As the vector submitter, I thought Ft is good for acceptance and they inspected vectors very soon. But my dls are not good other than that,how do i boost my sales there?I saw many people doing very well there,how did they do?I have over 100s under 200 files on there, but got no dls day for about 2 weeks.............

How are your keywords sorted?  At Fotolia you should put the main keywords at front.  The first 7 get priority.

yes,i arrange the keywords sort after passing the inspecting,but it seems like no effect for my DLS or views( 30~50 views for my files a day)

As the vector submitter, I thought Ft is good for acceptance and they inspected vectors very soon. But my dls are not good other than that,how do i boost my sales there?I saw many people doing very well there,how did they do?I have over 100s under 200 files on there, but got no dls day for about 2 weeks.............

The best way is to increase the size of your portfolio.  Under 200 images is too small to be competitive these days.  You should also find that the more you upload, the more you understand what buyers want.  Get to 1,000 images and you should have regular sales, if your vectors are good.

How are your keywords sorted?  At Fotolia you should put the main keywords at front.  The first 7 get priority.

That's supposed to be how it works __ but I don't see any evidence that it has any effect at all. You can test it out yourself when uploading 2 images of the same subject with similar keywords. Prioritize the most relevant keywords of just one of them and then see where each image appears in the searches later.

personally there is a degree of luck at FT. many images never see any light, but you keep adding images and every now and again you get one that pays for the others. My bestsellers on FT just keep selling but are pretty dead elsewhere and stuff that does well elsewhere does nothing there (just how it works for me). I'd say just keep on uploading.

I have a fabulous example of how it's all bunk (first 7 keywords are important). I submitted 3 files on the same subject. All were accepted. The keywords and their order on all is almost the same (certainly the first 10 are identical and have the same order). The only things that differ are the titles. On two I placed the word 'vintage' first. They have received 39 and 51 views respectively. On the third, I placed 'vintage' as fourth word of the title. That image has received zero views. None of the images has sold either as DL or sub. The only other difference between the 3 images is that the one without any views has a minimum credit price of 2, whereas the other 2 with views both have a minimum credit price of one.

Conclusion: It's either the the first word of the title which has nothing to do with the keywords/order or prospective buyers select exclusively on low price. Must admit it's bizarre.

Quote from: OM on September 17, 2010, 17:46

I have a fabulous example of how it's all bunk (first 7 keywords are important). I submitted 3 files on the same subject. All were accepted. The keywords and their order on all is almost the same (certainly the first 10 are identical and have the same order). The only things that differ are the titles. On two I placed the word 'vintage' first. They have received 39 and 51 views respectively. On the third, I placed 'vintage' as fourth word of the title. That image has received zero views. None of the images has sold either as DL or sub. The only other difference between the 3 images is that the one without any views has a minimum credit price of 2, whereas the other 2 with views both have a minimum credit price of one.

Conclusion: It's either the the first word of the title which has nothing to do with the keywords/order or prospective buyers select exclusively on low price. Must admit it's bizarre.

or else the reviewer gives the file a 'rating' and that rating has a very strong influence on the search results.

If that's the case, it's secret and not in the terms and conditions.

On sites where I have reviewed every file was 'weighted' by the reviewers, and the contributors were not told about it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens at Fotolia.
I think it's also unfair that reviewers know which files they are reviewing. Their objectiveness is compromised this way, and in worst case scenario they have the power to decide about contributor's future. It's also unfair to buyers, because reviewers are deciding which images are going to be easier, or harder to find. In other words, some valuable image may be doomed from the moment of acceptance if reviewer thinks it doesn't have value. And don't tell me that reviewers exactly know what will sell the best, cause they don't. Even the smartest reviewers can't really predict the future of certain images, especially because they review hundreds and thousands ever day.

Quote from: Clivia on September 18, 2010, 05:19

On sites where I have reviewed every file was 'weighted' by the reviewers, and the contributors were not told about it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens at Fotolia.
I think it's also unfair that reviewers know which files they are reviewing. Their objectiveness is compromised this way, and in worst case scenario they have the power to decide about contributor's future. It's also unfair to buyers, because reviewers are deciding which images are going to be easier, or harder to find. In other words, some valuable image may be doomed from the moment of acceptance if reviewer thinks it doesn't have value. And don't tell me that reviewers exactly know what will sell the best, cause they don't. Even the smartest reviewers can't really predict the future of certain images, especially because they review hundreds and thousands ever day.

When any reviewer who is also a contributor knows who the contributor is (and maybe even which country they are from), this must undoubtedly lead to bias. Imagine a contributor/reviewer, with a good-selling file of a particular subject, sees a new file submitted of that subject which is clearly better, they cannot reject on quality, non-commerciality etc but they could score it low on the 'secret file' so that it's hardly ever seen again (if that is the way it works).