MicrostockGroup

There have been ongoing and numerous  complaints about the search feature at iStock. Both customers and contributors have problems with it.  For buyers, the engine tries to upsell from what the client is looking for, in an effort to push expensive Vetta and Agency images.  For contributors, there is the feeling that the match function is constantly being tweaked for the benefit of somebody else. Also, issues with reliability, predictability and over-complication keep getting mentioned. To many, this does not seem like a serious, professionally written search function, it seems like something the marketing department came up with as just another angle and which just keeps getting hacked endlessly.

This need not be the only search engine available. If you look at the html source of an image detail page, there is sufficient information in it to enable an external search engine.  That information is there only to support outside searches. It is not needed by the internal search at all. An independent search engine could be built by some enterprising person or group. It could work following the wishes of by the user, not the agency.

I'm surprised that with all the internet savvy entrepreneurs out there, nobody has indexed iStockphoto's detailed pages and provided a search engine that works the way the user wants it to.  There is probably a way to make money at it, look what Google did with search.

And I know a contributor with more than 4000 files who is so hooked on Vetta he continues to upload and nominate his work into the collection.

The point is, if there are people willing to accept a 28% royalty on an exclusive basis can you really blame iStock playing the pusher to these junkies.

yeah, but really,  who cares?  I stopped uploading myself a month back, pointless, since they end up on last page,  besides the money isnt there anymore. For all I care they can turn every pic into Vettas.
That game is over.

I uploaded about 14 shots to Shutterstock, day before yesterday, they were all reviewed and accepted few hours later and have already sold as a few sales on demand.
Beat that for speed and accuracy.

I really don`t care about whatever search engine on istock:

+ Do not buy at istock
+ Do not sell at istock

End of discussion for me...

That's what a "Best Match" should be. Maybe IStock should have two best matches, a "Best Match for Us" and "Best Match for You".

I was agreeing with you, a best match should be " search which is based on an image merrits, saleabillity and commercialism". IStock's is not. I should have phrased my 2 best matches as "Best Match for IStock", and "Best Match for Customers". Didn't mean "you" personally, but as customers in general.

Its in there but youre images ARE selling well Sean and they are highly commercial in every aspect. However I think you agree that images thats been nominated for whatever, zero dls for months, just hanging there weeks on end, taking up valuable slots for nothing really, well, not only should they not be there up front, frankly they ought to go into the dustbin.

You really to ask if pricing goes into the saleability equation? Back to Econ 101. I think we're talking about more than just your files, more like all the < 5 downloaded V&A at the top of many searches.

From a technical point of view, your idea of an alternative search engine is great

From a practical point of view, it already exists: buyers can buy from another site