Author Topic: Istock to Adjust 'Best Match' with Emphasis on Keyword Relevancy (Read 3964 times)

gostwyck · « **on:** April 25, 2013, 16:55 »

From the latest Contributor Newsletter;

"Best Match Update - April 22, 2013

SearchFairy came into the forums to provide an update on Best Match. We've added the update below:

Now that we have our testing tools in place and are able to preview best match changes before taking them live on the site, there are a few changes coming up to Best Match this week that I’ll describe, and explain the intent of the change.

The basic idea is that the influence of keyword-level relevance within Best Match can now be managed separately from image-level things like popularity and age (they were previously wound up in each other in various ways). I am going to increase the influence of keyword-level relevance, thereby decreasing the influence of image-level popularity. This will get those “been downloaded in the past but not very relevant to this search” images out of the top rows/pages where they have been ending up. The search results will look quite different after this change, and far more relevant to the search.

As for the other critical component of Best Match – the influence of “file age” – there will be subsequent adjustments. The initial change focused on improving relevance will initially continue the unpopular phenomena of not showing newer images in the top search results, because we will be prioritizing files with proven relevance and it takes awhile for a file to prove itself. The next step, therefore, is to help new images prove themselves regarding relevance. A few days after the initial change to Best Match (described above), we will begin to adjust the thresholds that regulate how a new image performs. The idea will be to find the ‘perfect balance’ so that only proven images show up on the first few pages of results, but it is easier for an image to prove itself and make it to the top pages. We will find this balance gradually, by making a change and watching the impact of the change on customers.

Thanks for your patience as we move towards the right balance of ‘relevant and fresh’. If you have any questions or observations you will like to share come join the conversation."

It seems that Istock are taking a major step towards keyword relevance in their 'best match' algorithm, based on those actually used by buyers when choosing images. Essentially they are following SS's lead in this regard ... just a few years too late. It'll be interesting to see what difference it really makes.

Trouble is ... will Istock be able to stop themselves promoting their expensive collections and exclusive images in their supposed bid to provide accurate results? Can't see it myself. Greed and short-term targets are bound to get in the way of a good idea.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** April 25, 2013, 17:04 »

They did it years ago when they introduced Best Match 2. The results looked pretty clean.
Then they abandoned that, and at the same time, it seemed that many inspectors (not all) ignored spammy keywords, and Team Keywords got overwhelmed with the introduction of editorial, and all the ingested material, many of which was really badly keyworded, so didn't have time for keeping up with wikied files.
In addition, some serial spammers are very determined. Quite a number of files I've tried to wiki recently have shown as 'cleared'. What that presumably means is that the wrong keywords were removed, then the spammer has put them back in again, and the only way to sort that is to SM Team Keywords directly, which of course I can't do.
At the same time, something weird is going on with keywords. Again, several times I've gone in to wiki files and the offending word, for which the wrong file has showed up high in the best match doesn't actually show anywhere in the keywords, or shows on the file's home page, but not when you go in to wiki.

Anyway, if we have an improved BM2, that should give a far cleaner search, so if it works it is to be welcomed.
I wonder how it will stand with the deals that some ingested Agency suppliers seem to have brokered, so that they totally hog best match?

Mantis · « **Reply #2 on:** April 25, 2013, 17:08 »

I don't think IS had a choice to go keyword relevant given the fact that they opened the floodgates for images. More images with the existing best match would only serve to frustrate more buyers. I don't believe that these are mutually exclusive decisions.

pancaketom · « **Reply #3 on:** April 25, 2013, 18:43 »

Are they saying that before now they had no way to test any changes to their search algorithm before it went live!!!! that explains a few things.

I agree BM2 started out actually being a best match, but they couldn't resist boosting various collections and groups and so on to the point of ruining it. Somehow I doubt they will be able to resist the urge to do the same with the latest best match.

wds · « **Reply #4 on:** April 25, 2013, 21:56 »

The question is what happened in the first place that required all this public best match modification and manipulation?

pancaketom · « **Reply #5 on:** April 27, 2013, 21:32 »

Quote from: wds on April 25, 2013, 21:56

The question is what happened in the first place that required all this public best match modification and manipulation?

Originally I think it was the fact that the best match was rather easily gamed and also it was a positive feedback system - both good reasons to change it.

Later they kept making changes for reasons other than getting the best images in front of buyers - like boosting exclusive content or various collections. Combined with attempting to boost new files, or old files, or who knows what it became a monster that with one change could make or break your sales.

lisafx · « **Reply #6 on:** April 27, 2013, 22:26 »

Thanks for bringing this up, Gostwyck. Somehow I missed that announcement.

If they actually stick to the relevance search this time, it would be a vast improvement for buyers. However, the temptation for Getty to game the search in favor of certain collections in order to boost short term profits has been impossible for them to resist in the past. I expect they will revert back to skewing the results sooner or later. Probably sooner.

Mantis · « **Reply #7 on:** April 28, 2013, 06:19 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 27, 2013, 22:26

Thanks for bringing this up, Gostwyck. Somehow I missed that announcement.

If they actually stick to the relevance search this time, it would be a vast improvement for buyers. However, the temptation for Getty to game the search in favor of certain collections in order to boost short term profits has been impossible for them to resist in the past. I expect they will revert back to skewing the results sooner or later. Probably sooner.

Right. it is a vicious cycle.

1. Use keyword relevancy helps make the system more user friendly.
2. A more user friendly system with good relevancy = more buyers.
3. When they get more buyers, how can we get more juice for the squeeze?
4. I know, lets skew the search to favor more expensive, profitable collections
5. Buyers leave
6. Over time, IS/Getty gets desparate
7. We better go back to #1, which results in #2 through #6