Quote from: Pauws99 on March 17, 2017, 02:16

"The galleries with "only the best" performed DOUBLE than the one containing the best and the rest, in proportion." what does "in proportion" mean. Its absolute income that counts

er... not when you try a model.

They had a user, suppose USER001, this is up and working: it has, NOW, 40000 files.
In the meanwhile they opened USER002 and USER003.

002 and 003 have 10000 pics each.

Obviously you can't do an absolute comparison. But you could do this in proportion.

And in proportion, USER001 that in absolute income is performing well, in proportion is not performing as good as 002 and 003 do.

That means "in proportion": that when user002 and 003 will have the same amount of files, they will perform BETTER than 001.

This seems a very complicated way of saying good images sell better than bad ones....I'll go along with that theory. The rest is deeply flawed logic.

Quote from: niktol on March 17, 2017, 11:38

Don't really know what that strategy achieves. We are not paying for storage. I've had pics that were dormant for a couple of years, then bam, sold for a few hundred. The inner machinations of buyers' minds are an enigma.

I agree that there is not a "only Truth".
They observed a long-time running very good portfolio and then placed side by side other 2 portfolios and continued running the first. But changing strategies. This strategy seemed to work well, enhancing the whole portfolio performance.

Men, I'm not here to say "you all are wrong": this is only a series of facts that I had the chance to see. This is neither a rule, nor a religion: only a thing I'm telling to the ones  that have considered to delete what they itself consider as not-good files "but it's free".
Maybe the cost is not an expense, but an handicap in selling.

How do people have same images on multiple portfolios and use different names. Isn't that something that would get us banned for life?

I have some friends that sell very, very well. They worked as one photographer using 1 account.
When they started to sell for 5000$ a month they started to have problems with our country taxes so they decided to split, open one account per person and level up the whole of their portfolio.

They had the opportunity to try some "what if" experiment: they left every kind of sh*t in the main portfolio and started to upload ONLY the cream in the new accounts or to return and delete what they considered "not perfect".

The galleries with "only the best" performed DOUBLE than the one containing the best and the rest, in proportion.

So if you were thinking "is it a good idea to delete all my cr*p and leave only the best images?" ... well: yes, it is.

Why?

I don't know: I guess it's because of the way the customer see your portfolio: they see a good image, but not useful to their needs: they open your portfolio and see ONLY THE BEST, without cr*p: this probably is impressive and sells! :-)

I'm not able to do this NOW: but when I'll double my portfolio I'll do this for sure: this may halve the time for the customers to find what they want without seeing all my so-so experiments!

Where would you draw the line though? If you have 1000 images and you get rid of 500, why not get rid of 999 and just keep your best one? Would sales of your one image increase enough to cover whatever sales you got on the other 999? I'd be very surprised!

So even if this deleting some of your portfolio theory did work, there would have to be some kind of sweet spot of what percentage of your portfolio to delete, which is going to vary considerably depending on the person and the portfolio. One persons worst 50% could be better than another persons best 50%.

But still, this all relies on sales of your remaining 50% to increase enough to compensate for the loss of the 50% that you've deleted, and I can't see that happening. Maybe a slight amount, if people look at your portfolio, see loads of great images and decide to start following you, or bookmark your page or something... but like others have said, people are usually looking for just one specific image or video... they're rarely browsing through portfolio after portfolio.

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 18, 2017, 01:52

Quote from: zorba on March 17, 2017, 20:39

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 17, 2017, 02:16

"The galleries with "only the best" performed DOUBLE than the one containing the best and the rest, in proportion." what does "in proportion" mean. Its absolute income that counts

er... not when you try a model.

They had a user, suppose USER001, this is up and working: it has, NOW, 40000 files.
In the meanwhile they opened USER002 and USER003.

002 and 003 have 10000 pics each.

Obviously you can't do an absolute comparison. But you could do this in proportion.

And in proportion, USER001 that in absolute income is performing well, in proportion is not performing as good as 002 and 003 do.

That means "in proportion": that when user002 and 003 will have the same amount of files, they will perform BETTER than 001.

So by slashing a portfolio your total sales go down but your RPI goes up great but your total income goes down how is that better?

Of course I'm not very good at English, but you prefer to consider it a logic problem. I see.
No one , never, said slashing a portfolio makes total sales going down: this is another very important point.

Where did I write that total sales goes down?

Completely impossible comparison.

If there indeed are no duplicates, and the good images are deleted from the "bad" portfolio and uploaded to new portfolios they are all new and will be treated very differently by the search engine.

The only interesting result would be if only the bad images were deleted (not re-uploaded) and the overall revenue increased.

Quote from: Microstockphoto on March 17, 2017, 02:12

there's so much wrong in the OP, don't even know where to start. worst advice ever.,

+ but I'd also agree they should do this, if they would also delete all files that compete with mine. 

How do people have same images on multiple portfolios and use different names. Isn't that something that would get us banned for life?

1) How did they have problem with the taxes? To me it reads like they didn't report income, and 5000$ per month was too much to hide.

2) Nice bedtime story.

3) You sound like you're from eastern europe btw, am I right?

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 19, 2017, 03:26

 So you are saying total sales go up with a reduced portfolio? In actual numbers not in proportion?

1) in proportion (they haven't deleted files so far)
2) yes I'm saying this, of course not reducing and stop, but reducing the files that your experience and numbers say are bad files compared to the EXCELLENT ONES you have, and CONTINUED working and uploading, but only the cream.

3) this is a THEORY, no one deleted a single file: the only case in which you could consider "deleted" a file is the third cited portfolio: the photographer self-censored himself in a different way, compared to the 001 and the 002, as I said. So he OMITTED TO UPLOAD, he didn't actually DELETE something that was previously online. I know that's not the same thing, but I never said something different.

I say we reasoned about this, thinking this opens the way to think that deleting cr*p could be a not-so-bad idea, instead of what we thought before. That's all, not a new Faith or new God. Only a theory based on some new evidences. And of course, these could be not "evidences" but feelings, I perfectly understand this.

But how many times did you see this topic talked about and no one observed a single thing about it?

This seems a very complicated way of saying good images sell better than bad ones....I'll go along with that theory. The rest is deeply flawed logic.