Author Topic: Terrible search engine! (Read 17066 times)

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #25 on:** February 19, 2010, 13:14 »

The following thread is another example of DT attitude:

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_20804

Seems the customer needs to adapt to the DT philosophy rather than DT adapting to the customer's requirements.

lagereek · « **Reply #26 on:** February 19, 2010, 15:53 »

Well they gonna have to do something about it, thats for sure, as the search is now, page after page of series, etc, its totally pointless'
uploading anything. What for? so it gets stuck in between 100 similar shots, never to see the light of day?
forget it.

FD · « **Reply #27 on:** February 19, 2010, 16:25 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on February 19, 2010, 13:14

The following thread is another example of DT attitude:
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_20804
Seems the customer needs to adapt to the DT philosophy rather than DT adapting to the customer's requirements.

That thread has nothing to do whatsoever with the search engine. You should be aware that if you have 2x the number of (mostly negative) posts on DT than you have sales there, it might become a nightmaretime for you. Nobody wants to to bite the hand that feeds him. The adult content filter is used at all sites. You can simply turn it off.

madelaide · « **Reply #28 on:** February 19, 2010, 16:31 »

I have just compared a few searches in DT and IS, and I didn't see a difference. The searches were:

chinese food
fried chicken
new your city
sunset palm tree (IS required one step for for disambiguation)
mailbox
red car
red carpet

Both sites provided correct results.

Tried yorkshire, IS returns basically the region in Englad, DT a mix of it, the dog breed and the pudding.

Then I tried real coins, DT got me the Brazilian coins, while IS offers me a disambiguation for either candid or real people.

I guess I prefer DT.

lagereek · « **Reply #29 on:** February 19, 2010, 16:54 »

Well frankly Im not interested in comparing searches at all, no one is better or worse then the other. Stock photography is a business and should be run as such.
As a contributor to whatever agency, RF, RM, whatever. Last thing I should have to worry about is the key to exposure and sales, namely the search mechanism.

lisafx · « **Reply #30 on:** February 19, 2010, 17:33 »

Let me start off by saying I very rarely buy any stock images so I don't know the ins and outs of the search engines. The few times I have bought have been mostly at DT.

I have a lot of respect for Christian (the OP). He's been in stock a very long time and knows his stuff, so he may very well be onto something here, but there are some misconceptions in this thread that should be addressed.

I think it makes sense to have acceptance ratio play a part in search placement. People who consistently upload quality are more likely to be producing what buyers will want.

Including the titles and descriptions should lead to more accurate results. And allowing all relevant keywords rather than restricting contributors to a CV makes it possible to find images on DT that can never be found on IS because the relevant words aren't part of the CV. I have seen this discussed here many times.

I have also heard buyers offer opposing views. Some buyers have stated that they find it much easier to find what they are after on DT and some say the same thing about IS. Horses for courses, I guess.

It has also been stated in this thread that mostly "low ballers" and "newbies" do well at DT. That is just plain untrue. I am very happy with my sales at DT and I don't fit those two categories.

Lately Dreamstime seems to be experiencing some programming growing pains, so that might explain some wonky results in the short term, but ITLR, in most subject areas, their search seems, in my limited judgement, to generally return accurate results.

As for the content filter thread - not sure how that is relevant here. I will say that I am happy that the reputable sites default to having the filter ON. My models often go to the sites to see how their pictures are selling and I doubt most of them would be at all comfortable seeing themselves for sale next to nude, kissing lesbians or some of the other types of adult content available on some sites. If people want to view nudes it is as easy as checking a box.

lagereek · « **Reply #31 on:** February 20, 2010, 03:04 »

Hi Lisa!

Great post! you put it better then me and in a "kinder" way so to speak. What I mean is. Both of us go through great length to get the pictures we want, it often requires models, releases, property, this and that.
Personally I supply material which is very hard to achieve, not your average photographer can even dream of getting into places where I do commissioned work and then from that supply stock and with everybodys consent, etc.

feels pretty stupid then to find these kind of shots entangled with lets say 30 shots, almost identical and of some exterior taken from outside a fence and when cheking, they have hardly sold at all. Thats totally derrogative, both for me and DT.

Im doing OK at DT, but frankly it could be a lot better if as you say acceptance rate and material play a big part.

At the moment DT represent about 0.4 % of all in all, hundreds of DLs per day and when I finally checked out the Search? well Im not surprised.
Kind of weird really, Ive hit it off exellent with all other 4 agencies Im with but strangely, not with DT.

all the best Lisa! Christian, from snowy Sweden

lisafx · « **Reply #32 on:** February 20, 2010, 10:35 »

Quote from: lagereek on February 20, 2010, 03:04

Im doing OK at DT, but frankly it could be a lot better if as you say acceptance rate and material play a big part.

At the moment DT represent about 0.4 % of all in all, hundreds of DLs per day and when I finally checked out the Search? well Im not surprised.
Kind of weird really, Ive hit it off exellent with all other 4 agencies Im with but strangely, not with DT.

Being familiar with your work, Christian, I believe if the buyers were seeing it, they would be buying it. Hopefully the next search incarnation will have you getting better exposure

lagereek · « **Reply #33 on:** February 20, 2010, 12:07 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 20, 2010, 10:35

Quote from: lagereek on February 20, 2010, 03:04

Im doing OK at DT, but frankly it could be a lot better if as you say acceptance rate and material play a big part.

At the moment DT represent about 0.4 % of all in all, hundreds of DLs per day and when I finally checked out the Search? well Im not surprised.
Kind of weird really, Ive hit it off exellent with all other 4 agencies Im with but strangely, not with DT.

Being familiar with your work, Christian, I believe if the buyers were seeing it, they would be buying it. Hopefully the next search incarnation will have you getting better exposure

Hi Lisa! well as I said, cant complain too much about sales at DT but as its a matter of buyers seeing it and with this kind of search its very unlikely.

best. Christian

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #34 on:** February 20, 2010, 12:58 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on February 19, 2010, 16:25

Quote from: WarrenPrice on February 19, 2010, 13:14
The following thread is another example of DT attitude:
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_20804
Seems the customer needs to adapt to the DT philosophy rather than DT adapting to the customer's requirements.

That thread has nothing to do whatsoever with the search engine. You should be aware that if you have 2x the number of (mostly negative) posts on DT than you have sales there, it might become a nightmaretime for you. Nobody wants to to bite the hand that feeds him. The adult content filter is used at all sites. You can simply turn it off.

You counted my "mostly negative" posts? How many were there? I'll try for a more balanced approach.

Maybe I misread the thread. I could have sworn the OP was talking about search results. Did you read the entire thread? It seems some of his/her images were flagged for adult content. The problem was with a few keywords. Once flagged, they can only be "unfiltered" by contacting admin.

Please don't attack me personally, FD. You could easily have disagreed without discrediting me, personally.

icefront · « **Reply #35 on:** February 20, 2010, 17:48 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 18, 2010, 19:23

Imagine trying to run a big store without actually knowing what products you have on the shelves: which ones are good, which are junk, which are actually mislabelled and in the wrong boxes...

Incredible, how precisely hit the nail on the head...
Actually, images has keywords but, all of them are equal (has the same importance). This way no software -analyzing the keywords - can distinguish an image with a yellow umbrella (main subject) from an image where somebody carries an almost invisible yellow umbrella. Without analyzing the actual image, the search engine will produce more and more erroneous results.

This can be a stock photo agency's problem in the future, because a simple search can return hundreds of junk and 1-2 actual results.

There is a simple solution - analyzing the image with an artificial intelligence software. Sounds futuristic? Yes, 10-20% of the images will be never recognized by this software but the remaining 80-90% will be 100% accurate result.
Simple examples:
- today the keywords describe directly or indirectly the image, but without seeing the image, you cannot distinguish the actual meaning from the imaginary meaning: vitamin keyword on image containing banana vs. vitamin pills; milk keyword on images containing cow, chocolate and a glass of milk.
- the color analyzer @DT shows that fixed algorithms decide very erroneously the major colors on the image. An AI software analyzes the colors based on the content of the image

A well written AI module can be trained and can become extremely sharp-eyed if correctlry trained by the editors.

Why AI? Well, the MS business made millionaires over night so every of them can afford such an expensive development, who will realize firs will be the next era's winner.

lagereek · « **Reply #36 on:** February 20, 2010, 18:38 »

Quote from: icefront on February 20, 2010, 17:48

Quote from: stockastic on February 18, 2010, 19:23
Imagine trying to run a big store without actually knowing what products you have on the shelves: which ones are good, which are junk, which are actually mislabelled and in the wrong boxes...

Incredible, how precisely hit the nail on the head...
Actually, images has keywords but, all of them are equal (has the same importance). This way no software -analyzing the keywords - can distinguish an image with a yellow umbrella (main subject) from an image where somebody carries an almost invisible yellow umbrella. Without analyzing the actual image, the search engine will produce more and more erroneous results.

This can be a stock photo agency's problem in the future, because a simple search can return hundreds of junk and 1-2 actual results.

There is a simple solution - analyzing the image with an artificial intelligence software. Sounds futuristic? Yes, 10-20% of the images will be never recognized by this software but the remaining 80-90% will be 100% accurate result.
Simple examples:
- today the keywords describe directly or indirectly the image, but without seeing the image, you cannot distinguish the actual meaning from the imaginary meaning: vitamin keyword on image containing banana vs. vitamin pills; milk keyword on images containing cow, chocolate and a glass of milk.
- the color analyzer @DT shows that fixed algorithms decide very erroneously the major colors on the image. An AI software analyzes the colors based on the content of the image

A well written AI module can be trained and can become extremely sharp-eyed if correctlry trained by the editors.

Why AI? Well, the MS business made millionaires over night so every of them can afford such an expensive development, who will realize firs will be the next era's winner.

lagereek · « **Reply #37 on:** February 20, 2010, 18:46 »

True! simple solution to this is not to accept millions and millions of shots, be much more selectice and realize that quality does not mean quanity.
Try and search "businessman" or just "business" and you see what I mean. Some 70% could be wasted.

Theres no room for dilletants or weekend snappers in todays agencies, may it be RF, RM or micro. Just imagine all who just dump a portfolio once every six months and dont give a toss about keywording or anything. Any wonder searches are breaking down?

GeoPappas · « **Reply #38 on:** February 21, 2010, 08:15 »

I find it very interesting that DT used to have the best search engine about a year and a half ago (see here http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-big-6/who-has-the-best-'best-match'-search-engine-t6062/).

I guess the old adage "If it ain't broke, then don't fix it" applies here.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Terrible search engine! (Read 17066 times)

WarrenPrice

lagereek

FD

madelaide

lagereek

lisafx

lagereek

lisafx

lagereek

WarrenPrice

icefront

lagereek

lagereek

GeoPappas

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors