MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: search down?  (Read 4926 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 29, 2008, 09:23 »
0
type "fruit" in search (without quotes of course)  - 0 results. lol.


« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2008, 09:37 »
0
looks like they have a problem there allright!

jsnover

« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2008, 10:44 »
0
I see a title that says 0 results, but then it shows 6 files from the Infinite collection (and my search prefs are set to all collections)

Although some things (old images showing up in search by Relevance) had changed, this problem is still there. In addition to the odd behavior when showing results by Relevance if you search for fruit by DLs, you get 130865 results and by Price or Creation date, 130872.

Even with another term, hammock, there is some weird behavior. If you search for that term you get 965 results (regardless of relevance, DLs, price or date), but if you select Infinite only it says 85 and Standard only it says 965 - the same number as the total.

Another term, straw hat, produces 1555 results for All and Standard Collections, but 232 for Infinite.

I haven't bothered to count the results to see which is accurate, but for the straw hat search, you can see a few black logo images on the first page, when All Collections is selected, and they go away if you switch to Standard Collection, even though (a) the number shown in the title doesn't change and (b) the search still returns 49 pages (48 pages of 32 each plus 19 on page 49).

If the images from the infinite collection are inserted into the 49 pages - 1555 results - does that mean that 232 images from the regular collection get dumped when the default search - All Collections - is performed?

This is really messed up. I'll send support a note with a pointer to this thread.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2008, 17:12 by jsnover »

jsnover

« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2008, 15:43 »
0
Support replied to my ticket this morning - sorry for the inconvenience and they're sending a high priority report to the engineers.

Search for fruit is still the same tried just now as it was in the original post.

« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2008, 01:08 »
0
Yeah well I just uploaded a big batch of files there in an attempt to get some downloads happening - I think the new uploads sometimes come up on searches, but I think its really a process of lucky dip.

While the idea of ranking keywords is ok in principle, I think the execution on FL is woefully lacking, and its about time they fixed their search. Maybe they should rename their relevance criteria as "lucky dip" because that what it seems to be.

« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2008, 01:51 »
0
I said many times...Fotolia's search engine sucks...  I think they could REALLY start think how to solve this problem

jsnover

« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2008, 12:13 »
0
So the fruit search is largely fixed - you now get 131,083 files and the number doesn't vary depending on which sort order you pick.

The number shown for All Collections and Standard Collection is still the same (don't know which one is wrong).

Another interesting flaw I noticed is that if you sort by price with All Collections selected, there is still a sprinkling of Infinite Collection images on the first page - they clearly don't belong with the other images that start at 1 credit vs. 20 or 50 credits.

Edited to add that I did a search for monitor - which comes up with 0 results as a title while showing 6 Infinite collection images. Change to Infinite Collection, you see 602 files; change to standard only and it says 0 and shows 0.

I don't know how many terms are in this mess, but when the engineers "fixed" fruit, it appears they didn't look at the larger problem.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 12:34 by jsnover »

vonkara

« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2008, 12:44 »
0
I said many times...Fotolia's search engine sucks...  I think they could REALLY start think how to solve this problem
Do anyone know a little how it seem to work. I would be interested to know, even if it's just some "free thinking"

« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2008, 13:25 »
0
report it to support, for each word you find. they probably will get it that something is wrong, not only with few words.

jsnover

« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2008, 13:51 »
0
I did already - and pointed out that they need to check the broader problem (and referred to my earlier report on this topic which they'd closed so I couldn't update it).

However, I used to work as a software engineer. Anyone who just fixes the one symptom they're given without looking to solve the general problem just doesn't get it. I'll report them as I find them, but based on many prior interactions Fotolia over this and software issues, I don't have any confidence in their engineers.

« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2008, 16:03 »
0
deleted
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 17:34 by clearviewstock »

« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2008, 16:32 »
0
It looks like they did a big shakeup of their bestmatch/relevance. I went from having 5-6 images on first page of beachy searches to buried 10 pages deep, overnight!!  :o  How sweet of them. The searches look totally different now compared to a few days ago. Lots of old images. Sucks to be me I guess.

« Reply #12 on: May 03, 2008, 06:04 »
0
It looks like they did a big shakeup of their bestmatch/relevance. I went from having 5-6 images on first page of beachy searches to buried 10 pages deep, overnight!!  :o  How sweet of them. The searches look totally different now compared to a few days ago. Lots of old images. Sucks to be me I guess.

Sucks to be me too.   I've been kicked off all kinds of first pages.  Looks like certain people are being promoted.   

« Reply #13 on: May 03, 2008, 18:28 »
0
I just added this to another string today:

Ever since V2 last year searches were damaged beyond repair, in my opinion. I believe that all keywords before V2 were affected. I re-tested searches today on my best sellers, using the top two keywords that are dead-on accurate. My images showed up WAY BACK, page 14 or 15, sorted by Downloads. Yet when using the download sort, but using only one keyword, they came up on page 1.

The short of it is, no, I can't see any improvement, at least with my images. The only explanation I can come up with is that something catastrophic happened to the site shortly after V2 -- or because of V2 -- and they can't fix it. A few months ago someone said that in order to "fix" things with your images you need to re-enter all your keywords and keep the total to under 10 of them or something like that. Fat chance of me doing that.

I don't remember the site addressing this issue. FT is a minor player for me anyway so I put more energy into the other sites.

« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2008, 11:05 »
0
funny this time search engine is dominated by new images.They seem to have  some serious problem with the engine?

« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2008, 20:24 »
0
I'll repeat. Their search engine is broken. I believe the keyword database was "broken" during V2 installation. The fact that new image keywords may work better is that keywords attached to older files will not work correctly and they can't fix it. If someone has a better explanation I'd love to hear it. FT is not about to elaborate on this issue.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
2745 Views
Last post April 14, 2010, 19:08
by cardmaverick
Search settings

Started by Microbius iStockPhoto.com

2 Replies
1630 Views
Last post November 26, 2010, 07:55
by ShadySue
11 Replies
3549 Views
Last post January 04, 2011, 20:47
by pet_chia
2 Replies
2814 Views
Last post May 26, 2011, 06:28
by spike
16 Replies
2283 Views
Last post April 25, 2013, 03:47
by Leo Blanchette

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results