pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: FT rank  (Read 110554 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #350 on: September 03, 2012, 13:34 »
0
A friend of mine never really got up off the ground with FT. While other agencies kept going up FT basically went down rather quick after his first 6 months of being there, despite uploading constantly.

Some contributors just fall under the radar there. He could barely find his images in the search while I barely found any issues with my images.

Plenty of room for speculations here but what can one do about it?


lisafx

« Reply #351 on: September 03, 2012, 15:43 »
0

Plenty of room for speculations here but what can one do about it?

Very little in the short term, but in the long(er) term I have to decide whether it is worthwhile for me to continue with a site that can't manage to sell my images.  Sounds like other high ranked contributors are weighing the same decision. 

« Reply #352 on: September 03, 2012, 18:00 »
+1

Plenty of room for speculations here but what can one do about it?

Very little in the short term, but in the long(er) term I have to decide whether it is worthwhile for me to continue with a site that can't manage to sell my images.  Sounds like other high ranked contributors are weighing the same decision.
Yes you're right that it wouldn't make sense to keep uploading if sales dry up in this dramatic fashion.

I didn't express myself properly. I meant what could one do to be ranked equally in the search results?

You have a great portfolio which should sell much better, so since something is off, my question is, how could you make FT management actually look into the issue besides sending a message to support.

Support at FT has often resulted in no or a generic answer with no proper resolution so this might be even tougher to succeed at reporting this specific issue.

Also because several factors are taken into consideration for search result placement (for example, I assume, your rank, recent sales performance, recent or overall upload behavior (PD dropped me like a hot potato after I stopped uploading for a week or two!) and more.

However, long standing and successful contributors should have better search result placements to maintain appropriate incentives to keep uploading.

I admit it's not easy to find the "best" search result algorithm to include a nice mix of good imagery of professional (long standing) shooters but also providing room for excellent newbies to be recognized on the first few pages of search results.

Branching out is something inevitable. What goes up must come down at some point and the contributor community is growing at a very fast pace. Agencies don't have it any easier to maintain market shares nor do we contributors get the long end of the stick.

Maybe it's just a massive bug that will be eliminated once they do a new overhaul, who knows...

lisafx

« Reply #353 on: September 03, 2012, 21:53 »
0
Click click, you make some excellent points.  I don't think there really is any solution with respect to getting sites to change their search engines.  They do what they want with them, and no amount of complaining or persuading seems to make a difference. 

As for being some sort of bug, I doubt it.  It has been going on over a year and I never heard of a bug lasting that long...

« Reply #354 on: September 03, 2012, 22:24 »
0
... As for being some sort of bug, I doubt it.  It has been going on over a year and I never heard of a bug lasting that long...
This search engine "bug" has been going on for much longer than a year... My buddy noticed issues more than 3 years ago.

My sales were ok so I didn't see much of a problem but parts of his portfolio simply didn't show up in the searches etc.

Needless to say that he couldn't get his portfolio off the ground so to speak, kind of an endless uphill battle. Gets tiring very quickly, I can see that.

But since you had better times it simply doesn't make sense to see such a drop like fotografer. My chart really averages as a horizontal line for the last 3 years and not indicating a decline. Bear in mind that I submit very few images per month (though regularly) so this just doesn't add up.

« Reply #355 on: September 04, 2012, 06:07 »
0
Bear in mind that I submit very few images per month (though regularly) so this just doesn't add up.
I also upload regularly but not many images a month. Are you finding newer images sell better or you old best sellers?  My sales are 70% newer images. Some of the few that have caught on in the last few months have more dls at Fot than they do at SS.

« Reply #356 on: September 04, 2012, 08:28 »
0
I also upload regularly but not many images a month. Are you finding newer images sell better or you old best sellers?  My sales are 70% newer images. Some of the few that have caught on in the last few months have more dls at Fot than they do at SS.

Similar here. Of my last 100 sales about 50% are from images uploaded in the last 12 months although those only represent about 12% of my port.

My sales have been dropping fairly steadily at FT for at least a couple of years although when I hit Emerald, a few months ago, there was a noticeable step-decline of about 20%. Despite the raised prices and increased commission my monthly income is now lower than before. I have no idea whether that decline was due to worse sort-order positioning or buyers avoiding higher priced images or maybe a bit of both.

My ranking position has been in decline too but I'd assume that must mean that others are simply doing better than me. Those same individuals must also have roughly the same ranking as me because, as I understand it, your ranking depends on total credits sold (rather than images). Sales of credits and images should correspond fairly closely for photographers although vector artists and illustrators probably do better on credits.

« Reply #357 on: September 04, 2012, 09:26 »
0
I also upload regularly but not many images a month. Are you finding newer images sell better or you old best sellers?  My sales are 70% newer images. Some of the few that have caught on in the last few months have more dls at Fot than they do at SS.
From my observations I sell mostly older stuff +1 year.

Oddly enough, one recently uploaded image now sells several times a day which I had never happen before at FT. It's not even a stellar image IMO.

I thought it was maybe featured in a lightbox or something but I couldn't find it anywhere. No idea how I get so many downloads on it.

This also leads me to believe that there is some random algorithm at work that pushes individual images regardless of my history or anything else. Just speculation.

« Reply #358 on: September 04, 2012, 11:49 »
0
I also upload regularly but not many images a month. Are you finding newer images sell better or you old best sellers?  My sales are 70% newer images. Some of the few that have caught on in the last few months have more dls at Fot than they do at SS.

Oddly enough, one recently uploaded image now sells several times a day which I had never happen before at FT. It's not even a stellar image IMO.

I thought it was maybe featured in a lightbox or something but I couldn't find it anywhere. No idea how I get so many downloads on it.

This also leads me to believe that there is some random algorithm at work that pushes individual images regardless of my history or anything else. Just speculation.
I've had a few like that in the last couple of months and like you I've been checking to see if they were on the front page or somewhere else. One had nearly 50 dls in  a month.  It sort of gives me hope for the site as new images can do so well. Just needs to be treated like SS used to be and constantly upload there.

lisafx

« Reply #359 on: September 04, 2012, 12:03 »
0
My new images are selling well on FT too.  In fact, most of my sales are of 2 credit images, so unlikely the drop is because of price sensitivity. 

@Click Click - your graph is a fairly steady straight line over the past couple of years?  Are you emerald on FT?  If not, then it makes sense.  If you are Emerald or above, then you are the first I've talked to who hasn't seen a steep decline at FT. 

« Reply #360 on: September 04, 2012, 12:21 »
0
Here is my graph of the last 24 months.

I've been Emerald for a little over 3 years now but the year prior looks the same just with two upper spikes in between.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 12:42 by click_click »

lisafx

« Reply #361 on: September 04, 2012, 12:23 »
0
Here is my graph of the last 24 months.

I've been Emerald for a little over 3 years now but the year prior looks the same just with two upper spikes in between.

I must say, I am surprised.  Congrats on managing to hold on to your sales there.  Seems you are in the minority among Emeralds. 

OM

« Reply #362 on: September 04, 2012, 19:15 »
+1
I also upload regularly but not many images a month. Are you finding newer images sell better or you old best sellers?  My sales are 70% newer images. Some of the few that have caught on in the last few months have more dls at Fot than they do at SS.
From my observations I sell mostly older stuff +1 year.

Oddly enough, one recently uploaded image now sells several times a day which I had never happen before at FT. It's not even a stellar image IMO.

I thought it was maybe featured in a lightbox or something but I couldn't find it anywhere. No idea how I get so many downloads on it.

This also leads me to believe that there is some random algorithm at work that pushes individual images regardless of my history or anything else. Just speculation.

This is what it looks like to me too. Yesterday, I did a little experiment and searched FT 'business'.
Immediately 2 images on page one stuck out like a sore thumb......one picture of a model in an 'unbusinesslike' pose and another was a simple portrait of a teenage girl. Both did have 'business' in their keywords. They also had 'model' in their keywords, so I searched 'model' and guess what...they both appeared on the first page of 'model' (out of 1 million images!). Both by separate contributors (I think one was emerald and the other gold), recently uploaded and few sales.
Often you can spot a very recently approved but 'incongruous' image. look at the keywords and type them in general search......the same images turn up in the first pages of every search. They're very recent and have few downloads but still in the first few pages of almost every search.

How the decision is made to 'push' certain images, I have no idea. Whether it's a random choice by algorithm or that somewhere a human finger on a key is in play, I know not. But it's a little like Dirty Harry with his, "Well do ya feel lucky today, well do ya punk?"......or words to that effect!

« Reply #363 on: September 04, 2012, 19:22 »
+1
I also upload regularly but not many images a month. Are you finding newer images sell better or you old best sellers?  My sales are 70% newer images. Some of the few that have caught on in the last few months have more dls at Fot than they do at SS.
From my observations I sell mostly older stuff +1 year.

Oddly enough, one recently uploaded image now sells several times a day which I had never happen before at FT. It's not even a stellar image IMO.

I thought it was maybe featured in a lightbox or something but I couldn't find it anywhere. No idea how I get so many downloads on it.

This also leads me to believe that there is some random algorithm at work that pushes individual images regardless of my history or anything else. Just speculation.

This is what it looks like to me too. Yesterday, I did a little experiment and searched FT 'business'.
Immediately 2 images on page one stuck out like a sore thumb......one picture of a model in an 'unbusinesslike' pose and another was a simple portrait of a teenage girl. Both did have 'business' in their keywords. They also had 'model' in their keywords, so I searched 'model' and guess what...they both appeared on the first page of 'model' (out of 1 million images!). Both by separate contributors (I think one was emerald and the other gold), recently uploaded and few sales.
Often you can spot a very recently approved but 'incongruous' image. look at the keywords and type them in general search......the same images turn up in the first pages of every search. They're very recent and have few downloads but still in the first few pages of almost every search.

How the decision is made to 'push' certain images, I have no idea. Whether it's a random choice by algorithm or that somewhere a human finger on a key is in play, I know not. But it's a little like Dirty Harry with his, "Well do ya feel lucky today, well do ya punk?"......or words to that effect!

Did you check whether either image had appeared in the 'Newest Uploads' category? Being so featured can have a massive boost (in the sort order) for months afterwards.

OM

« Reply #364 on: September 05, 2012, 04:01 »
0
I also upload regularly but not many images a month. Are you finding newer images sell better or you old best sellers?  My sales are 70% newer images. Some of the few that have caught on in the last few months have more dls at Fot than they do at SS.
From my observations I sell mostly older stuff +1 year.

Oddly enough, one recently uploaded image now sells several times a day which I had never happen before at FT. It's not even a stellar image IMO.

I thought it was maybe featured in a lightbox or something but I couldn't find it anywhere. No idea how I get so many downloads on it.

This also leads me to believe that there is some random algorithm at work that pushes individual images regardless of my history or anything else. Just speculation.

This is what it looks like to me too. Yesterday, I did a little experiment and searched FT 'business'.
Immediately 2 images on page one stuck out like a sore thumb......one picture of a model in an 'unbusinesslike' pose and another was a simple portrait of a teenage girl. Both did have 'business' in their keywords. They also had 'model' in their keywords, so I searched 'model' and guess what...they both appeared on the first page of 'model' (out of 1 million images!). Both by separate contributors (I think one was emerald and the other gold), recently uploaded and few sales.
Often you can spot a very recently approved but 'incongruous' image. look at the keywords and type them in general search......the same images turn up in the first pages of every search. They're very recent and have few downloads but still in the first few pages of almost every search.

How the decision is made to 'push' certain images, I have no idea. Whether it's a random choice by algorithm or that somewhere a human finger on a key is in play, I know not. But it's a little like Dirty Harry with his, "Well do ya feel lucky today, well do ya punk?"......or words to that effect!

Did you check whether either image had appeared in the 'Newest Uploads' category? Being so featured can have a massive boost (in the sort order) for months afterwards.

Of the two images I checked (now 2 days ago) the low number of views did not suggest that they had been in 'newest images' but it is possible that they were there a week ago. One image that I spotted (the 'unbusinesslike' model) is now gone from P#1 of 'business' but replaced by another shot of the same model by the same contributor and described as 'beautiful business woman'. The other shot of 'thinking young woman' is still on P#1 of 'business' and on P#1 of 'model' with 6 views and 3 downloads. Had that shot been in 'recent uploads' then I would have expected to have seen more views but I can't say for certain that the shots were not in 'recent uploads' at some time in the past week.

« Reply #365 on: September 05, 2012, 04:34 »
0
I wonder at what point it will be decided that my new images that are doing so well need pushing right down in the search as they are now no longer new images. I'd like to think that while they are doing well they will be kept at the top of the searches but if that was the case then my old best sellers should still be selling.

« Reply #366 on: September 05, 2012, 17:53 »
0
I've gone from making over $200 a month to just $35 last month.  Not uploading anymore.  Strange how they're still 3rd in the earnings poll here.  At least it wont cost me much if I leave now.

« Reply #367 on: September 05, 2012, 18:39 »
0
Of the two images I checked (now 2 days ago) the low number of views did not suggest that they had been in 'newest images' but it is possible that they were there a week ago. One image that I spotted (the 'unbusinesslike' model) is now gone from P#1 of 'business' but replaced by another shot of the same model by the same contributor and described as 'beautiful business woman'. The other shot of 'thinking young woman' is still on P#1 of 'business' and on P#1 of 'model' with 6 views and 3 downloads. Had that shot been in 'recent uploads' then I would have expected to have seen more views but I can't say for certain that the shots were not in 'recent uploads' at some time in the past week.

Best sellers of the day seem hand picked also.  I recently had 9 sales of the same image in a day (obviously an error but that's another story) and it didn't appear but a number of images with 1 or 2 lifetime sales did.

« Reply #368 on: September 05, 2012, 22:08 »
0
I've gone from making over $200 a month to just $35 last month.  Not uploading anymore.  Strange how they're still 3rd in the earnings poll here.  At least it wont cost me much if I leave now.
I'm shocked to hear that you suffered such a big hit. That's more than an 80% decrease. I wouldn't hesitate stop supporting them at that point I fully understand.

There must be some tinkering with the search results going on...

« Reply #369 on: September 06, 2012, 03:40 »
0


Did you check whether either image had appeared in the 'Newest Uploads' category? Being so featured can have a massive boost (in the sort order) for months afterwards.
That makes sense and I  guess that is what must have happened to some of my images then. I have never clicked on 'New images' before as I thought that it would just be a link to all the new images not a few selected ones.

OM

« Reply #370 on: September 06, 2012, 16:58 »
0
Of the two images I checked (now 2 days ago) the low number of views did not suggest that they had been in 'newest images' but it is possible that they were there a week ago. One image that I spotted (the 'unbusinesslike' model) is now gone from P#1 of 'business' but replaced by another shot of the same model by the same contributor and described as 'beautiful business woman'. The other shot of 'thinking young woman' is still on P#1 of 'business' and on P#1 of 'model' with 6 views and 3 downloads. Had that shot been in 'recent uploads' then I would have expected to have seen more views but I can't say for certain that the shots were not in 'recent uploads' at some time in the past week.

Best sellers of the day seem hand picked also.  I recently had 9 sales of the same image in a day (obviously an error but that's another story) and it didn't appear but a number of images with 1 or 2 lifetime sales did.

Yep. 'Best sellers' of the day is just silly. Whether they're hand picked or the result of some algorithm, it makes little difference........it does not reflect the best seller of the day, I too have had an image sell 5 or 6 times in one day, only to find various 'best sellers of the day' have only sold once or twice in a lifetime!

What bugs me most about FT is that suddenly my bests ellers just stopped selling. No tail-off to zero just a cliff face from hero to zero within a week or so. Although I was exclusive at the time and had kept my best seller at 1 credit even as 'silver', it didn't make a bit of difference. As I considered my then bestseller to still have potential, I went independent to SS and that same image has sold 20 times in the 2 months I've been there and is on P1 or P2 of the SS search.
With 10% of my FT portfolio on SS, I've earned more on SS in the past month than on FT (OK we're not talking big bucks but nevertheless.........). Priority is now to upload to SS as much as possible.

OM

« Reply #371 on: September 07, 2012, 20:05 »
+1
Just had an 'out of mind' experience with FT search. Searched 'bread' and got 26 shots on the first page all from the same contributor, just uploaded and all (except one) with zero views and one download ( the exception had one view and one dl)! Went to page two and there's another 3 there (at the top of P2) from the same contributor.
Looks to me like, get a mate to buy a sub and start downloading everything that the guy/gal submits!
A bit daft really cos the shots will probably never be bought by real buyers.......funny desaturated colour to all!

« Reply #372 on: September 07, 2012, 20:49 »
0
Just had an 'out of mind' experience with FT search. Searched 'bread' and got 26 shots on the first page all from the same contributor, just uploaded and all (except one) with zero views and one download ( the exception had one view and one dl)! Went to page two and there's another 3 there (at the top of P2) from the same contributor.
Looks to me like, get a mate to buy a sub and start downloading everything that the guy/gal submits!
A bit daft really cos the shots will probably never be bought by real buyers.......funny desaturated colour to all!
I strongly hope that the agency (FT in this case) has some fraud prevention (or better policy violation) system in place to weed out this rank-gamblers. It should be pretty easy to fish those out.

On the other hand I guess FT rather takes the money for the sub plan just get the $$$ instead of booting the contributor AND buyer...

« Reply #373 on: September 09, 2012, 00:27 »
0
FT tend allways to be worst for customers and constributors. They start (by accident) very good, until then they start any possible action to avoid this success. They work on their ruin until now since 3-4 years ... i expect next time they would insert a charge for uploading at distributors and a charge for costumers for getting the ability to view the portfolio. If this wouldn't help to crush the company in 2012-13 the plan B is that any distributor have to spend his images for free and customers pay the double and more for Image rights and get a constribution receipt for that.
So FT will get, as first, the Tom Sawyer Price for the biggest company with the most stupid employees all over the world.

« Reply #374 on: September 09, 2012, 02:07 »
0
^^^So how are they still 3rd in the earnings poll here then?  It seems they're still popular with buyers and they must be doing well with contributors that don't like to brag about it.  They've crushed my earnings and I'd love to see buyers moving to other sites that haven't hidden my portfolio but unfortunately it looks like that isn't happening.  Buyers seem to be very loyal to sites, istock have succeeded in losing lots but they've had to work very hard at it and it looks like many have gone to Thinkstock, also owned by Getty.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
9151 Views
Last post May 27, 2007, 22:31
by Whiz
17 Replies
7715 Views
Last post September 04, 2007, 19:18
by dbvirago
2 Replies
3345 Views
Last post February 09, 2012, 03:47
by nicku
Fotolia rank reset and DPC

Started by EmberMike « 1 2  All » Adobe Stock

31 Replies
13212 Views
Last post May 20, 2014, 06:46
by Mantis
Fotolia Rank

Started by Uncle Pete « 1 2  All » Adobe Stock

33 Replies
14845 Views
Last post June 12, 2016, 07:45
by roede-orm

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle