pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Food for independants!!  (Read 11376 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2011, 00:44 »
0
Just tried this search on Shutterstock "Black, Businessman, Standing" with 50 images showing 20 images are of White businessman standing.  To get black Businessmen only would I have to put the words "African Descent or Afro American"?  

I think half the battle is educating the users on the features available.  Creating a good search engine is difficult if the users don't make use of any features outside of the basics.  Even Google becomes that much more powerful if you exclude a keyword or two.  The SS example, you would just check the 'People search' and select African American (or the other options they have depending what you mean) from the list...


« Reply #26 on: February 11, 2011, 01:08 »
0
Just tried this search on Shutterstock "Black, Businessman, Standing" with 50 images showing 20 images are of White businessman standing.  To get black Businessmen only would I have to put the words "African Descent or Afro American"?  

I think half the battle is educating the users on the features available.  Creating a good search engine is difficult if the users don't make use of any features outside of the basics.  Even Google becomes that much more powerful if you exclude a keyword or two.  The SS example, you would just check the 'People search' and select African American (or the other options they have depending what you mean) from the list...

Exactly, in addition to the black businessmen you will also get all the buisnessmen wearing a black suit or against a black background or wearing a black tie, etc etc.  Input something vague in the search field and you will get something vague back.

I had this argument with Dreamstime; they would not allow geographic terms in my keywords and I told them they were essential for the identification of the animals with respect to location.  Do a search for tiger or Siberian Tiger; you will get thousands of zoo images.  Do a search for Primorski, Tiger, Russia and you will get mostly Tigers from the wild.

Another example, go a search for Eastern Great Tit (a bird) and you get thousands of images of pretty girls from the east or looking east or that have been  on a trip to the east, etc.  Do a search for Eastern Great Tit, Amur and you will get photos of a small bird with a colorful pale yellow belly.  But, DT will not allow the words Primorski, Russia or Amur in the keywords.

I, the seller, am screwed because the buyer can not find my work and the buyer is screwed because he/she must wade through junk to find the images

« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2011, 02:02 »
0
Where's the food? I thought you were offering vouchers for 'Beefeater's' or something  ???   ;)

« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2011, 02:43 »
0
the searches are a problem in IS because it is not focused on the buyer at all. It is focused on pushing chosen higher value content and a bias towards exclusives. The buyer wants the best picture not IS margin grabs or its attempt to keep exclusives. Only educated (in IS systems) buyer find it easy.
What is disturbing to me is there seems to be looser standards for exclusive content. Multiple similar shots get in clogging the searches and at times happy snaps that would not make it in for independents - check out the critique forums. Some shots are poor to the point you shake your head and then hear "it is fine it got it". I know there are extremely good exclusives and I am not doubting that their content is good.

This all means worse and more expensive images first?

lagereek

« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2011, 03:30 »
0
Well Mark, true indeed but out of two evils I rather have it that way then some others, pushing total, repetative rubbish up the buyers nostrils.

« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2011, 06:58 »
0
I respect tyour view but are you an exclusive and not a buyer to feel that way?

lagereek

« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2011, 07:20 »
0
I respect tyour view but are you an exclusive and not a buyer to feel that way?

Im a photographer, independant, etc. this thread is not about IS in particular, its about all the search-engines,  IS, as it happens have got a reasonable search compared to many others, although, yes, at the moment its geared towards exclusives, Vettas, etc but that was pretty much expected.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2011, 07:22 by lagereek »

« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2011, 07:56 »
0
I had this argument with Dreamstime; they would not allow geographic terms in my keywords and I told them they were essential for the identification of the animals with respect to location.  Do a search for tiger or Siberian Tiger; you will get thousands of zoo images.  Do a search for Primorski, Tiger, Russia and you will get mostly Tigers from the wild.

Another example, go a search for Eastern Great Tit (a bird) and you get thousands of images of pretty girls from the east or looking east or that have been  on a trip to the east, etc.  Do a search for Eastern Great Tit, Amur and you will get photos of a small bird with a colorful pale yellow belly.  But, DT will not allow the words Primorski, Russia or Amur in the keywords.

I, the seller, am screwed because the buyer can not find my work and the buyer is screwed because he/she must wade through junk to find the images
Sorry but that's a poor example. If you want to sell images of wildlife then it is absolutely unforgivable to not use the binomial nomenclature (Latin/Greek names) to identify them. If you want to sell an image of a Great Tit then you should have the words Parus major within your keywords __ which you don't. The location then becomes largely irrelevant as birds have a tendency to fly to different places but obviously their name remains the same. It also differentiates you as a professional supplier of wildlife images from the happy snapper at the zoo or in their garden. You could really do with improving your keywording. It is also essential to state what the subject is doing __ is the bird flying, perching, eating or what? Whenever I sell a wildlife image on DT the buyer ususally keywords the action and very often the Latin name.

« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2011, 12:12 »
0
Another example, go a search for Eastern Great Tit (a bird) and you get thousands of images of pretty girls from the east or looking east or that have been  on a trip to the east, etc.  Do a search for Eastern Great Tit, Amur and you will get photos of a small bird with a colorful pale yellow belly.  But, DT will not allow the words Primorski, Russia or Amur in the keywords.

I, the seller, am screwed because the buyer can not find my work and the buyer is screwed because he/she must wade through junk to find the images

Am I missing something?  On both Shutterstock and DT if I search on 'Great Tit' I get all bird photos (minus the one girl in the pool on SS).  Interestingly, I choose the best one I saw in the top five on DT and it happened to be yours :)  I agree with Gostwyck - you are missing the latin names and other keywords.  Adding 'Russia' is really just a form of keyword spam and will cause your bird photos to appear in a search on Russia.  DT will let you put that in the description so a buyer can still find out where you took the photo if they care about that...

I would expect a buyer (on DT) to begin such a search within the Animal category to avoid getting all the 'junk'...or by checking 'no people'.

Google is an amazing search engine - but even it has trouble showing photos of yellow birds if you are going to search on 'great tits' :)

RacePhoto

« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2011, 12:31 »
0
If you have a crappy title and crappy keywords, the search engine will deliver crappy results.  The reviewers need to do their job and they need some reviewers to go through the old stock and cull out the bad stuff.

+1

plus if someone enters a crappy search of one or two words, they will get stinky results for everything that has those two words. What did they expect? The search engine is not intuitive and doesn't know what someone wants, anymore than a computer can guess that you wanted it to do something else when you typed in a wrong command. GIGO

All the people pointing out that black is also black and there are black suits... have covered the whole problem that seems to get ignored every time this keyword and search engine riot breaks out in a new thread. Try walnut, is it wood, a tree, a color, a part holding a wall or something else?   :o

Words Have More Than One Meaning!

As for the theory of views, clicks and zooms which would rank the pictures for future searches, by how buyers looked at them. Alamy does that, using their top buyers, and people complain about the search there because it finds the words they searched for! I always ask, did you want it to find words you didn't search for somehow?

No search engine is going to work if the words and descriptions are full of irrelevant words and spam. NONE. No search will work when words have multiple meanings, it's language and impossible to know which meaning someone wants, except maybe with CV and we can all see how limiting that is, especially when the word we need, doesn't exist because they haven't added it or it's spelled differently in Canada than other places.

Yeah, when is the secret code book for IS keywords going to be published.

There's no pleasing anyone... that's my answer.

« Reply #35 on: February 12, 2011, 15:14 »
0
My prediction is that Google will never get into the stock agency business.  Google runs an extremely light weight business model with incredible margins.  Stock agencies historically have been terrible investments, with plenty of bankruptcies and very tight margins.  Why would Google want any part of that?

Google will continue to do what it is currently doing...indexing images while constantly improving the search results.  Many agencies had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the internet in the 1990s.  So of course they are dragging their feet trying to understand the power of search results outside of their own system. 

I did several searches today and didn't find one image from Getty on the first page for any result.  Nothing from Corbis either.  I found some microstock, mostly Shutterstock and Canstock (far more than iStock).  And I found some poor results as usual.  But I also found plenty of images sold independently from photographers and artists.  One of which has a KTools site and makes quite a bit of money selling stock independently.  If I was a buyer, I easily could have chosen from several high quality results on the first page of each search.  To say the agencies are missing the boat again would be the understatement of the year.

« Reply #36 on: February 12, 2011, 21:10 »
0
I had this argument with Dreamstime; they would not allow geographic terms in my keywords and I told them they were essential for the identification of the animals with respect to location.  Do a search for tiger or Siberian Tiger; you will get thousands of zoo images.  Do a search for Primorski, Tiger, Russia and you will get mostly Tigers from the wild.

Another example, go a search for Eastern Great Tit (a bird) and you get thousands of images of pretty girls from the east or looking east or that have been  on a trip to the east, etc.  Do a search for Eastern Great Tit, Amur and you will get photos of a small bird with a colorful pale yellow belly.  But, DT will not allow the words Primorski, Russia or Amur in the keywords.

I, the seller, am screwed because the buyer can not find my work and the buyer is screwed because he/she must wade through junk to find the images

Sorry but that's a poor example. If you want to sell images of wildlife then it is absolutely unforgivable to not use the binomial nomenclature (Latin/Greek names) to identify them. If you want to sell an image of a Great Tit then you should have the words Parus major within your keywords __ which you don't. The location then becomes largely irrelevant as birds have a tendency to fly to different places but obviously their name remains the same. It also differentiates you as a professional supplier of wildlife images from the happy snapper at the zoo or in their garden. You could really do with improving your keywording. It is also essential to state what the subject is doing __ is the bird flying, perching, eating or what? Whenever I sell a wildlife image on DT the buyer ususally keywords the action and very often the Latin name.


Point taken, understood, will revise my keywords
« Last Edit: February 12, 2011, 21:29 by visceralimage »

« Reply #37 on: February 13, 2011, 03:43 »
0
I've just done a google image search with interesting results
I put in 3 of my common keywords which I use at all sites.  I got over 10 million results and the first 4 images were  mine.  Anyway the first 2 were from 123rf, the third from Bigstock and the 4th from Dreamstime.
I didn't get a fotolia, or istock image until the 2nd page after spiderpics whatever that is and SS didn't appear until page 8.
It makes me think that if 123 and bigstock get such good google results but such bad sales compared to the big 4 then very little buying traffic comes through google.

RacePhoto

« Reply #38 on: February 13, 2011, 04:54 »
0
I've just done a google image search with interesting results
I put in 3 of my common keywords which I use at all sites.  I got over 10 million results and the first 4 images were  mine.  Anyway the first 2 were from 123rf, the third from Bigstock and the 4th from Dreamstime.
I didn't get a fotolia, or istock image until the 2nd page after spiderpics whatever that is and SS didn't appear until page 8.
It makes me think that if 123 and bigstock get such good google results but such bad sales compared to the big 4 then very little buying traffic comes through google.

Search your name and see what happens. "[fname lname] photo" I was very surprised to see an avatar from a flying website my first (wow strange?) followed by istock, istock, mostphotos (my avatar?), 123rf, 123rf, (123RF is a closed account!), Imagekind (one photo account that I opened in 2005), iStock, private site, private site (a drivers webpage), icon gif from one of my websites, istock, another one of my websites (not the same one), Alamy logo from one of my websites... Not one BigStock on the front page. Kind of amusing.

I wonder why the Google Image search find avatars and gifs from my web pages, before it finds web images. And by the way, the IS images are the oldest uploads from my application set. All very odd. Yes, 123RF apparently has the best identification for getting picked up by the Google Image search for artists name.

Searching for some of my subjects by drivers name picasaweb.google.com and flickr come up and nothing on my websites in the first page.

I guess I'd better work on that?  ;)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #39 on: February 13, 2011, 05:30 »
0
I've just done a google image search with interesting results
I put in 3 of my common keywords which I use at all sites.  I got over 10 million results and the first 4 images were  mine.  Anyway the first 2 were from 123rf, the third from Bigstock and the 4th from Dreamstime.
I didn't get a fotolia, or istock image until the 2nd page after spiderpics whatever that is and SS didn't appear until page 8.
It makes me think that if 123 and bigstock get such good google results but such bad sales compared to the big 4 then very little buying traffic comes through google.
It has always been said in the past that 'very little buying traffic comes through Google'. in another thread here, someone suggested this was not the case, but they didn't quote a source.  I would find it very difficult to believe that a significant number of would-be buyers (personally I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere near 10%, but that's just my surmise) search through Google.

« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2011, 16:45 »
0
http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/do-buyers-use-search-engines-more-than.html

For example, if only .1% of google searchers would actually license an image they found for a given search, the fact that the site itself gets hundreds of millions of searches a day, even the tiny .1% that might convert into buyers would still yield a higher total than what all the photo stock agencies yield...

...To use my site as strictly anecdotal evidence, I get 20,000-30,000 visitors a day, and of those who license images, only a small handful even knew that "stock photo agencies" existed in the first place.


If search results weren't lucrative, Google would have gone out of business a long time ago.  But if you think nobody uses Google to search for things to buy, then I completely understand why you feel only an agency can represent you.

« Reply #41 on: February 13, 2011, 17:03 »
0
It makes me think that if 123 and bigstock get such good google results but such bad sales compared to the big 4 then very little buying traffic comes through google.

That hardly seems reasonably considering Google's business model is based around search results leading to commerce.  Otherwise nobody would care how they ranked in Google.

I think what is more likely is that very few people sign up with microstock agencies after searching for an image in Google.  I don't have any data to back it up, but if we assume someone is looking to purchase a single photo, they will have a hard time doing so once they click through to the microstock site.  As soon as they do, they are hit with a myriad of credit options or subscriptions.  The buyer is probably saying to herself, "I just want to purchase this one photo.  Why can't I just purchase this photo without buying all of these credits?"

And the search either goes on from there, or stops all together.  Either way the microstock site probably doesn't sign up the buyer looking for a single photo to fit their specific need.

« Reply #42 on: February 14, 2011, 06:15 »
0
It makes me think that if 123 and bigstock get such good google results but such bad sales compared to the big 4 then very little buying traffic comes through google.

That hardly seems reasonably considering Google's business model is based around search results leading to commerce.  Otherwise nobody would care how they ranked in Google.

I think what is more likely is that very few people sign up with microstock agencies after searching for an image in Google.  I don't have any data to back it up, but if we assume someone is looking to purchase a single photo, they will have a hard time doing so once they click through to the microstock site.  As soon as they do, they are hit with a myriad of credit options or subscriptions.  The buyer is probably saying to herself, "I just want to purchase this one photo.  Why can't I just purchase this photo without buying all of these credits?"

And the search either goes on from there, or stops all together.  Either way the microstock site probably doesn't sign up the buyer looking for a single photo to fit their specific need.

That's a good point, but I've seen credit packages starting at $5, others start at $10. 123rf and Bigstock start at $15, even if they use this to buy one image, it's not a big amount. I've only seen Cutcaster allow individual purchases, without buying credits.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2668 Views
Last post January 17, 2007, 14:24
by Greg Boiarsky
21 Replies
6418 Views
Last post December 11, 2008, 03:11
by lagereek
13 Replies
5165 Views
Last post April 29, 2009, 15:49
by XeniaII
36 Replies
11863 Views
Last post June 07, 2009, 13:11
by gostwyck
0 Replies
1300 Views
Last post December 12, 2020, 16:13
by fotoluminate

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle