Author Topic: Weekly position vs overall position (Read 18114 times)

Dodie · « **on:** November 26, 2017, 10:39 »

I noticed a changed relationship between weekly position and overall position compared to what it was 1-2 years earlier.

It seems like my weekly position is tailored to be equal with my overall (it was much higher earlier) and the download number is dependent of this number. Each time my download number (weekly position) drops, I begin to get dls one after the other but it stops once the two positions are ~ equal (+-). This pattern repeats itself as soon as my download number (weekly position) drops but no dls in between.

To put it simple, it looks like for a certain overall rank I deserve a given number of downloads, not more, not less.

I am not sure if I described this as I wanted but I am curious if someone else is seeing the same pattern.

Thanks.

zebra007 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 26, 2017, 10:44 »

I am not sure i understand.

Dodie · « **Reply #2 on:** November 26, 2017, 11:21 »

Quote from: zebra007 on November 26, 2017, 10:44

I am not sure i understand.

First, I am very far from your results and with such high numbers I don't think you can even notice what I am talking about.

I am sorry, I don't know how to explain it more clearly but I'll try.

First, my weekly download number dropped to what was my daily download number, after AS. That is not the point here but because of that it was easier to follow what happens.

Here is an example:

Let's say my average max.download number for one week is 50. During one week I may get some downloads (not much) and with the weekend 0 days it drops to 30 till the end of the week. Then I get loads of downloads all the sudden until my weekly dl number is back to 50 but then it stops again. This cycle repeats itself with very few +- difference.

It could be just a coincidence, that's why I was curious if someone else sees the same thing.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #3 on:** November 26, 2017, 12:07 »

People see patterns everywhere. The first couple of notes in Beethoven's Fifth Symphony correspond exactly with my monthly revenue fluctations, something's fishy here!

Dodie · « **Reply #4 on:** November 26, 2017, 12:18 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on November 26, 2017, 12:07

People see patterns everywhere. The first couple of notes in Beethoven's Fifth Symphony correspond exactly with my monthly revenue fluctations, something's fishy here!

Whether you agree with it or not, mathematics discovers and explains abstract patterns or regularities of all kinds. Why would that be impossible where AI is involved?

Just saying.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #5 on:** November 26, 2017, 13:50 »

Quote

To put it simple, it looks like for a certain overall rank I deserve a given number of downloads, not more, not less.

I don't see this, and I also don't see how anyone could ever improve their position if this were the way things operated.

I was with Fotolia from 2005 and then left mid 2008 to mid 2011 when I was exclusive with iStock. Upon returning to indie status Fotolia would not permit me to return (I had been organizing contributors to push for better terms and conditions and they weren't happy with that).

December 2016 I was allowed to re-open my account and upload my portfolio

The history is just to explain that although I was in a way starting from scratch in Dec 2016, my account was my original one which might mean there were differences I'm not aware of.

However, I've seen my status slowly improving over the last 11 months - which is what I'd expect. I'm a middle-class stock contributor (solid if small-ish portfolio) but I know what sells at SS so I have no reason to believe it wouldn't sell at Adobe/Fotolia. Unsurprisingly I see what I've expected to see with a few pleasant exceptions where something that had had bad timing at SS did better as a "new" image at AS/FT.

If there was a set point for my downloads relative to my rank I wouldn't have been able to make those improvements over the last 11 months.

derek · « **Reply #6 on:** November 26, 2017, 14:03 »

Forget it! its all mumbo jumbo!.....Everyone I personally know at Adobe and that includes a factory as well is doing really really bad after the merger with Adobe. prior to the move they were doing fine.

I havent got a clue of whats happened?? some people seem to be doing Ok but they are few.

Adobe and Dreamtime are agencies best to just leave alone, quit uploading and just visit them once a week or something.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 26, 2017, 14:52 »

I don't see it either. I've also improved my ranking over the past year, and my weekly and overall positions are pretty far apart, probably because I have a lot of holiday images so my downloads vary widely from month to month.

SS is still my best earner by far, though it and Adobe are on opposite trajectories for me. My new work does seem to get more traction at Adobe...it's going nowhere at SS.

Dodie · « **Reply #8 on:** November 26, 2017, 16:57 »

Well, we got sidetracked a little from my question but thank you all for your input.

I know nobody can answer my question out of his head. I was hoping that there is someone out there who was doing, by chance, the same analysis I did.

I am not comparing SS with FT/AS. We all know that what is a bestseller at one of them, doesn't sell at the other or is not even accepted at the other.

Ft was my best in old times but the two were always very close to each other (for me). Since the merge FT declined and SS took up.

This month, accidentally FT was with ~ 20% better than SS for me but not because FT did so good but because I had a terrible November on SS, during the system change sales practically dried up for a week or so.

@Jo Ann, thanks, I know your situation but I am talking about a longer period than 11 month. In your situation things can only go forwards, you are probably still uploading a lot while I do it once in a while after the decline confirmed by so many people.

I can imagine though that some people are still doing well, it was never the same for everyone.

niktol · « **Reply #9 on:** November 26, 2017, 17:28 »

I think you are attempting to make inferences from seemingly random fluctuations of numbers that overall may not mean much. They could be calculated using a formula - an unknown formula - from back in the days when Fotolia was separate from Adobe. I know that my images listed as bestsellers really aren't, while the bestsellers aren't listed, so much for patterns, regularities and AI.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #10 on:** November 26, 2017, 23:26 »

Quote from: niktol on November 26, 2017, 17:28

I think you are attempting to make inferences from seemingly random fluctuations of numbers that overall may not mean much. They could be calculated using a formula - an unknown formula - from back in the days when Fotolia was separate from Adobe. I know that my images listed as bestsellers really aren't, while the bestsellers aren't listed, so much for patterns, regularities and AI.

Sounds reasonable, we don't know the maths, and can I ask, how much does this weekly or overall rank pay? Like views, I don't ever get money for those.

cthoman · « **Reply #11 on:** November 26, 2017, 23:58 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on November 26, 2017, 23:26

Sounds reasonable, we don't know the maths, and can I ask, how much does this weekly or overall rank pay? Like views, I don't ever get money for those.

They are just download counts. So, a high weekly rank means you had a lot of downloads that week which probably translates to some money even if they are all subs. A higher overall rank means you have a high lifetime download count which will bump you up into higher percentage of the earnings.

zebra007 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 27, 2017, 01:40 »

This is my graph downloads can help you

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #13 on:** November 27, 2017, 09:02 »

Quote from: cthoman on November 26, 2017, 23:58

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on November 26, 2017, 23:26
Sounds reasonable, we don't know the maths, and can I ask, how much does this weekly or overall rank pay? Like views, I don't ever get money for those.

They are just download counts. So, a high weekly rank means you had a lot of downloads that week which probably translates to some money even if they are all subs. A higher overall rank means you have a high lifetime download count which will bump you up into higher percentage of the earnings.

I thought it was a rank? Doesn't that mean me vs everyone else? It's doesn't mean more downloads, or more money, it's just how many I get vs anyone else. I could be the same and they went down, or I could be the same and somebody else went up. It's only relative numbers. Did I understand that? You can guess I don't care about rank, I care about dollars. My dollars have been up since Adobe bought FT. I don't know what my rank was, I didn't take reports or copy.

derek · « **Reply #14 on:** November 27, 2017, 09:18 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on November 27, 2017, 09:02

Quote from: cthoman on November 26, 2017, 23:58
Quote from: YadaYadaYada on November 26, 2017, 23:26
Sounds reasonable, we don't know the maths, and can I ask, how much does this weekly or overall rank pay? Like views, I don't ever get money for those.

They are just download counts. So, a high weekly rank means you had a lot of downloads that week which probably translates to some money even if they are all subs. A higher overall rank means you have a high lifetime download count which will bump you up into higher percentage of the earnings.

I thought it was a rank? Doesn't that mean me vs everyone else? It's doesn't mean more downloads, or more money, it's just how many I get vs anyone else. I could be the same and they went down, or I could be the same and somebody else went up. It's only relative numbers. Did I understand that? You can guess I don't care about rank, I care about dollars. My dollars have been up since Adobe bought FT. I don't know what my rank was, I didn't take reports or copy.

Exactly!! spot on!

cthoman · « **Reply #15 on:** November 27, 2017, 09:42 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on November 27, 2017, 09:02

I thought it was a rank? Doesn't that mean me vs everyone else? It's doesn't mean more downloads, or more money, it's just how many I get vs anyone else. I could be the same and they went down, or I could be the same and somebody else went up. It's only relative numbers. Did I understand that? You can guess I don't care about rank, I care about dollars. My dollars have been up since Adobe bought FT. I don't know what my rank was, I didn't take reports or copy.

Correct. It is compared to everyone else, and the positions don't really matter other than curiosity.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #16 on:** November 27, 2017, 09:47 »

Quote from: cthoman on November 27, 2017, 09:42

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on November 27, 2017, 09:02
I thought it was a rank? Doesn't that mean me vs everyone else? It's doesn't mean more downloads, or more money, it's just how many I get vs anyone else. I could be the same and they went down, or I could be the same and somebody else went up. It's only relative numbers. Did I understand that? You can guess I don't care about rank, I care about dollars. My dollars have been up since Adobe bought FT. I don't know what my rank was, I didn't take reports or copy.

Correct. It is compared to everyone else, and the positions don't really matter other than curiosity.

I think they matter. I'd love to be in the #1 position. That person (or factory) makes millions every year.

niktol · « **Reply #17 on:** November 27, 2017, 09:51 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 27, 2017, 09:47

I think they matter. I'd love to be in the #1 position. That person (or factory) makes millions every year.

Think how many copycats a broadly advertised #1 position generates

Dodie · « **Reply #18 on:** November 27, 2017, 11:09 »

Quote from: cthoman on November 27, 2017, 09:42

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on November 27, 2017, 09:02
I thought it was a rank? Doesn't that mean me vs everyone else? It's doesn't mean more downloads, or more money, it's just how many I get vs anyone else. I could be the same and they went down, or I could be the same and somebody else went up. It's only relative numbers. Did I understand that? You can guess I don't care about rank, I care about dollars. My dollars have been up since Adobe bought FT. I don't know what my rank was, I didn't take reports or copy.

Correct. It is compared to everyone else, and the positions don't really matter other than curiosity.

That's correct, rank shows someone's position compared to others but if someone would pay attention to what I said, it were clear that I was not talking about the rank itself as a measure of comparison.
I was talking about the relationship between overall rank and weekly rank of a single person, no matter what the numbers are.

Overall is relatively constant until you upload a huge number of new images, at least in my case. Weekly rank on the other hand is variable depending on sales so yes, this means money.

I hope I was not too mathematical for those few here who don't know math, but it is easier for me to describe an abstract notion in English this way.

JimP · « **Reply #19 on:** November 27, 2017, 12:54 »

Quote from: Dodie on November 26, 2017, 10:39

I noticed a changed relationship between weekly position and overall position compared to what it was 1-2 years earlier.

It seems like my weekly position is tailored to be equal with my overall (it was much higher earlier) and the download number is dependent of this number. Each time my download number (weekly position) drops, I begin to get dls one after the other but it stops once the two positions are ~ equal (+-). This pattern repeats itself as soon as my download number (weekly position) drops but no dls in between.

To put it simple, it looks like for a certain overall rank I deserve a given number of downloads, not more, not less.

I am not sure if I described this as I wanted but I am curious if someone else is seeing the same pattern.

Thanks.

Now that I read the OP and the math part, you are asking if we have a cap or quota and get sales based on the the weekly and overall relationship? Is that right? Rank controls what you call deserve downloads.

Dodie · « **Reply #20 on:** November 27, 2017, 13:46 »

Quote from: JimP on November 27, 2017, 12:54

Quote from: Dodie on November 26, 2017, 10:39
I noticed a changed relationship between weekly position and overall position compared to what it was 1-2 years earlier.

It seems like my weekly position is tailored to be equal with my overall (it was much higher earlier) and the download number is dependent of this number. Each time my download number (weekly position) drops, I begin to get dls one after the other but it stops once the two positions are ~ equal (+-). This pattern repeats itself as soon as my download number (weekly position) drops but no dls in between.

To put it simple, it looks like for a certain overall rank I deserve a given number of downloads, not more, not less.

I am not sure if I described this as I wanted but I am curious if someone else is seeing the same pattern.

Thanks.

Now that I read the OP and the math part, you are asking if we have a cap or quota and get sales based on the the weekly and overall relationship? Is that right? Rank controls what you call deserve downloads.

Thank you, that is what I meant, however a different kind of cap from what people are talking about on SS. I didn't want to spell it out so directly because I know some people deny the cap theory but that is what I observed.

niktol · « **Reply #21 on:** November 27, 2017, 14:04 »

Quote from: Dodie on November 27, 2017, 13:46

Thank you, that is what I meant, however a different kind of cap from what people are talking about on SS. I didn't want to spell it out so directly because I know some people deny the cap theory but that is what I observed.

Imagine how hard it would be for a customer, when he just picked a pic he likes , and then suddenly the contributor reaches his limit, and then the customer is told that he cannot buy what he wants. I can only imagine how frustrated he would be.

Or maybe (and this is just a theory, but don't be in a hurry to dismiss it because it explains everything), there are no customers, only agencies who play with our lives, sometimes they buy stuff from us, sometimes they don't, and it's all done with only one purpose - to abuse.

Dodie · « **Reply #22 on:** November 27, 2017, 14:29 »

Quote from: niktol on November 27, 2017, 14:04

Quote from: Dodie on November 27, 2017, 13:46

Thank you, that is what I meant, however a different kind of cap from what people are talking about on SS. I didn't want to spell it out so directly because I know some people deny the cap theory but that is what I observed.

Imagine how hard it would be for a customer, when he just picked a pic he likes , and then suddenly the contributor reaches his limit, and then the customer is told that he cannot buy what he wants. I can only imagine how frustrated he would be.

Or maybe (and this is just a theory, but don't be in a hurry to dismiss it because it explains everything), there are no customers, only agencies who play with our lives, sometimes they buy stuff from us, sometimes they don't, and it's all done with only one purpose - to abuse.

No need to be sarcastic, we are just talking peacefully. Don't like it, leave it but don't be in a hurry to leave just yet.
Let's pretend that you and I, we are not promoted equally because of our overall rank and the customer will buy my image because your portfolio is on hold. I am not saying this is the case with AS but I am sure this is not the first time you hear this. It is called ........ roulette (of some kind), not abuse.

Minsc · « **Reply #23 on:** November 27, 2017, 16:07 »

Weekly position is obvious. Overall position is lifetime.

If you fell a few spots in overall position, all that means is that a few other contributors got ahead of you in lifetime sales.

niktol · « **Reply #24 on:** November 27, 2017, 16:18 »

Quote from: Dodie on November 27, 2017, 14:29

No need to be sarcastic, we are just talking peacefully. Don't like it, leave it but don't be in a hurry to leave just yet.
Let's pretend that you and I, we are not promoted equally because of our overall rank and the customer will buy my image because your portfolio is on hold. I am not saying this is the case with AS but I am sure this is not the first time you hear this. It is called ........ roulette (of some kind), not abuse.

I am talking peacefully, sorry if it came across standoffish, but this whole cap theory has got to be put to rest. I don't hear it the first time, but I hear lotsa things. Don't take it the wrong way, but there is just no reasonable motivation for an agency to hide its successful content from customers when exactly the same content is offered by another one. None. The same way you or I don't start thinking of pulling portfolios from an agency when sales with them go up. We increase supply if there is more demand, not the other way around, that's not how you stay in business.

It's christmas time, they are promoting christmas, or do you think they are going to shut down people who sell christmas because they aren't ranked enough? They must have run out of quotas by now, so crazy it gets.

Besides, people with higher ranks get a larger cut, so it's not in an agency's interest to promote them.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Weekly position vs overall position (Read 18114 times)

Dodie

zebra007

Dodie

Noedelhap

Dodie

Jo Ann Snover

derek

Shelma1

Dodie

niktol

YadaYadaYada

cthoman

zebra007

YadaYadaYada

derek

cthoman

Shelma1

niktol

Dodie

JimP

Dodie

niktol

Dodie

Minsc

niktol

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors