pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Weekly position vs overall position  (Read 7547 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2017, 16:48 »
0

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 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.

I'm not a believer in the cap theory, but an apparently successful algorithm could lead to the top earners getting most of the sales with little for the vast majority.  No doubt things are scewed that way, but agencies need a diverse library to succeed and contributors need encouragement to keep uploading, so the algorithm is likely to be tweaked for the overall welfare of the agency and contributor, but for the life of me I can't see some kind of rotation being like the flip of a switch enabling contributors to catch up at the end of the month.


« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2017, 17:04 »
0
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.

I understood what you meant in the OP. I just didn't put much stock in the cap theory. I know mine can vary widely, although I don't pay attention to it much.

niktol

« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2017, 17:05 »
0

I'm not a believer in the cap theory, but an apparently successful algorithm could lead to the top earners getting most of the sales with little for the vast majority.  No doubt things are scewed that way, but agencies need a diverse library to succeed and contributors need encouragement to keep uploading, so the algorithm is likely to be tweaked for the overall welfare of the agency and contributor, but for the life of me I can't see some kind of rotation being like the flip of a switch enabling contributors to catch up at the end of the month.

I have no doubt that searches are made to optimize the bottom line (and only bottom line), which may lead to some images being prioritized more than other, but it would be extremely unwise to shut entire portfolios off completely to play up diversity or anything else. If diversity is necessary at some point to increase sales, so be it, but I don't think diversity is a goal within itself. If tomorrow customers say that they only want cats in hats, that's the only thing you will see on shelves. And I don't see them promoting anything that is completely useless and nobody ever buys for the sake of diversity. And I am sure, there is plenty of useless content, I started with it, I should know.

niktol

« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2017, 17:17 »
0

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.

There is a old English proverb: "It's not about the size of math you know, it's about how you use it".  8)

« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2017, 17:43 »
0

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.


There is a old English proverb: "It's not about the size of math you know, it's about how you use it".  8)

Wise words. It is hard for me to understand simple conversational English let alone proverbs but I'll consider you mind it well.

BTW. that was an answer to this comment http://www.microstockgroup.com/30801/30801/msg501715/#msg501715
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 17:46 by Dodie »

niktol

« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2017, 17:55 »
0

Wise words. It is hard for me to understand simple conversational English let alone proverbs but I'll consider you mind it well.



Anyhoo, whatever the differences in our opinions are, they aren't worth a heated argument. English isn't my first language either and I remember times when expressing my thoughts wasn't easy at all. I know the feeling of being at a disadvantage in a discussion because I couldn't formulate my thoughts. To some extent I am still there. Cheers and have a good one.

« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2017, 18:05 »
0
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.

I understood what you meant in the OP. I just didn't put much stock in the cap theory. I know mine can vary widely, although I don't pay attention to it much.

I know but it's not a cap theory, that's why I didn't use this word in the first place. At least not that cap theory I am reading about all the time. I dare say it's more the proof (just for me) based on observation, of some kind of repeating algorithm.

It doesn't matter anyway, whatever I see, it will not change anything.

« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2017, 18:07 »
0

Wise words. It is hard for me to understand simple conversational English let alone proverbs but I'll consider you mind it well.



Anyhoo, whatever the differences in our opinions are, they aren't worth a heated argument. English isn't my first language either and I remember times when expressing my thoughts wasn't easy at all. I know the feeling of being at a disadvantage in a discussion because I couldn't formulate my thoughts. To some extent I am still there. Cheers and have a good one.
All the best to you too.

« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2017, 19:41 »
0

I'm not a believer in the cap theory, but an apparently successful algorithm could lead to the top earners getting most of the sales with little for the vast majority.  No doubt things are scewed that way, but agencies need a diverse library to succeed and contributors need encouragement to keep uploading, so the algorithm is likely to be tweaked for the overall welfare of the agency and contributor, but for the life of me I can't see some kind of rotation being like the flip of a switch enabling contributors to catch up at the end of the month.

I have no doubt that searches are made to optimize the bottom line (and only bottom line), which may lead to some images being prioritized more than other, but it would be extremely unwise to shut entire portfolios off completely to play up diversity or anything else. If diversity is necessary at some point to increase sales, so be it, but I don't think diversity is a goal within itself. If tomorrow customers say that they only want cats in hats, that's the only thing you will see on shelves. And I don't see them promoting anything that is completely useless and nobody ever buys for the sake of diversity. And I am sure, there is plenty of useless content, I started with it, I should know.

Bottom line is everything, but it is not always a straight road.  As for diversity several of the Premium closed shops have had problems with it and had to open it up to more members.  If on an open platform, an agency can do that (encourage contributors who provide that diverdity to upload more) using an algorithm to achieve that as a secondary goal why not, lots of gains for them. Not all buyers are equal and not all contributors are equal, but you do not increase your bottom line by ingnoring any of them and that is all written into the algorithm.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2956 Views
Last post April 12, 2010, 22:21
by Habman
5 Replies
4133 Views
Last post April 10, 2011, 16:19
by Sadstock
46 Replies
10305 Views
Last post September 12, 2011, 13:37
by leaf
2 Replies
3918 Views
Last post July 20, 2012, 10:45
by modviz
12 Replies
4592 Views
Last post August 30, 2012, 20:48
by daveh900

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results