I am basically basing this on a hunch, but has anyone else had any suspicions about SS manipulating their market, giving certain members an advantage and others not so much?

I would  very much like to hear what you think about this.
 Would this be advantageous to them in any way to control the market?  If I am correct would this be ethical on their part?

... anyone else had any suspicions about SS manipulating their market, giving certain members an advantage and others not so much?

What do you mean by 'manipulating'? Making sure that certain members' images come higher in a search? Approving their images more easily? Inspecting their images more quickly? Or something else?

Can you be more specific?

I am basically basing this on a hunch, but has anyone else had any suspicions about SS manipulating their market, giving certain members an advantage and others not so much?

I would  very much like to hear what you think about this.
 Would this be advantageous to them in any way to control the market?  If I am correct would this be ethical on their part?

I think you are being paranoid.  I have never felt this about any site.  Some people think that istock favor exclusives in their search but I haven't seen any proof of that.  People like to make up excuses for them not having as many downloads as others.  I don't take any notice of them.  Even if the sites did give certain members an advantage, is there anything we could do about it?

I'm pretty sure that Achilles said that it was one of the factors at one time on the DT forums.  I have a Dl/image ratio of just over 9 and my images do very well in the searches.  I think that it would make sense on DT to give higher level images a better place in the search as they make more money from them but I don't know if they do or not.
Sorry this post was about SS and it's getting sidetracked.

Quote from: fotografer on October 19, 2007, 00:44

On dreamstime I believe that the dls/image ratio is one of the factors in their popular search which makes sense to draw attention to portfolios that are generally of high quality.

DL/image is definitely NOT something that is used in the Relevancy (aka Best Match) sort order.  My current DL/image is at a little over 7.  Last month it was even higher - it was around 8.  It dropped because I started uploading new images in the last month to try and counter the free-fall that my sales have had.

My sales used to be quite good on DT, but since the beginning of the year they have been on a death spiral.  I barely make anything at all on DT anymore.

Yeah I felt it too! Im not sure!
Wanna be carefull with  false accusations though!

Yeah I felt it too! Im not sure!
Wanna be carefull with  false accusations though!

Just a discussion. Perhaps all the microstocks do this sort of thing.

I think that it would make sense on DT to give higher level images a better place in the search as they make more money from them but I don't know if they do or not.

The way DT implemented that was never clear, and I am not a good enough detective to study that (and I don't even periodically do searches to see how the same image is performing).

It does not make sense to give a higher ranked photographer precedence over relevance.  If someone looks for "yellow car" and I have an image in which "yellow car" is in the title, description and keywords (thus almost surely being an image of a yellow car...), it doesn't make sense that my image comes behind images from great sellers if they have a series of a dozen images in which yellow and car are keywords only (because in fact the image is of a woman wearing a yellow shirt crossing the street in front of a few cars).

Regards,
Adelaide

Quote from: fotografer on October 19, 2007, 02:54

I think that it would make sense on DT to give higher level images a better place in the search as they make more money from them but I don't know if they do or not.

If someone looks for "yellow car" and I have an image in which "yellow car" is in the title, description and keywords (thus almost surely being an image of a yellow car...), it doesn't make sense that my image comes behind images from great sellers if they have a series of a dozen images in which yellow and car are keywords only (because in fact the image is of a woman wearing a yellow shirt crossing the street in front of a few cars).

That is my beef with DT's default (Relevance aka Best Match) sorting algorithm.  It doesn't work the way you think it should work.  I agree that if you type in a search, then the results should contain all the search words in the title, description, and keywords.  But it doesn't work that way.

For example, if you search for "American United States flag", you will find that most of the results don't contain the search words in the keywords, title, and description.  As a matter of fact, I counted only five images in the first 100 results that contain all of the search words in the title, description, and keywords.

Now how is that good for a buyer?

A buyer searches for an American flag, but they get images with the following titles:

"Man with American Flag"
"United States Constitution, Bible, scales weighing"
"Constitution of the United States"
"United States Constitution, Candle, and Flag"
"US Air Force Parachuter with American Flag"
"Mount Rushmore American Flag"
"Half Staff American Flag at the United States Capitol"
"United States Capitol Building Dome"

etc, etc.

The same is true of other searches.  For example, if you want to find a Christmas tree with snow and you use the search "Christmas tree snowing", then you will get images with titles such as:

"Christmas decoration"
"Merry Christmas"
"Celtic Christmas card"
"Christmas card with space for wishes"

etc, etc.

So it seems to be taking other factors into consideration that don't seem to be giving the best results.

IMO, the old sort algorithm worked much better than this new one.

I have just decided to run a test.   I searched for "yellow car", photos only.  Here is what I found in the first 20 images:

It may be just a happy coincidence, so I will try other tests another time.  Kudos to DT for this one, though.

Regards,
Adelaide

What did this test show about SS favoring some artists over others in the search?

As for the original topic. I highly doubt SS would purposely favor one artist over another. The much more likely explanation is that buyers like the one artist's work over the other's, and that is reflected in the search results.

But how about the images that appear on the frontpage?
Or in the lightboxes?

What about them?

Everybody is talking about the search engine!

But how about the images that appear on the frontpage?
Or in the lightboxes?

I thought I should add my "paranoid" two cents...One thing I noticed since I started participating in the MSG istock lightboxes is my files seem to appear/disappear when sorted by best match. When sorted by photographer they all appear. Does best match HIDE files??? (I thought they were just thrown to the back - it wouldn't make sense to hide stuff)

Probably just a glitch - but I have noticed it a couple of times now 

lol.......

I think they'll do whatever makes sense to make more money both for the company and individual reviewer.

Why wouldn't it be possible for agencies to rate contributors based on sales probability to give preference to "VIPs"? Casinos do it. Airlines do it.

If you have person A who has a 90%+ approval rate, submits a ton of stuff, and sells a ton of stuff, and person B who has a 50% acceptance rate and doesn't sell a whole lot, wouldn't it make sense to spend more time on the As and leave the Bs in the review que until As are taken care of? Or have the As show up higher in searches? The agency would make more money spending time on As.

How well would a photographer do if they spent equal time on the Big 6 and the other 50 new sites? Of course you give preference to what makes you more money. Certainly the agencies do too.