0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hi Wael It is difficult to know how really Search Engines work as it code (of course) is secret. We are doomed to speculate and try to observe the behavior of sales as you are doing now.It looks that sales influence images position in search, and maybe views... but the problem are these other "secret" factors.
I am asking because I found out that some images for example have made it somewhere between the first and 5th pages of ( creative) in Alamy, and I am not sure if this is an indication that those images are doing well( even if there is no sale yet ) or is it just wrong to think this way ?!
QuoteI am asking because I found out that some images for example have made it somewhere between the first and 5th pages of ( creative) in Alamy, and I am not sure if this is an indication that those images are doing well( even if there is no sale yet ) or is it just wrong to think this way ?! You can check on Alamy measures to see which types of keywords clients are searching and how they correspond with your portfolio - views and zooms. Even better is to see what "all of alamy" is searching on any given time period for up to a year and see if you can include some of these "hot" keywords within your images (don't do it if they don't fit the image as that's just spamming). I've attached a screenshot of the most popular keywords on Alamy for the past year.
Also bear in mind customers may get different results depending on their locations cookies and (maybe) their customer profile maintained by the site.
You will have certain images that sell really well on some sites, but are never found on others.
Quote from: increasingdifficulty on September 24, 2017, 03:57You will have certain images that sell really well on some sites, but are never found on others.any clue why this happens ? and how to meet every agency search criteria ?Sent from my SM-G928C using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mrblues101 on September 23, 2017, 20:26Hi Wael It is difficult to know how really Search Engines work as it code (of course) is secret. We are doomed to speculate and try to observe the behavior of sales as you are doing now.It looks that sales influence images position in search, and maybe views... but the problem are these other "secret" factors.totally agree, there is certainly something i don't understand in this so-called" search engine algorithm ". quick example, i searched on Google for my flower macro shots by ( colourful flower close up ), found couple of my images in the first page; one from IS and the other from Alamy, then went to Alamy, repeated the search, found the image in the second page in their ( creative ) section, then went to IS , did it again, couldn't found the image until the 10th page of results. i find this really odd. it's either too complicated so no one can really get how it works, or it's too random so no one can really depend on something like this to have some sort of a " sales predictability "
This is an extremely interesting topic, probably the most interesting to be discussed in a microstock forum, because if you understand how the algorithms work, you can organise your activity to maximise your efforts.Strangely many people in this forum dismiss these discussions as conspiracies, as if agencies where totally neutral in the way they present their catalogs to customers.By far the most important factor in the success of an agencies is how they propose their images to customers, in fact SS has a very sophisticated algorithm and is by far the best seller in microstock.Personally I have detected some very evident patterns of behavior (especially in SS). Their priorities seem to be:- Do not present to customers the same items over time (that is why SS switches between two different modes two-three times per month)- Try to make as many contributors happy as possible- Punish contributors that stop uploading- Punish contributor that spam. I believe that the ratio files in portfolio/sales is extremely important, so people who upload tonnes of repeated material are lowered in rankings
Quote from: Brightontl on September 25, 2017, 12:48This is an extremely interesting topic, probably the most interesting to be discussed in a microstock forum, because if you understand how the algorithms work, you can organise your activity to maximise your efforts.Strangely many people in this forum dismiss these discussions as conspiracies, as if agencies where totally neutral in the way they present their catalogs to customers.By far the most important factor in the success of an agencies is how they propose their images to customers, in fact SS has a very sophisticated algorithm and is by far the best seller in microstock.Personally I have detected some very evident patterns of behavior (especially in SS). Their priorities seem to be:- Do not present to customers the same items over time (that is why SS switches between two different modes two-three times per month)- Try to make as many contributors happy as possible- Punish contributors that stop uploading- Punish contributor that spam. I believe that the ratio files in portfolio/sales is extremely important, so people who upload tonnes of repeated material are lowered in rankingsThat is very emotive and would be out of character for most businesses let alone algorithms. We see patterns in everything a strange human trait and how we try to make sense in the world. The shutterstock search engine is in contant flux with numerous tests local and global going on tweaking parameters in conjunction with other parameters until it comes up with one which produces more sales, when it will be incorporated in to the main search. It is also a self learning beast with no emotions, it is neither happy or sad and cares less if the contributors are. Why would it try to make a contributor happy if he is uploading crap? The word punish may be substituted by reward as in if you are contributing more you would improve your search position, but, although I have heard Fotolia may have done this at one time, it is surely a consequence of several parameters like sales over time and new making someone who is uploading rise in the search and someone who isn't go down. There is no need for a separate parameter for the number of uploads.If they wanted to punish spam they wouldn't accept them in the first place. I do agree with your last sentence, but it is not about punishing spam, but a consequence of a normal algorithm.Try looking at with less emotion and more logic, I'm sure you will come up with something extremely interesting.
Quote from: obj owl on September 25, 2017, 15:53Quote from: Brightontl on September 25, 2017, 12:48This is an extremely interesting topic, probably the most interesting to be discussed in a microstock forum, because if you understand how the algorithms work, you can organise your activity to maximise your efforts.Strangely many people in this forum dismiss these discussions as conspiracies, as if agencies where totally neutral in the way they present their catalogs to customers.By far the most important factor in the success of an agencies is how they propose their images to customers, in fact SS has a very sophisticated algorithm and is by far the best seller in microstock.Personally I have detected some very evident patterns of behavior (especially in SS). Their priorities seem to be:- Do not present to customers the same items over time (that is why SS switches between two different modes two-three times per month)- Try to make as many contributors happy as possible- Punish contributors that stop uploading- Punish contributor that spam. I believe that the ratio files in portfolio/sales is extremely important, so people who upload tonnes of repeated material are lowered in rankingsThat is very emotive and would be out of character for most businesses let alone algorithms. We see patterns in everything a strange human trait and how we try to make sense in the world. The shutterstock search engine is in contant flux with numerous tests local and global going on tweaking parameters in conjunction with other parameters until it comes up with one which produces more sales, when it will be incorporated in to the main search. It is also a self learning beast with no emotions, it is neither happy or sad and cares less if the contributors are. Why would it try to make a contributor happy if he is uploading crap? The word punish may be substituted by reward as in if you are contributing more you would improve your search position, but, although I have heard Fotolia may have done this at one time, it is surely a consequence of several parameters like sales over time and new making someone who is uploading rise in the search and someone who isn't go down. There is no need for a separate parameter for the number of uploads.If they wanted to punish spam they wouldn't accept them in the first place. I do agree with your last sentence, but it is not about punishing spam, but a consequence of a normal algorithm.Try looking at with less emotion and more logic, I'm sure you will come up with something extremely interesting.I think that Brightontl uses the term "punish" as an example of a factor that reduce popularity of an image, not literally.Part of SS success is the big number of contributors which guarantee fresh content; so MS business is not just sell and sell without thinking in contributors, if a few of them monopolize first places at searches then there is no motivation for new ones, and this is not happends now, so an algorithm based in a balance between selling and maintaining the adherence of contributors is the most convenient in the long term.
The big number of contributors is due to Shutterstock opening up entry to anyone who can produce one good image out of the 10 best images they can muster, no algorithm involved.New images have always been weighted highly in the algorithm, though some would have it not as much as it used to be, but if profit has been weighted in conjuction with new then that would satisfy your assertion and confirm the conspiracy theory that 25cents an image is a lot more profitable than paying 38cents, but that in itself would not be a long term strategy, the exponential growth in content must slow eventually.