MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: deleding underperforming images seems a good strategy  (Read 4728 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: March 19, 2017, 05:59 »
+1

But this seemed to turn into a flame, making me a troll ... I didn't wanted this. Sorry people!!

You are not a troll :). It's hard to explain yourself if you are not fluent in a particular language. I know that from personal experience. No worries, keep practicing, practice makes perfect.

Unfortunately, I cannot add anything on the subject, what you seem to be saying is counter-intuitive, and it's hard to explain without hand-on analysis. I doubt it's true, but it is of course possible that there are things that I don't understand.


« Reply #51 on: March 19, 2017, 06:04 »
+1
Maybe search algorithm is influenced by something like a portfolio "quality-density factor"; thats means that if you have 10,000 life sales and you only have 200 images your "quality-density factor" is 10,000/200 = 50... so hi; but if you have 1,000 life sales and 20,000 images then you "quality-density factor" is 1,000/20,000 = 0.05, very low...

It is just a theory (of course) that fits good with the original thread...

« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2017, 06:44 »
0
Maybe search algorithm is influenced by something like a portfolio "quality-density factor"; thats means that if you have 10,000 life sales and you only have 200 images your "quality-density factor" is 10,000/200 = 50... so hi; but if you have 1,000 life sales and 20,000 images then you "quality-density factor" is 1,000/20,000 = 0.05, very low...

It is just a theory (of course) that fits good with the original thread...
That is a possibility...for example we know alamy has a ranking system partly based on zooms. The trouble is we will never know for sure and every site is different. So I will stick the the theory that the more good quality accurately keyworded images I upload the better I will do.

« Reply #53 on: March 19, 2017, 08:17 »
0
Maybe search algorithm is influenced by something like a portfolio "quality-density factor"; thats means that if you have 10,000 life sales and you only have 200 images your "quality-density factor" is 10,000/200 = 50... so hi; but if you have 1,000 life sales and 20,000 images then you "quality-density factor" is 1,000/20,000 = 0.05, very low...

It is just a theory (of course) that fits good with the original thread...

I think it would only have a profound effect if all search engines from different agencies implemented this type of ranking which is unlikely. And then there are search engines that have nothing to do with agencies. Their ranking is a different story.

That would also polarize portfolios very fast, and large agencies don't seem to benefit from that, judging by their constant lowering of admission threshold. But hey, ultimately, we don't know for sure...

Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #54 on: March 20, 2017, 23:08 »
+1
I don't know how so many people couldn't follow what was being said.  Seams like every time an in depth clarification was given, another ridiculous comment was asked.

He's saying having a watered down portfolio with average images will hurt your sales compared to just leaving the best of the best.  1000 really good images will make more overall money than those same 1000 really good images mixed with another  1000 average images.

And in case someone else asks again, he's not talking about himself.  I think it's awesome to have access to this information from the experiences of a successful group of contributors.  Valuable info like this is hard to come across in this game.  Thanks!

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2017, 01:47 »
+2
Everyone understands what he's saying, they just don't understand how he's arrived at that conclusion. If there was an account with 1000 images, and 500 of them were deleted, and the remaining 500 made more than the 1000... then it would all be a bit clearer. It would be conclusive evidence that it is at least possible that the same thing could work for others.

That's not what's happened though, and that's what's confusing the issue. The 'however many' images were split into five accounts... let's say it was 1000 files total, and 200 files each (for the ease of math). What he's saying is that some of the people decided not to upload their full 200 images, and they're making more than they were when they had 200 images as part of the larger, original portfolio. He's also saying that some portfolios are making more than others.

I'm curious if the earnings were split equally before as well... or if it was broken down by files that belonged to the individual photographer? If it was broken down to files taken by the individuals, then that would make the evidence more compelling, as you knew exactly who was selling what before, and you know exactly who is selling what now. If it was just split between everyone, then some earnings are bound to go up, even if they upload less content.

« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2017, 02:06 »
0
Yes I understood the concept but I couldn't actually work out what the data was that backed it up as as the discussion developed it seemed to change. Incidentally the recent thread about image spamming seems to go against this theory....surely these images would be very hard to dig out if this was a valid idea?

« Reply #57 on: March 21, 2017, 02:28 »
0
Deleting files that didnt sell was one of my strategies during the later part of 2016 and it did seem to work but only for a while. Imagination probably! however I deleted some 250 files only a few weeks back and suddenly the daily take seemed to skyrocket but only to find out it was due to a possible search change which have now reverted back to the same stale search.
Many years ago there used to be small tricks one could do but today its like drawing blood out of a stone. Micro-stock is not what it used to be there are no short-cuts or free lunches just a matter of hanging on to the bitter end that by the sound of it is just around the corner.
I'm afraid it seems to be a passtime for our Russian and Ukraine friends nowadays.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 02:30 by derek »

« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2017, 02:34 »
+1
Deleting files that didnt sell was one of my strategies during the later part of 2016 and it did seem to work but only for a while. Imagination probably! however I deleted some 250 files only a few weeks back and suddenly the daily take seemed to skyrocket but only to find out it was due to a possible search change which have now reverted back to the same stale search.
Many years ago there used to be small tricks one could do but today its like drawing blood out of a stone. Micro-stock is not what it used to be there are no short-cuts or free lunches just a matter of hanging on to the bitter end that by the sound of it is just around the corner.
I'm afraid it seems to be a passtime for our Russian and Ukraine friends nowadays.
Yes without "laboratory conditions" its hard to know for sure too many assumptions/unknowns I do know though that a deleted image won't sell.

« Reply #59 on: March 21, 2017, 12:02 »
+2
My opinion: Image offline is an image, that can't sell. I've had EL on BS for an image, that didn't sell more then 5 times on all agencies. I had 60$ SOD on SS for an image, that also didn't sell more than 5 times on all agencies combined. So deleting any image is stupid.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
37 Replies
9542 Views
Last post October 29, 2009, 06:48
by Fred
7 Replies
3233 Views
Last post November 08, 2009, 14:19
by ShadySue
21 Replies
3877 Views
Last post August 10, 2011, 10:26
by Freedom
6 Replies
3112 Views
Last post January 23, 2012, 12:27
by bobbigmac
30 Replies
4275 Views
Last post June 07, 2014, 06:15
by Oldhand

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors