Author Topic: Has SS Changed Most Popular Algorithm? (Read 20826 times)

stockastic · « **Reply #25 on:** July 18, 2012, 19:32 »

Quote from: Lagereek on July 18, 2012, 17:14

Best match, most relevant, etc, is all crap!, these searches dont work, have never worked and will never work. Reason why? these kind of searches are there to produce money for the governor, not the contributor, I.E. total and utter, completely meaningless, idiotic, coning, burglary rubbish. nothing else. A scam!

C'mon man, don't beat around the bush - tell us what you think :-)

My naive speculation is that buyers always look at 'popular' to be assured they're choosing something that has worked in the past - an easy, safe choice that won't get them in trouble. But the agency knows this, and therefor is tempted to load that search with whatever they'd really like to sell at that time. They might do what IS did and push higher priced images, or they might push new images from new contributors whom they don't have to pay as much, or there might be any number of other schemes or forms of corruption in play. I doubt that 'popular' ever has a simple, direct, statistical meaning in today's microstock world.

Karimala · « **Reply #26 on:** July 18, 2012, 20:35 »

I don't mind the occasional screwy search, because sometimes they end up bringing up old images that never had many sales. I have one at SS that had only sold a handful of times in two years, and it's sold three times in the past two days. That's a good thing. And my other sales haven't been impacted at all.

stockastic · « **Reply #27 on:** July 18, 2012, 20:47 »

Maybe we should think of it as a ginormous compost pile that they turn over once in a while.

Lagereek · « **Reply #28 on:** July 19, 2012, 03:55 »

Quote from: stockastic on July 18, 2012, 19:32

Quote from: Lagereek on July 18, 2012, 17:14
Best match, most relevant, etc, is all crap!, these searches dont work, have never worked and will never work. Reason why? these kind of searches are there to produce money for the governor, not the contributor, I.E. total and utter, completely meaningless, idiotic, coning, burglary rubbish. nothing else. A scam!

C'mon man, don't beat around the bush - tell us what you think :-)

My naive speculation is that buyers always look at 'popular' to be assured they're choosing something that has worked in the past - an easy, safe choice that won't get them in trouble. But the agency knows this, and therefor is tempted to load that search with whatever they'd really like to sell at that time. They might do what IS did and push higher priced images, or they might push new images from new contributors whom they don't have to pay as much, or there might be any number of other schemes or forms of corruption in play. I doubt that 'popular' ever has a simple, direct, statistical meaning in today's microstock world.

Sure! but I dont see any change in the search? my stuff is where its always been, right up on in front, etc. no problem there! still, its gone very quiet. Best-Match, Random and relevant, are the kind of searches that really does not work, reason being that they depend only on keywording and the downfall is ofcourse all the spamming. Worst example ever is the IS-best match.

ShadySue · « **Reply #29 on:** July 19, 2012, 04:01 »

Quote from: Lagereek on July 18, 2012, 17:14

Best match, most relevant, etc, is all crap!, these searches dont work, have never worked and will never work. Reason why? these kind of searches are there to produce money for the governor, not the contributor, I.E. total and utter, completely meaningless, idiotic, coning, burglary rubbish. nothing else. A scam!

Popular searches is what most buyers wants to see, reason for that: buyers of micro have very little in demand, just a webb shot will do.

So you're saying that the best match/most popular works for the buyer and the site but not the contributor?
Two out of three would be considered a result in many contexts, especially when the third is impossible (favour one contributor, penalise another).

Lagereek · « **Reply #30 on:** July 19, 2012, 04:34 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 19, 2012, 04:01

Quote from: Lagereek on July 18, 2012, 17:14
Best match, most relevant, etc, is all crap!, these searches dont work, have never worked and will never work. Reason why? these kind of searches are there to produce money for the governor, not the contributor, I.E. total and utter, completely meaningless, idiotic, coning, burglary rubbish. nothing else. A scam!

Popular searches is what most buyers wants to see, reason for that: buyers of micro have very little in demand, just a webb shot will do.

So you're saying that the best match/most popular works for the buyer and the site but not the contributor?
Two out of three would be considered a result in many contexts, especially when the third is impossible (favour one contributor, penalise another).

Hi Sue! well what Im trying to say is, best match, relevant and random, are searches too much dependant on contributors keywording and spamming is something we will never get rid of, its impossible. Remember some years back? at IS, when we had to re-keyword every single file, for correct keywording? that was then. Can you imagine today with some agencies housing 20 million files? nightmare.

ShadySue · « **Reply #31 on:** July 19, 2012, 05:13 »

Quote from: Lagereek on July 19, 2012, 04:34

Quote from: ShadySue on July 19, 2012, 04:01
Quote from: Lagereek on July 18, 2012, 17:14
Best match, most relevant, etc, is all crap!, these searches dont work, have never worked and will never work. Reason why? these kind of searches are there to produce money for the governor, not the contributor, I.E. total and utter, completely meaningless, idiotic, coning, burglary rubbish. nothing else. A scam!

Popular searches is what most buyers wants to see, reason for that: buyers of micro have very little in demand, just a webb shot will do.

So you're saying that the best match/most popular works for the buyer and the site but not the contributor?
Two out of three would be considered a result in many contexts, especially when the third is impossible (favour one contributor, penalise another).

Hi Sue! well what Im trying to say is, best match, relevant and random, are searches too much dependant on contributors keywording and spamming is something we will never get rid of, its impossible. Remember some years back? at IS, when we had to re-keyword every single file, for correct keywording? that was then. Can you imagine today with some agencies housing 20 million files? nightmare.

Certainly agree that spamming is a major problem at all agencies, though the search is often better at SS.
I was going to post an example, but it backfired.
In the Good Old Days when I wikied a lot, one of my regular wikis was 'duck', because a lot of people don't seem to know the difference between duck and goose, or deliberately keyword both on their files (at least you won't give me that American 'looks like a duck, quacks like a duck' cr*p!) But also a lot of people don't DA properly, so cooked duck, rubber ducks and carved duck/decoys show up in a search narrowed down to duck (freshwater bird) and duck (saltwater bird):

SS doesn't DA, but you can exclude keywords in a search, so I excluded rubber duck and got:

So, despite you not being remotely interested in ducks, we can both agree that both searches need a lot of work.

Ploink · « **Reply #32 on:** July 19, 2012, 05:19 »

In all fairness to SS, if you search for "duck" and substract all results that contain "rubber" or "duck", you'll rightly end up with nothing. Either put "rubber duck" as a phrase, or exclude just "rubber" - both queries give 32.990 results...

ShadySue · « **Reply #33 on:** July 19, 2012, 05:43 »

Quote from: Ploink on July 19, 2012, 05:19

In all fairness to SS, if you search for "duck" and substract all results that contain "rubber" or "duck", you'll rightly end up with nothing. Either put "rubber duck" as a phrase, or exclude just "rubber" - both queries give 32.990 results...

Tx.
I guess no site can allow for user idiocy, or assuming that two sites search in remotely the same way.

So rather than scuppered by spamming, some people have missed relevant keywords like 'cooked' or 'isolated'.
On iStock, you need to know to exclude by using NOT, not -. E.g. if you search on something then add - isolated in the side keyword search window, you get only isolations.

Lagereek · « **Reply #34 on:** July 19, 2012, 05:56 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 19, 2012, 05:13

Quote from: Lagereek on July 19, 2012, 04:34
Quote from: ShadySue on July 19, 2012, 04:01
Quote from: Lagereek on July 18, 2012, 17:14
Best match, most relevant, etc, is all crap!, these searches dont work, have never worked and will never work. Reason why? these kind of searches are there to produce money for the governor, not the contributor, I.E. total and utter, completely meaningless, idiotic, coning, burglary rubbish. nothing else. A scam!

Popular searches is what most buyers wants to see, reason for that: buyers of micro have very little in demand, just a webb shot will do.

So you're saying that the best match/most popular works for the buyer and the site but not the contributor?
Two out of three would be considered a result in many contexts, especially when the third is impossible (favour one contributor, penalise another).

Hi Sue! well what Im trying to say is, best match, relevant and random, are searches too much dependant on contributors keywording and spamming is something we will never get rid of, its impossible. Remember some years back? at IS, when we had to re-keyword every single file, for correct keywording? that was then. Can you imagine today with some agencies housing 20 million files? nightmare.

Certainly agree that spamming is a major problem at all agencies, though the search is often better at SS.
I was going to post an example, but it backfired.
In the Good Old Days when I wikied a lot, one of my regular wikis was 'duck', because a lot of people don't seem to know the difference between duck and goose, or deliberately keyword both on their files (at least you won't give me that American 'looks like a duck, quacks like a duck' cr*p!) But also a lot of people don't DA properly, so cooked duck, rubber ducks and carved duck/decoys show up in a search narrowed down to duck (freshwater bird) and duck (saltwater bird):

SS doesn't DA, but you can exclude keywords in a search, so I excluded rubber duck and got:

So, despite you not being remotely interested in ducks, we can both agree that both searches need a lot of work.

Totally agree with you! I suppose we will probably never see a close to perfect search and with all these gazillions of files, and if there was, the agencies themselves would most likely find a way to ruin it anyway.

stockastic · « **Reply #35 on:** July 19, 2012, 10:41 »

Quote from: Lagereek on July 19, 2012, 04:34

...best match, relevant and random, are searches too much dependant on contributors keywording and spamming is something we will never get rid of, its impossible. Remember some years back? at IS, when we had to re-keyword every single file, for correct keywording? that was then. Can you imagine today with some agencies housing 20 million files? nightmare.

Exactly - even a 'big' agency like SS can't possibly afford to clean up that mess. And this should be an opportunity for new agencies, starting fresh, with good keywording standards combined with better search strategies. Shouldn't it?

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #36 on:** July 19, 2012, 11:05 »

My popular has been rearranged once again!?

John W. · « **Reply #37 on:** July 20, 2012, 07:37 »

It looks to me now that Relevent shows most popular images. Still not sure what to think of the Popular order though.

princigalli · « **Reply #38 on:** July 23, 2012, 15:33 »

Don't know about details, but after change I stopped selling at SS.

Lagereek · « **Reply #39 on:** August 04, 2012, 13:03 »

Well folks! stop your grinning and drop your linnen because we are about to get whalloped! I didnt believe it but somebody pointed it out to me. They have changed their default to "relevancy" and after doing some 20 searches in various fields I have to say. It is everything but "relevant", it is really, really bad with some really amateurish imagery right up front.
I dont know if this is an experiment or not, they were going to try it out, werent they and if buyers liked it, they would keep it? well the only type of buyer who would like this, is the type of buyer an agency and contributor simply dont need.
I find it totally meaningless uploading to a search such as this.
Im afraid with this search we are back to square one, back to the IS best-match fiasco.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #40 on:** August 04, 2012, 14:10 »

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=124172

Quote from: moderator

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam
Ok so here is what another Moderator said about how the Popular works!

Quote from: moderator
Popular looks primarily at the number of times an image has been downloaded. Relevant is a more sophisticated algorithm that considers a mix of factors.

So which one is right?

Quote from: VincentJansen
Hi everybody,

The search results in "Popular" are based on one of Shutterstock's most complicated algorithms. This algorithm takes many different variables into account, including, but not limited to, the total number of downloads. If an image has more downloads than others it does not always mean it will be placed higher in "Popular". It is also very normal for images to move up and down "Popular" regardless of the number of times that image has been downloaded.
Forums are dead time to stir the pot.

--

Hello ruxpriencdiam,

The quote you reference was accurate at the time of posting. The newer post is also accurate, at this time.

Stay transparent with your posts.

Sincerely,
Anthony Correia
Director, Content Operations
Shutterstock|Bigstock

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam

Quote from: moderator
Quote from: ruxpriencdiam
Thank you Anthony so i take it this is normal then.

--
Hello ruxpriencdiam,

If you are referring to how we do our best to ensure your portfolio gets in front of as many customers as possible, then the answer is yes, this is quite normal. Stay relevant and accurate with your keywords/titles and we will do the rest.

Sincerely,
Anthony Correia
Director, Content Operations
Shutterstock|Bigstock
Thanks again now we know it isn't a bug like some of us including me thought.

And we can put this to rest.

Lagereek · « **Reply #41 on:** August 04, 2012, 14:34 »

Jeez! what in actual fact are you or the moderator trying to say? that the majority should be happy with less sales and then put it to rest?

lisafx · « **Reply #42 on:** August 04, 2012, 14:35 »

Wow, I just sorted my port by "relevant" and it was like a trip down memory lane. Couldn't find anything I had uploaded in the past several years. If you took a snapshot of my most popular images 4 years ago it would look exactly like the relevancy search today.

Any point in shooting and uploading new stuff there?!!

sharpshot · « **Reply #43 on:** August 04, 2012, 14:36 »

Quote from: Lagereek on August 04, 2012, 13:03

Well folks! stop your grinning and drop your linnen because we are about to get whalloped! I didnt believe it but somebody pointed it out to me. They have changed their default to "relevancy" and after doing some 20 searches in various fields I have to say. It is everything but "relevant", it is really, really bad with some really amateurish imagery right up front.
I dont know if this is an experiment or not, they were going to try it out, werent they and if buyers liked it, they would keep it? well the only type of buyer who would like this, is the type of buyer an agency and contributor simply dont need.
I find it totally meaningless uploading to a search such as this.
Im afraid with this search we are back to square one, back to the IS best-match fiasco.

I just checked, using a browser that didn't have me logged in and the default was "popular". The search doesn't seem to of changed much.

Lagereek · « **Reply #44 on:** August 04, 2012, 14:46 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 04, 2012, 14:35

Wow, I just sorted my port by "relevant" and it was like a trip down memory lane. Couldn't find anything I had uploaded in the past several years. If you took a snapshot of my most popular images 4 years ago it would look exactly like the relevancy search today.

Any point in shooting and uploading new stuff there?!!

Hi Lisa! nope, shouldnt think so, uploading new stuff with the relevancy search is pointless, ends up somewhere in Timbuktu. See? it was only a matter of time before things derailed at SS as well.

What surprises me is the choice of "relevancy" its old stuff, was used among all the hanging files in the old film-agencies, untill the librarian found out that photographers were handwriting totally irrelevant keywords and then typed it into that days gigantic computers, its a tried and tested search and ofcourse it never worked.

Lagereek · « **Reply #45 on:** August 04, 2012, 14:47 »

Quote from: sharpshot on August 04, 2012, 14:36

Quote from: Lagereek on August 04, 2012, 13:03
Well folks! stop your grinning and drop your linnen because we are about to get whalloped! I didnt believe it but somebody pointed it out to me. They have changed their default to "relevancy" and after doing some 20 searches in various fields I have to say. It is everything but "relevant", it is really, really bad with some really amateurish imagery right up front.
I dont know if this is an experiment or not, they were going to try it out, werent they and if buyers liked it, they would keep it? well the only type of buyer who would like this, is the type of buyer an agency and contributor simply dont need.
I find it totally meaningless uploading to a search such as this.
Im afraid with this search we are back to square one, back to the IS best-match fiasco.
I just checked, using a browser that didn't have me logged in and the default was "popular". The search doesn't seem to of changed much.

remove your cookies and it will change.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #46 on:** August 04, 2012, 14:55 »

Quote from: Lagereek on August 04, 2012, 14:34

Jeez! what in actual fact are you or the moderator trying to say? that the majority should be happy with less sales and then put it to rest?

I have been arguing and complaining about this for months with many forum members and no one ever would tell us anything so i lured Anthony out to explain what was going on and now from what i see there is nothing we can do about it so that is why i said put it to rest meaning the arguing back and forth with everyone on SS.

Lagereek · « **Reply #47 on:** August 04, 2012, 15:26 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on August 04, 2012, 14:55

Quote from: Lagereek on August 04, 2012, 14:34
Jeez! what in actual fact are you or the moderator trying to say? that the majority should be happy with less sales and then put it to rest?
I have been arguing and complaining about this for months with many forum members and no one ever would tell us anything so i lured Anthony out to explain what was going on and now from what i see there is nothing we can do about it so that is why i said put it to rest meaning the arguing back and forth with everyone on SS.

Ok! sorry! I didnt get that at first. Oh well then if theres nothing we can do, fine. Just that at this moment and I think Lisa would agree, uploading fresh material is a waste of time, pitty to see it all burried and gone.

best.

gostwyck · « **Reply #48 on:** August 04, 2012, 15:40 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 04, 2012, 14:35

Wow, I just sorted my port by "relevant" and it was like a trip down memory lane. Couldn't find anything I had uploaded in the past several years. If you took a snapshot of my most popular images 4 years ago it would look exactly like the relevancy search today.

Any point in shooting and uploading new stuff there?!!

I'd assume that the 'Relevant' algorithm would only work when you searched using actual keywords rather than just clicking on your own gallery (i.e. 'relevant' to what?).

I can find no evidence that the default search has changed anyway.

lisafx · « **Reply #49 on:** August 04, 2012, 15:49 »

Quote from: Lagereek on August 04, 2012, 15:26

Just that at this moment and I think Lisa would agree, uploading fresh material is a waste of time, pitty to see it all burried and gone.

Checking back over my sales these first few days of the month, I have sold some new images. I guess some people are sorting by age? Or else, as Gostwyck says, maybe the search hasn't changed that much?

I do wish there was a bit more emphasis on newness in the relevancy search, though. It's rewarding to see recent efforts pay off.

Oddly enough, it is FT that seems to be skewed toward newer images lately.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Has SS Changed Most Popular Algorithm? (Read 20826 times)

stockastic

Karimala

stockastic

Lagereek

ShadySue

Lagereek

ShadySue

Ploink

ShadySue

Lagereek

stockastic

ruxpriencdiam

John W.

princigalli

Lagereek

ruxpriencdiam

Lagereek

lisafx

sharpshot

Lagereek

Lagereek

ruxpriencdiam

Lagereek

gostwyck

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors