MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Toms45 on October 19, 2013, 17:56
-
Hi,
I've seen a lot of social-stock sites, like 500px, pixoto, viewbug, photorankr, 1x, etc. Even mostphotos.com does this I think. The goal of these sites it seems it to rank content in someway that is useful to buyers. Other than filtering out bad photos, does ranking hold any value? Is it a real problem in how stock sites sort their content right now? Is adding a social element better for any kind of stock photography?
Thanks.
-
Image ranking has always intrigued me. I think it can hold some value. I'm not sure how much. How do stock editors select which images come first anyways? It seems to me, that letting the community decide would be a better deal.
-
@murv23
I'm not sure how they normally select. I think it could be better this way, to let users rank images, rather than having editors. Any other thoughts?
-
iStock used to have users rating files, and it counted a bit for best match order.
Of course, they got rating gangs, so they had to stop it.
Also, you'd have to be really nice to rate an image highly which was directly rivalling one of yours.
Then you'd get the people who'd rate one of your images and expect you to return the favour.
A can of worms.
-
Any other thoughts?
-
Years ago, at shutterpint, image rating was an endless source of conflict and wrath among pohotographers.
-
So do agencies currently decide what shows up first in search, etc.?
-
Years ago, at shutterpint, image rating was an endless source of conflict and wrath among pohotographers.
Ah, Shutterpoint... :)
-
So do agencies currently decide what shows up first in search, etc.?
That's a mystery at each agency and it probably differs from one to another. Search ranking can be based on keywords, how big a port you have, how many best sellers you possess, what country you are from, if you are troublemaker in the forums, if the head guy likes you, if you've said good things about the agency on outside blogs, if your eyes are green, if you send them chocolates at Christmas and on and on. No one will ever know.
-
it doesn't unless there are buyers on those sites which I don't believe, the sites you are talking mean "nothing" and most "contributors" spend all day giving likes and comments but in the end it has no value, total waste of time IMO
-
So, for example, do you think 500px new market will fail? I look at the content there, and there's a lot of good stuff and a lot of stock (ranked poorly). They recently brought on some new executives from iStock, etc. Do you think their market won't fair well? And why?
-
So, for example, do you think 500px new market will fail? I look at the content there, and there's a lot of good stuff and a lot of stock (ranked poorly). They recently brought on some new executives from iStock, etc. Do you think their market won't fair well? And why?
Easy answer is what I bolded.
-
So, for example, do you think 500px new market will fail? I look at the content there, and there's a lot of good stuff and a lot of stock (ranked poorly). They recently brought on some new executives from iStock, etc. Do you think their market won't fair well? And why?
Easy answer is what I bolded.
My thoughts too. Unless these were old, good, staff who were marginalised by Getty.
-
No one thinks that 500px will make a good marketplace? They CEO said it's a 5 year plan. That's a lot of time to get it right.
Any other thoughts on ranking?
-
The problem with rating is that most photographers, or people who take the time to rate, don't know what a good stock image is. The best image isn't the best stock image.
The only people who know what images are best for the buyer, are the buyers... and the agencies who track the sales and feed that back into their searches.
-
Any other thoughts?
-
Nope.