pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Weekly position vs overall position  (Read 7554 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 26, 2017, 10:39 »
0
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.


« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2017, 10:44 »
0
I am not sure i understand. :o

« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2017, 11:21 »
0
I am not sure i understand. :o
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.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2017, 11:27 by Dodie »

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2017, 12:07 »
+2
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!

« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2017, 12:18 »
0
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.

« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2017, 13:50 »
+2
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

    This user is banned.
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2017, 14:03 »
0
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 »
+1
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.

« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2017, 16:57 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2017, 17:04 by Dodie »

niktol

« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2017, 17:28 »
0
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.

« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2017, 23:26 »
0
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.

« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2017, 23:58 »
+1
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.

« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2017, 01:40 »
+1
This is my graph downloads can help you :)

« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2017, 09:02 »
+1
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

    This user is banned.
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2017, 09:18 »
0
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!

« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2017, 09:42 »
0
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 »
+1
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 »
0

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  8)

« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2017, 11:09 »
+1
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 »
+1
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.

« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2017, 13:46 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 13:51 by Dodie »

niktol

« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2017, 14:04 »
+3

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.

« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2017, 14:29 »
0

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.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 14:46 by Dodie »

« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2017, 16:07 »
0
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 »
+4

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.

« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 16:50 by niktol »

« 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
2958 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
10312 Views
Last post September 12, 2011, 13:37
by leaf
2 Replies
3921 Views
Last post July 20, 2012, 10:45
by modviz
12 Replies
4594 Views
Last post August 30, 2012, 20:48
by daveh900

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results