Agency Based Discussion > General - Top Sites

Site Productivity

(1/4) > >>

sharply_done:
A prime indicator of how productive a site is the ratio of downloads to uploads. A good site, for me, is one where I can achieve more downloads than uploads (i.e. DLs/ULs > 1.0).

Here are my numbers:
IS: 13.9:1
SS: 8.9
DT: 1.6
FT: 1.0
StockXpert: 0.3
CRE: 0.3
123: 0.2
BigStock: 0.2

IS is by far my most productive site. How do your numbers compare?

a.k.a.-tom:
I'll work up the numbers but I can tell you right off the top of my head.... I'm way ahead with IS and SS.  SS further in front only because I've been with them a year longer than IS.  However, at the current pace, IS will soon pass SS.   8)=tom

GeoPappas:

--- Quote from: sharply_done on November 29, 2007, 16:15 ---A prime indicator of how productive a site is the ratio of downloads to uploads. A good site, for me, is one where I can achieve more downloads than uploads (i.e. DLs/ULs > 1.0).

--- End quote ---

I would agree with this, except for one thing - subscriptions.  Subscriptions tend to increase downloads dramatically (because that is their nature).  So I think that comparisons between all of the sites (except for SS) are alright.  DT, 123, and StockXpert might be skewed a little (since they offer subscriptions), but the amount of subscription downloads will vary from one person to the next.

madelaide:
Shaprly_done,

I don't have those numbers ready, but I will.  However, wouldn't the comparison be valid only if you started on all these sites about the same time?  I mean, if you've had 1000 images in one site for one year and the same 1000 images in another for just one month, dlds/ulds are not comparable.

Regards,
Adelaide

sharply_done:
Yes, the comparison is valid only for portfolios of about the same age. With the exception of StockXpert, I've had files on all my sites for about the same length of time.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page