Author Topic: Deleting and then resubmitting (Read 5284 times)

grsphoto · « **on:** March 27, 2014, 10:55 »

I am sure we all have images that, for some reason, just don't appear in searches.

What happens if we delete them, and then resubmit? Does this hurt or help?

As well, what about rekeywording? I have learned a bit and would like to change keywords. Is this easy to do on some sites or is it better to delete and then resubmit.

Any thoughts on this?

rimglow · « **Reply #1 on:** March 27, 2014, 12:05 »

Some sites let you delete images and some don't. Some make you contact them about any removal. They probably don't want to keep reviewing the same approved images over and over.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #2 on:** March 27, 2014, 12:23 »

Quote from: grsphoto on March 27, 2014, 10:55

I am sure we all have images that, for some reason, just don't appear in searches.

What happens if we delete them, and then resubmit? Does this hurt or help?

As well, what about rekeywording? I have learned a bit and would like to change keywords. Is this easy to do on some sites or is it better to delete and then resubmit.

Any thoughts on this?

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130564

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #3 on:** March 27, 2014, 12:25 »

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

Aetherial · « **Reply #4 on:** March 28, 2014, 03:16 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 27, 2014, 12:25

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

Actually search engine placement is purely based on luck and yields different results at different times. More like gambling. Game is rigged, but there is some leeway for winning a big buck, and it doesn't cost money, but time (which actually is a more expensive commodity, but not with a small portfolio). Did anyone successfully deleted images and got better search engine placement?

LesPalenik · « **Reply #5 on:** March 28, 2014, 03:43 »

I suspect that if you try to game it and exchange the accumulated downloads for a fresh look, you might get hurt in the long run.
You can re-fresh the image many times, but once you delete it, you'll lose permanently all those hard earned download counts.

Aetherial · « **Reply #6 on:** March 28, 2014, 03:55 »

I suppose they wouldn't delete ones with downloads, but ones that didn't sell or claw their way to the top waters of search engine

LesPalenik · « **Reply #7 on:** March 28, 2014, 04:03 »

OK, I see what you mean.
However, some agencies will penalize your old bestsellers and push them down a few pages - to give the new images a fighting chance.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #8 on:** March 28, 2014, 09:39 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 27, 2014, 12:25

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

Speaking about science, doing the same thing over and over again will probably give you the same (or similar) result

Speaking about microscocks, doing the same thing over and over again could probably give you each time a different result

jacoblund · « **Reply #9 on:** March 28, 2014, 10:05 »

grsphoto I think it's a relevant question. I thought about trying that myself once. It could probably give a few extra downloads to some images. But the question is - is it worth the time?

I think you should see all the time you use as an investment. And I believe that investing time in shooting new images will pay of much better than "micro-managing" your stock portfolio.

grsphoto · « **Reply #10 on:** March 28, 2014, 11:46 »

Quote from: ammentorp on March 28, 2014, 10:05

grsphoto I think it's a relevant question. I thought about trying that myself once. It could probably give a few extra downloads to some images. But the question is - is it worth the time?

I think you should see all the time you use as an investment. And I believe that investing time in shooting new images will pay of much better than "micro-managing" your stock portfolio.

i agree. i was thinking of images that i will never be able to reproduce....

stockphoto-images.com · « **Reply #11 on:** March 28, 2014, 11:51 »

My 2 Cents: Do NOT do that!

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #12 on:** March 28, 2014, 12:05 »

Silly me, I thought search placement was based on sales, quality, views, rank, maybe ratings, and other factors. All this time wasted trying to send new and improved images... and it's just luck and gambling?

Maybe if I rub the monitor and eat herring, before I upload, plus keep a four leaf clover and a rabbits foot on my desk, I'll have better luck and make more.

Quote from: stockphoto-images.com on March 28, 2014, 11:51

My 2 Cents: Do NOT do that!

I'd agree about 1000% with that. Invest time on work, not spend time on wishful thinking and magic.

Quote from: Aetherial on March 28, 2014, 03:16

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 27, 2014, 12:25
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

Actually search engine placement is purely based on luck and yields different results at different times. More like gambling. Game is rigged, but there is some leeway for winning a big buck, and it doesn't cost money, but time (which actually is a more expensive commodity, but not with a small portfolio). Did anyone successfully deleted images and got better search engine placement?

jacoblund · « **Reply #13 on:** March 28, 2014, 12:10 »

Quote from: grsphoto on March 28, 2014, 11:46

Quote from: ammentorp on March 28, 2014, 10:05
grsphoto I think it's a relevant question. I thought about trying that myself once. It could probably give a few extra downloads to some images. But the question is - is it worth the time?

I think you should see all the time you use as an investment. And I believe that investing time in shooting new images will pay of much better than "micro-managing" your stock portfolio.

i agree. i was thinking of images that i will never be able to reproduce....

I understand - but my point that it's still better to produce new images. Not trying to reproduce.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #14 on:** March 28, 2014, 12:19 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 28, 2014, 12:05

Silly me, I thought search placement was based on sales, quality, views, rank, maybe ratings, and other factors. All this time wasted trying to send new and improved images... and it's just luck and gambling?

Maybe if I rub the monitor and eat herring, before I upload, plus keep a four leaf clover and a rabbits foot on my desk, I'll have better luck and make more.

It would be more effective to take pictures of the monitor, herring, rabbit's foot, and the desk, and submit those.

Mantis · « **Reply #15 on:** March 28, 2014, 14:28 »

What about the Dreamstime "old images with no downloads" policy. When I get these emails (I just got one this morning) I will maybe reprocess the images, clean up the keywords and I typically get sales. That tells me that, for me anyway, I didn't optimize key words, and the image wasn't as good as I could have made it originally. As we learn we get better. And after so long without sales, they get buried deeper and deeper in the search. So based on that limited sample, there is probably merit in deleting unsold images and re-uploading them, assuming you can do that and not get in trouble.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Deleting and then resubmitting (Read 5284 times)

grsphoto

rimglow

ruxpriencdiam

Uncle Pete

Aetherial

LesPalenik

Aetherial

LesPalenik

Beppe Grillo

jacoblund

grsphoto

stockphoto-images.com

Uncle Pete

jacoblund

LesPalenik

Mantis

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors