MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I love the new DT search engine !  (Read 17428 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2009, 11:37 »
0
The default sorting was changed as another part of our update, not because we got these hate and love threads (although we do care about them). The relevancy got tweaked in the meantime as usual. No matter the outcome, the revenue change shouldn't be dramatical for users with significant portfolios (>100 images, more relevant for hundreds). A contributor with just a couple images online may experience a dramatic change, we can't really do this properly unless a certain db. exposure is met.

Achilles,

As suggested in DT forum a while back, maybe you should try to limit the number of images from the same contributor appearing together. Sometimes we see 10-12 images of the same series in a page.  By showing some only, if any of those attract the buyer, he will look further and will see the other images as similars.  Or something like that, I think one needs variety when he looks for something, without having to browse dozens of pages.

I do not think that is the solution. Its not good for those who have a very specialized portfolio who are best on their subject.  The best match 2.0 which iStock wants to implement should be the solution. But that seems not too easy to do :)


« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2009, 12:04 »
0
I do not think that is the solution. Its not good for those who have a very specialized portfolio who are best on their subject.  The best match 2.0 which iStock wants to implement should be the solution. But that seems not too easy to do :)

I can easily second that thought.
As someone who has a specialized portfolio, my sales at DT have always been lower than those at their competition. Many people here rank DT in their top 3 earners - despite much analysis, tinkering, and tweaking I have never been one of them.

« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2009, 12:32 »
0
I'm not keen on that idea.  For instance if somebody put 'happy people' into a search then even totally different images wouldn't be able to be seen just because the they are from the same photographer regardless of whether they are the best images or not. The fact that images share the same basic keywords doesn't necessarily mean that they are very similar. They tried that on Istock and it didn't go down at all well for many reasons. The best thing is to stop accepting to many similar images.    I believe that it was freezingpictures that had problems with this as crappy zoo shots were appearing before his vastly superior images just because he was limited to the number he could have on the first page.

The default sorting was changed as another part of our update, not because we got these hate and love threads (although we do care about them). The relevancy got tweaked in the meantime as usual. No matter the outcome, the revenue change shouldn't be dramatical for users with significant portfolios (>100 images, more relevant for hundreds). A contributor with just a couple images online may experience a dramatic change, we can't really do this properly unless a certain db. exposure is met.

Achilles,

As suggested in DT forum a while back, maybe you should try to limit the number of images from the same contributor appearing together. Sometimes we see 10-12 images of the same series in a page.  By showing some only, if any of those attract the buyer, he will look further and will see the other images as similars.  Or something like that, I think one needs variety when he looks for something, without having to browse dozens of pages.

« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2009, 17:37 »
0
Try "female doctor".  All images but one on the first page are of the same series. See also "chocolate cake" and "granola bowl". 

I am not suggesting to show only a few images from a member, but to distribute members in the results pages. 

« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2009, 20:07 »
0
Try "female doctor".  All images but one on the first page are of the same series. See also "chocolate cake" and "granola bowl".

Gotcha, that's correct. I just posted your remark on the DT forum so you better support me  :P
(my name there is Fleyeing).

« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2009, 20:18 »
0
Flemish,

This isn't news however.  I have done many searches before with similar results.  Some searches give more mixed results, others don't. 

"Chocolate cookie" is a good example of good mixture, although on the 7th page you have 11 images of one series (with 5 more in the next page) and 6 of another.

Observe that 16 images are of the same setup, and another series further in the search result have 15 photos.  Then later they reject images for "overabundant subject"...


« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2009, 02:34 »
0
The default sorting was changed as another part of our update, not because we got these hate and love threads (although we do care about them). The relevancy got tweaked in the meantime as usual. No matter the outcome, the revenue change shouldn't be dramatical for users with significant portfolios (>100 images, more relevant for hundreds). A contributor with just a couple images online may experience a dramatic change, we can't really do this properly unless a certain db. exposure is met.

Achilles,

As suggested in DT forum a while back, maybe you should try to limit the number of images from the same contributor appearing together. Sometimes we see 10-12 images of the same series in a page.  By showing some only, if any of those attract the buyer, he will look further and will see the other images as similars.  Or something like that, I think one needs variety when he looks for something, without having to browse dozens of pages.
Yes, that would be our goal. But there are two issues here: some contributors fill a niche (take Freezingpictures penguins  or Sharplydone's airplanes) without being spamful on similars. Doing it would harm their sales. The other drawback is technological, we rely on scripts, algorithms and math. Not to mention hardware.

It's a permanent process and all this feedback helps us in future updates. Thank you.

« Reply #32 on: April 09, 2009, 16:41 »
0
Achilles,

The problem is that I can have two excellent penguin shots, correctly keyworded, but they will for some reason appear in page 10 of the results, where a buyer may never go.  Of course Freez's 1000+ penguin images shall have a very good exposure, but things should be more balanced, IMHO.  Check the "female doctor" example I gave, with 19 of the 20 first results not just by the same photographer, but from the same series.

« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2009, 17:13 »
0
Achilles,

The problem is that I can have two excellent penguin shots, correctly keyworded, but they will for some reason appear in page 10 of the results, where a buyer may never go.  Of course Freez's 1000+ penguin images shall have a very good exposure, but things should be more balanced, IMHO.  Check the "female doctor" example I gave, with 19 of the 20 first results not just by the same photographer, but from the same series.

Well I wish I had 1000+ penguins  :D Currently I could care less about a slot system on Dreamstime it would not make a difference anyway, check it out. Search for penguin and tell me how you like the search result. Its not about my images. There are of course other contributors with nice penguin images .Look at the general result of the penguin search. The search result could be much better, without a single of my images on the frontpages.

« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2009, 18:39 »
0
Yes, that would be our goal. But there are two issues here: some contributors fill a niche (take Freezingpictures penguins  or Sharplydone's airplanes) without being spamful on similars. Doing it would harm their sales. The other drawback is technological, we rely on scripts, algorithms and math. Not to mention hardware.

It's a permanent process and all this feedback helps us in future updates. Thank you.


I find it ironic you would mention me here - a search on 'airplane' doesn't begin to show my imagery until page 5, and that's using 80 images/page!

« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2009, 19:09 »
0
Well I wish I had 1000+ penguins  :D Currently I could care less about a slot system on Dreamstime it would not make a difference anyway, check it out. Search for penguin and tell me how you like the search result. Its not about my images.
Freez, there is something in the search tool that sometimes give the distorted results mentioned before.  In some cases results are very balanced, in others they aren't.  DT management knows how the search tool works, so maybe they can make it give a more balanced result everytime.

Let me add that I find DT gives the more relevant results - that's fundamental. I am only suggesting sorting images in a way that they may show more variety.

« Reply #36 on: April 09, 2009, 20:06 »
0
I'd like to see the search results organized so that some who specializes - like me - has an honest chance at earning money. As it stands, my search placement is abysmal  - despite my portfolio comprising 3% of the aircraft images available. At one time my imagery made up nearly 10% of DT's aircraft library, but I removed most of my stock because of the unfavorable search engine workings. Sure, I can have hundreds upon hundreds of aircraft images available at DT, but it's all for naught if they're buried so deep that buyers won't find most of the them.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 20:11 by sharply_done »

« Reply #37 on: April 09, 2009, 21:22 »
0
Same boat here under "beach woman" search, I think I get first hit on page 3, kinda depressing.

matter of fact, most of the best beach shooters are missing from that search.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 21:25 by cdwheatley »

« Reply #38 on: April 09, 2009, 21:43 »
0
I find it ironic you would mention me here - doesn't begin to show my imagery until page 5, and that's using 80 images/page!

Switch from relevance to downloads and you're on page 1. That's why I was "whining" in the DT thread when it reverted to relevance default.  ;)

There are 16,000 search results for "airplane" now. DT has grown a lot.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 21:54 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #39 on: April 09, 2009, 21:54 »
0
I find it ironic you would mention me here - doesn't begin to show my imagery until page 5, and that's using 80 images/page!

Switch from relevance to downloads and you're on page 1. That was why I was "whining" in the DT thread when it reverted to relevance default.  ;)

No, as a matter of fact, I don't have -any - images on page 1 based on downloads. I have many page-1-based-on-downloads on every other site, which I think says quite a lot about the fairness of the DT search engine. The point here is that buyers shouldn't have to switch searches to find the best (i.e. most 'relevant') images. New images need to be peppered in with older best-selling ones, but not at their expense.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 22:15 by sharply_done »

« Reply #40 on: April 10, 2009, 02:24 »
0
Freez, there is something in the search tool that sometimes give the distorted results mentioned before.  In some cases results are very balanced, in others they aren't.  DT management knows how the search tool works, so maybe they can make it give a more balanced result everytime.

Let me add that I find DT gives the more relevant results - that's fundamental. I am only suggesting sorting images in a way that they may show more variety.

True its more relevant, but at the same time much more "crappy", especially if get down to searches which are more specific than lets say like business and (..I wanted say nature until I checked the search). The problem with DT's search is that those who manage to get a specific keyword as often as possibile in title, keywords and description will get his image show up on the first page for that keyword, nor matter how the quality is. So of course those who know this and want their images show up on the first pages take a relevant keyword.

 But contrary to other agencies the quality and/or buyers popularity factor in this search is very very weak. You get the impression that Dreamstime has not as good a library as other agencies if you compare them on the default search. Of course thats not true, but thats the first impression of the buyer. You do not even get the feedback of these buyers, because they simply never sign up.
As with the case of Sharply my images as well are much better placed in every other agency of the big Five.
And I do not remember a time when DT ever was better than the fourth place in earnings although I do believe they have the potential to be better. I like Dreamstime, and will continue to submit there, but I do think they have a lot of work to do to catch up with other agencies with their search engine.

« Reply #41 on: April 10, 2009, 02:31 »
0
Same boat here under "beach woman" search, I think I get first hit on page 3, kinda depressing.

matter of fact, most of the best beach shooters are missing from that search.

Another great example, I just checked "beach woman" on the other big 4 agencies. As a buyer just looking at the default search, Dreamstime would by far be the last place I would sign up.


« Reply #43 on: April 10, 2009, 02:52 »
0
Freezingpictures & Sharplydone, you missed my point. I was referring to the one-slot-only type of results, which would restrict your results even more. Meaning it would be worse than what you see now. I've chosen your portfolios because you are more focused than others, not because of performance in search.

The performance within the search results is a whole different discussion. First, one needs to have the right keywords and the correct metadata (and of course "right" keywords is a matter of personal taste). Second, the search algorithm is by far the best in the industry imho, but still far from being perfect. With this test we try to balance things for everyone, avoiding issues like similarity, or favoring just the old vs favoring just the new contributors.

As for the relevancy: "beach woman" should produce results of a single woman on a beach. Not families nor couples.
Try to search once more and see how many single woman on a beach you see in our results vs. others. Then compare the percentages. Feel free to sort by downloads with us and you will see much better looking images, with way less relevancy.

It's true, for the relevancy sorting, there are many similars or images with lower quality, it's what we try to improve now and the latest tests show a great improvement (they would be online in a few days from now though).

If you mean theoretical restrict then yes, I get your point. And I am happy that your agency does not have this policy.
Yes true and I do think DT has the most relevant search. However while other agencies might not be as relevant they do have a much better search result based on quality and popularity.
In my experience most buyers stick to the default search. If buyers would use all features of Dreamstimes search it would be no problem I guess. But they seem not to use them.
I believe the first impression is very very important, and while Dreamstime's search is relevant the impression of quality is not very good I must say. But as you say you plan a change in search, so I am looking forward to how it will be and hope  :)

« Reply #44 on: April 10, 2009, 08:08 »
0
The point here is that buyers shouldn't have to switch searches to find the best (i.e. most 'relevant') images. New images need to be peppered in with older best-selling ones, but not at their expense.

Well that's what caused the "whining" (default=downloads) and in fact, during those days I sold only "old" images with downloads. The tweaking goes on since the last 2 days, I sold about 1/4 very old (2005) and a few very new ones (2009). So there is a mix already now, in the relevance option. Just keep doing your benchmark "airplane" every 4 days or so, and you'll probably see a difference.

« Reply #45 on: April 10, 2009, 10:05 »
0
I agree with this. The relevant search needs a lot higher percentage of proven images rather than loads of images that are not very good and have onlly sold once or twice.


I believe the first impression is very very important, and while Dreamstime's search is relevant the impression of quality is not very good I must say. But as you say you plan a change in search, so I am looking forward to how it will be and hope  :)

« Reply #46 on: April 10, 2009, 17:58 »
0
Freezingpictures & Sharplydone, you missed my point. I was referring to the one-slot-only type of results, which would restrict your results even more.

Achilles, I did not suggest restricting the number of results per contributor, but trying to distribute results a bit more.  Instead of having 19 images of member A in page one and 10 in page two, and then images from member B appear only in page three, the result might be for instance 5 of images tops from a member in each page, so images of member A would be split in 6 pages and member B's images might get a chance to appear in page one or two. 

« Reply #47 on: April 10, 2009, 21:47 »
0
From DT:
Look at the algorithms of modern search engines today. It's no longer a simple link descending amount sort (nobody liked seeing spam results on the first page because the site keyword/link spammed).

Algorithms have matured a bit and the sort by relevancy seems a much better step in the right direction.

« Reply #48 on: April 11, 2009, 16:43 »
0
There is more variety in the "female doctor" search now.

« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2009, 17:00 »
0
There is more variety in the "female doctor" search now.

Yap, it changes all the time. I guess they don't have much of an Easter break there in Bucarest. It's getting pretty good, and less spammy results than on iStock for the moment. (I'm talking here as a low volume buyer).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
6143 Views
Last post September 30, 2017, 06:43
by increasingdifficulty
9 Replies
4571 Views
Last post December 13, 2017, 13:15
by derek
7 Replies
2164 Views
Last post August 22, 2018, 00:52
by Pauws99
3 Replies
1951 Views
Last post August 28, 2018, 14:54
by rinderart
9 Replies
3690 Views
Last post November 16, 2018, 09:08
by nobody

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle