written, I believe that will mark the beginning of the end.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #65 on: October 30, 2014, 14:21 »
+5
Agree with both below. Was it 2010 when they created RC, my how time flies when we're having fun. When did the dumb A$$ Thinkstock go live? Wasn't that 2010 also? For me that was the beginning of the end. (and putting Stockxpert in a choke hold and eventually to sleep)

Or maybe 2005? "In Getty Images, we have found our perfect partner. On February 9, in the early hours of the morning, iStockphoto agreed to join the Getty Images family, functioning independently with the benefits of Getty Images, yet, very importantly for them and us, autonomy. They will nurture and encourage our pioneering spirit so that our entrepreneurial culture will continue to thrive. "   ;D

Autonomy, independently, anyone care to laugh at that pitch?



It all seems like an exercise in desperate futility as with almost all of their changes ever since they pressed the self destruct button the first time in September 2012.
+1

Except I think the first press of that self-destruct button was in September 2010, when they created the RC system, reneging on the "Grandfathering" contract many signed, and creating ill-will among many exclusives and indies alike. When the History of iStock's Rise and Fall is written, I believe that will mark the beginning of the end.

« Reply #66 on: October 30, 2014, 14:40 »
+6
Agree with both below. Was it 2010 when they created RC, my how time flies when we're having fun. When did the dumb A$$ Thinkstock go live? Wasn't that 2010 also? For me that was the beginning of the end. (and putting Stockxpert in a choke hold and eventually to sleep)

Or maybe 2005? "In Getty Images, we have found our perfect partner. On February 9, in the early hours of the morning, iStockphoto agreed to join the Getty Images family, functioning independently with the benefits of Getty Images, yet, very importantly for them and us, autonomy. They will nurture and encourage our pioneering spirit so that our entrepreneurial culture will continue to thrive. "   ;D

Autonomy, independently, anyone care to laugh at that pitch?



It all seems like an exercise in desperate futility as with almost all of their changes ever since they pressed the self destruct button the first time in September 2012.
+1

Except I think the first press of that self-destruct button was in September 2010, when they created the RC system, reneging on the "Grandfathering" contract many signed, and creating ill-will among many exclusives and indies alike. When the History of iStock's Rise and Fall is written, I believe that will mark the beginning of the end.

I think you'd have to say it was the introduction of the RC system in Sept 2010. Before then, irrespective of all the price hikes and many mistakes, Istock had still been growing ... strongly.

The RC targets were designed to moved upwards every year (as we all made more money) however the growth came to an abrupt halt at that exact point. So much so that they had to leave the 2011 'targets' fixed for 2012 too. Of course the targets should have been reduced ... but they were never going to admit publicly to the loss of sales.

« Reply #67 on: October 31, 2014, 07:10 »
+3
I'm in for the testing. I know precious little about SEO  - except whenever I update my social media links I get pestered by twits with sun tans and far too many teeth flogging their guaranteed SEO strategies.

I do hope this isn't all IS have got in the current customer acquisition arsenal. It strikes me as hopeful at best - the marketing equivalent of putting out a mince pie and a noggin of brandy for Santa in the hope he actually exists*

* apologies to any readers who thought otherwise
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 07:46 by Red Dove »

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #68 on: October 31, 2014, 08:19 »
-1
I don't particularly want my IS images to have good SEO because they skim too much of the take. In fact I stagger my uploads to disadvantage sites that pay worse in search results (working great especially with FL that reviews almost instantly and so gets a big SEO boost for having images firsts, now I am seeing more DLs at higher paying sites).

In any case, I have left my images in the SEO test confident that whatever they do will backfire horribly and bring the day when I don't need to bother with IS to maintain my income a bit closer.

B8

« Reply #69 on: October 31, 2014, 09:16 »
+3
What I further don't understand is why don't they try and simply drive more buyer traffic to the iStock site directly by putting the same amount of added effort into marketing directly to photo buyers? Why spend the time, money, and resources on trying to drive traffic to the iStock from a place like Google Images where people are usually searching for free images for low-res usage?

iStock's new September 2014 pricing is also designed to get rid of photo buyers who are looking for low-res imagery by pricing it out of their budget.

It just makes no sense what they are trying to do. Where is the logic or sensibility in this new traffic driving strategy?

Uncle Pete

« Reply #70 on: October 31, 2014, 09:45 »
0
Just needed to add some accuracy to my comment about ThinkStock marking the drop for myself (it appears some people benefited?)  That's when my IS DLs took a dive as well as dropping from over $1.50 RPD down to about 60c Average commission per IS DL.

TS = my first PP sale shows in Dec 2009.

As for growing, 2014 is the first year that's better than 2010 for me, otherwise it's just been dismal. So far I'm enjoying the new activity. This SEO thing I didn't get the invite.



I think you'd have to say it was the introduction of the RC system in Sept 2010. Before then, irrespective of all the price hikes and many mistakes, Istock had still been growing ... strongly.

The RC targets were designed to moved upwards every year (as we all made more money) however the growth came to an abrupt halt at that exact point. So much so that they had to leave the 2011 'targets' fixed for 2012 too. Of course the targets should have been reduced ... but they were never going to admit publicly to the loss of sales.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 09:47 by Uncle Pete »

Lightrecorder

« Reply #71 on: October 31, 2014, 09:55 »
-2
(working great especially with FL that reviews almost instantly and so gets a big SEO boost for having images firsts, now I am seeing more DLs at higher paying sites).



1 dollar sales price, LOL. Wake up.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #72 on: October 31, 2014, 10:15 »
+1
(working great especially with FL that reviews almost instantly and so gets a big SEO boost for having images firsts, now I am seeing more DLs at higher paying sites).



1 dollar sales price, LOL. Wake up.
Are you talking about DPC? because I am opted out of that in any case

Lightrecorder

« Reply #73 on: October 31, 2014, 10:23 »
-1
(working great especially with FL that reviews almost instantly and so gets a big SEO boost for having images firsts, now I am seeing more DLs at higher paying sites).




1 dollar sales price, LOL. Wake up.
Are you talking about DPC? because I am opted out of that in any case
Good. Still getting 23 cent subs then, or whatever amount of pennies. Dont tell me FT is a higher paying site for crying out loud.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #74 on: October 31, 2014, 10:45 »
+1
You need to read my post, I am saying that I upload to them later because they are a low paying site. It is working well to reduce my sales on FL and increase sales on better sites; because FL relies heavily on being first to market with images for an SEO boost.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 10:47 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #75 on: October 31, 2014, 10:57 »
0
I just got the image list and immediately opted out. Four of the eight images they wanted to use were from my ten best sellers - not only on istock but almost everywhere.

If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
(that's what istock always does, though. Rarely for the better.)

« Reply #76 on: October 31, 2014, 13:23 »
+3
I don't particularly want my IS images to have good SEO because they skim too much of the take.

So this is probably a stupid question. But if you don't like selling your content at iStock then why upload there at all ?

-----

I have long been very dismissive of SEO - but, truthfully, the iStock email and and article has got me thinking about the best way to describe content and how that relates to what people specifically search for. Also - I had forgotten how excellent the DeepMeta software is for bulk editing.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 14:47 by bunhill »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #77 on: November 01, 2014, 00:42 »
+9
iStock is a joke !

there will be zero benefits from adding titles and description for the simple reason that this was maybe true until 4-5 yrs ago but nowadays to rank on google you need a ton of links pointing to your page and a solid trusted domain with high-PR.

IS has a trusted domain and high PR but who is linking to istock's pages ? nobody or very few in the best scenario, and even if they do it's probably junk traffic, not potential buyers.

so the guys at IS are totally clueless and ask us to make a test drive ? moreover, they expect WE spend hours editing titles and descriptions, this is ridicolous they make billions of $ and expect me and you to work for free.


Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #78 on: November 01, 2014, 06:51 »
+3
I don't particularly want my IS images to have good SEO because they skim too much of the take.

So this is probably a stupid question. But if you don't like selling your content at iStock then why upload there at all ?

-----

It's like asking Universal, "if you don't want to sell your movies in the Wallmart dollar bin why let them sell them at all". Well movie studios do want their movies to be sold for a dollar a piece. They just want to sell them in cinemas first for $20+ a seat, then on blue ray for $30, then pick up the impulse buyers down the line in Wallmart for $1 a go while simultaneously selling the bluray on Amazon for a higher price. It's about maximising your return.

So the answer is that I do want IS to sell my images, I just want to make sure that I maximise my return by getting as many sales as I can from better paying sites first/ simultaneously. If a customer is already tied to IS I want them to buy my image rather than another one. If they are searching for an image through Google I want them to find my work elsewhere.

You may as well ask "why not just sell direct and forget about the agencies". Well I could, but I would selling a few hundred licenses not a few hundred thousand. I still want to send people to my own site as much as possible when I can.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #79 on: November 01, 2014, 06:54 »
+4
.....who is linking to istock's pages ? nobody or very few in the best scenario, and even if they do it's probably junk traffic.....

Yes, another consequence of abusing their contributors who used to actually refer buyers to the site. I used to do it myself many years ago, seems unthinkable now.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #80 on: November 01, 2014, 07:31 »
+2
... moreover, they expect WE spend hours editing titles and descriptions, this is ridicolous they make billions of $ and expect me and you to work for free.
I wouldn't want anyone else changing my titles and descriptions any more than I'd like someone else changing my keywords. That can only work in a specialist agency.

« Reply #81 on: November 01, 2014, 08:29 »
+2
So what if they change the title and description around and you hate it? Can you change it back? iStock is notorious fixing things that aren't broke.

B8

« Reply #82 on: November 01, 2014, 11:09 »
+3
It all seems like an exercise in desperate futility as with almost all of their changes ever since they pressed the self destruct button the first time in September 2012.
+1

Except I think the first press of that self-destruct button was in September 2010, when they created the RC system, reneging on the "Grandfathering" contract many signed, and creating ill-will among many exclusives and indies alike. When the History of iStock's Rise and Fall is written, I believe that will mark the beginning of the end.

The reason I said September 2012 was when iStock pressed the self destruct button was because from that day forward I saw my monthly income and monthly downloads on iStock start to drop steadily every month to a level where my total monthly downloads now are less than 1/10th of what they were before.

Since then, no matter how many more new pictures I add, no matter how well I optimize my keywords, etc, my income just keeps declining.

I don't think any of the previous changes leading up to that date, including the creation of RC system, or any other changes they instituted before September 2010 had any measurable negative effect on my iStock income the same way that September 2012 changes did.

September 2012 was when they more of less crashed the site at the very start of the peak selling season month for stock photo sales. They introduced cash prices which scared many buyers away, they took away the zoom tool for a period of time while they made some poorly implemented site upgrades, they opened up the flood gates to unlimited amounts of uploads from contributors, they removed the quality inspection standards to where they pretty much accept anything now, and the site slowed down to almost unusable levels for nearly 3 months while they attempted to fix everything they broke on September 1. At the same time they started flooding the site with low quality/overpriced Getty content, and the Best Match search became almost unusable for nearly 3 months until around December 2012 once the 3-month peak selling season came to an end.

That was also the same time when they changed the system to only start registering views on pictures viewed by photo buyers logged into the site. After that basically all new pictures stopped registering enough views, which causes most new pictures uploaded now to more or less disappear into the abyss shortly after being uploaded. All of that was enough to drive away a fortitude of long standing quality iStock buyers. Now we are finally at the point of desperation, perhaps you can even call it capitulation where they are now trying last-ditch tactics like trying to drive people searching for free photos to the iStock site from Google Images.

But lastly, let's not forget they also did Self Destruct again this year in September 2014 when they changed the whole pricing system and basically cut everyone's income in half again by reducing the prices to almost 1/3 of what they were before on XXL and XXXL files and putting the prices up so high on small sized image to where web-use photo buyers no longer find the prices affordable. Not to mention the big pay cut earlier in 2014 we all took when they started offering all of our pictures at subscription prices as well.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 11:33 by B8 »

KB

« Reply #83 on: November 01, 2014, 12:07 »
+5
Ah, what a wonderful trip down memory lane.  :'(

My DLs peaked in Jan 2012, and it has been a steady decline ever since:

My DLs are down about 2/3 from their 2011 average.

But DLs tell only part of the story, of course:

My earnings didn't start to noticeably deteriorate until the new subscriptions plan was introduced earlier this year.

So if I was going by only my own earnings, I'd have to say they pressed the self-destruct button in April 2014. But I think that would be more clearly labeled the KB-destruct button. The seeds of their demise were planted in September 2010 (or, if one prefers, whatever the date of the first Getty buyout was in 2008 by H&F).

MilanLipowski

« Reply #84 on: November 03, 2014, 12:42 »
-5
I like new changes of iStock. Search results will be much better and buyers will buy what they need and more it doesnt matter if it is shot from exclusive contributor or not. Erasing borders between exclusive and non-exclusive contributor is the right step for business. iStock knows it and this is the reason why upload limits has been changed.

« Reply #85 on: November 03, 2014, 19:34 »
0
For me they picked one file that was uploaded in 2003 and has a grand total of 6 downloads. The last sale was in 2009. If this project makes it sell better I'm all for it.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #86 on: November 03, 2014, 20:15 »
0
I like new changes of iStock. Search results will be much better and buyers will buy what they need and more it doesnt matter if it is shot from exclusive contributor or not. Erasing borders between exclusive and non-exclusive contributor is the right step for business. iStock knows it and this is the reason why upload limits has been changed.

not to mention that exclusivity on microstock was a sad joke since the beginning.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #87 on: November 03, 2014, 20:20 »
+3
For me they picked one file that was uploaded in 2003 and has a grand total of 6 downloads. The last sale was in 2009. If this project makes it sell better I'm all for it.
That sounds like a good test file. Keep us posted.

« Reply #88 on: November 04, 2014, 10:54 »
0
For me they picked one file that was uploaded in 2003 and has a grand total of 6 downloads. The last sale was in 2009. If this project makes it sell better I'm all for it.
That sounds like a good test file. Keep us posted.
Yep if it sells in the next 5 years it'll be a huge success.  In all seriousness probably nothing can be told from one file.  If these are the kinds of files they are choosing you probably need to see statistics for all 15,000 trial images to get anything close to useable numbers.  And even then you would probably need to wait years.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 10:56 by tickstock »

Leo

« Reply #89 on: November 04, 2014, 15:30 »
+4
Its a true marvel how much flack Symbiostock received for it's strategies and emphasis on SEO and search engine traffic, and now an agency is starting to take the concept seriously. Often the project was attacked for being SEO based, with people insisting that paid marketing was the only way to success, and only agencies could play that in that arena, and what a foolish concept an SEO-based network is.

Now people can say "Yeah, my Symbiostock images rank high in google" as though it were a little thing, and don't really put two-and-two together when the idea is voiced that sales could come from google traffic from a respected agency.

Even more of an irony, Symbiostock started due to iStock giving away images. Now they are "testing" one of the main fundamentals Symbiostock is built on.

Last I checked iStock pages use javascript-generated hashes in the URL making it virtually impossible for a bot to crawl them. In the past most companies would block bots because they used up too much bandwidth. I wonder if the change is being made because now they have plenty of room for more traffic and are looking for new traffic sources.

Honestly though, I don't think istock is the problem, or google searches.  I used to question agencies until I dealt with contributors.

Now I say, put Symbiostock's social model in the hands of Lobo, and you'll see a whole new level of success.

Lightrecorder

« Reply #90 on: November 04, 2014, 15:33 »
+6
Everyone with a Symbiostock site praised you for the SEO you incorporated.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #91 on: November 04, 2014, 15:45 »
0
For me they picked one file that was uploaded in 2003 and has a grand total of 6 downloads. The last sale was in 2009. If this project makes it sell better I'm all for it.
That sounds like a good test file. Keep us posted.
Yep if it sells in the next 5 years it'll be a huge success.  In all seriousness probably nothing can be told from one file.  If these are the kinds of files they are choosing you probably need to see statistics for all 15,000 trial images to get anything close to useable numbers.  And even then you would probably need to wait years.
From what's being reported, they've chosen a real cross-section, from bestsellers to old low/non-sellers, which makes sense.
I haven't noticed any mention of new files being chosen, but obviously I'm only privy to a tiny number of the total 15,000.

We'll almost certainly not get any sort of full analysis which would let us decide whether adding more to the description would be likely to help. They'll no doubt say that it has been very successful, but how that would pan out would be difficult to say. They have said that subs have been very successful,with increased spend by buyers; but most people (who are reporting) other than newbies are concerned about falls, even rapid falls in income. Which may only men the pie is getting divided into too many tiny pieces. Good for the company, not much help to individuals.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #92 on: November 05, 2014, 00:35 »
0
iStock pages use javascript-generated hashes in the URL making it virtually impossible for a bot to crawl them.

wrong.
Google Bot is indexing rendered javascript pages since a LONG time.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #93 on: November 05, 2014, 00:45 »
+3
Everyone with a Symbiostock site praised you for the SEO you incorporated.

the problem with SEO is that google is tweaking his algorithm every 6-12 months, often with dramatic domino effects.

the realistic scenario is that sites made with Symbio can perform very well in 2014 and getting sandboxed into oblivion after the next google re-rank or update.

everything now is considered good SEO is actually taken for granted in the actual google rank process, what google is now really looking for is not even links but just pages that have been linked by genuine high-PR sites, while having tons of links from directories, forums, blogs, and low-ranking sites has become worthless since at least 3 yrs, that's why even the top directories now are in disarray including Yahoo and DMOZ.

there's spam everywhere, also on youtube and FB/twitter.

the only reason photo sites still rank for some "long tail" query is because there's not much competition for rare keywords and long queries, but it won't last forever.

after the next google re-rank you can easily lose 70-80% of your visitors overnight and there's absolutely nothing you can do to "fix" it.

SEO should just be seen as a plus, it's crazy to fund your whole business on something so unstable and uncontrollable like google/bing rankings.

to sell online you must plan spending at least 50% or your potential earnings in advertising or in ways that somehow can bring potential buyers on your site, there's are no shortcuts.

stock agencies spend billions in ads, they know they can't trust SEO or begging google for a free meal.


Leo

« Reply #94 on: November 05, 2014, 01:32 »
+2
iStock pages use javascript-generated hashes in the URL making it virtually impossible for a bot to crawl them.

wrong.
Google Bot is indexing rendered javascript pages since a LONG time.
You got a little over excited there.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #95 on: November 05, 2014, 02:16 »
0
iStock pages use javascript-generated hashes in the URL making it virtually impossible for a bot to crawl them.

wrong.
Google Bot is indexing rendered javascript pages since a LONG time.
You got a little over excited there.

it means the bot is rendering the page with javascript/ajax/css before indexing the final html.

actually the reason behind this is anti-spam rather than genuine interest in indexing ajax sites.

said that, it won't usually index stuff like comments stored into Discus plugins etc, and you can stop the google bot from indexing JS using .htaccess

in the case of iStock probably they could not see many benefits in google search until recently.


« Reply #96 on: November 05, 2014, 11:07 »
+1
I thought Mike Le Dray was the King of SEO

« Reply #97 on: November 05, 2014, 11:27 »
0
oh.. since i was invited to this "test" i do not sell anything..
before every day.. everything was fine. Now iam sad  :o
Good job istock ;)

Lightrecorder

« Reply #98 on: November 05, 2014, 13:38 »
+2
I thought Mike Le Dray was the King of SEO
He is the king of selfoverinflation


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
6313 Views
Last post March 09, 2011, 23:34
by tomasfoto
just testing!

Started by lagereek General Macrostock

8 Replies
4298 Views
Last post March 10, 2011, 10:48
by Clivia
6 Replies
12101 Views
Last post May 01, 2014, 01:45
by Red Dove
0 Replies
2457 Views
Last post September 02, 2014, 12:29
by Sean Locke Photography
7 Replies
3056 Views
Last post April 25, 2015, 04:33
by bunhill

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors