but basically anything that is at the top of the best match older than 1 month old would be a good target.

Okay, then let's get rid of the upload date too!

Quote from: qwerty on October 28, 2011, 16:36

but basically anything that is at the top of the best match older than 1 month old would be a good target.

Okay, then let's get rid of the upload date too!

okay good point.

however I think it would only make it slightly harder again to zero in on the best sellers.
My thoughts are that if copy anything except the absolute dogs that appears at the top of the best match it would be 95% as effective as copying by download sort.

I'm not trying to justify the copiers just my opion.
 

Are copy cats a big problem for you and does it affect how you work? Do you have any strategies that help against them?

Yes, badly, no. Even if sales numbers are hidden, they still will find you in the search engine. Some even hang out here (MSG) to lurk for your flames. That's why I don't put links here any more. Sorry. You're right.

Quote from: cobalt on October 28, 2011, 05:04

Are copy cats a big problem for you and does it affect how you work? Do you have any strategies that help against them?

Yes, badly, no. Even if sales numbers are hidden, they still will find you in the search engine. Some even hang out here (MSG) to lurk for your flames. That's why I don't put links here any more. Sorry. You're right.

I have heard that people do that and some friends have suggested to avoid all online forums to not attract attention to your portfolio. But for myself I am convinced that download stats visible in searches are my biggest enemy.

But I understand why you do it. Maybe it is a good strategy.

I think you are not the only scanning the libraries for what is missing. But I am also pretty sure you have a few "fans" who enjoy being "inspired by you".

Getty doesn�t even have a "popularity" sort, just a best match and newest.

I think this is very smart. It helps to protect the successful artist and forces all the others to come up with their own ideas. And you can still search their library to see what is missing, but nobody looking at your portfolio will see if it was worth producing it.

No, istockcharts has only those photographers whose names have been added to teh list and most people no longer refer to it. So the majority of people isn�t on there. It was never officially supported by istock as far as I know and it is the reason for the "fuzzy" numbers. It was used by too many people to sort by daily downloads and identify copy targets for the season.

Jonathan Klein said istock/getty have 120 000 photographers in the interview mentioned here somewhere. A lot of these are just registered but not active, but still, a huge number.

It wasn't officially supported by IS but Bruce was aware and ok with it

No, istockcharts has only those photographers whose names have been added to teh list and most people no longer refer to it. So the majority of people isn�t on there. It was never officially supported by istock as far as I know and it is the reason for the "fuzzy" numbers. It was used by too many people to sort by daily downloads and identify copy targets for the season.

Jonathan Klein said istock/getty have 120 000 photographers in the interview mentioned here somewhere. A lot of these are just registered but not active, but still, a huge number.

The istock charts represent a good 96% of all active photographers. Don't believe that there are 120,000 active people. Inflated claims and bragging for the press. Also that was Getty and Istock, not just iStock? Just figure about half are "photographers, who never passed the admission test!  Then a bunch more who never sent in the fist photo because nothing they had passed, or they uploaded ten and found it wasn't a money tree just shedding dollars, so they left.

I'd be willing to bet the under and 40,000 active photographers on IS is a good estimated number. Look at the exclusive count, look at the Black Diamonds and different levels, it matches.

Back to the comp0laint department, copying. Sorry but if people are weak minded or think they can make sales by copying, nothing the agency can do will prevent it. Not worth the time to complain or find some counter or popularity flame as the cause of the problem. May I ask, do people copy at SS where none of this exists? DO people copy from magazines or galleries or ideas they get on the street? There is no help or protection for an idea, it's not worth worrying about it either.

Keyword advantage, oh boy, big secrets, words? When there are about a dozen sites offering the same words, analysis of words, and software that has collections of most popular keywords for subjects. No advantage anymore.

Maybe something like a reviewer rejecting competing photos, or maybe seeing good ideas first hand and copying them before they are even online... Self review for reviewers is another sticky point. All of those worse than having people be able to identify best sellers! Then there are best matches designed to give an advantage to the house collections. 12 million images, check something popular and there are 10,000 photos of that subject! Dilution because of so many good choices.

And someone is worried about copying? Please, I don't think it's a big problem.

It's more like looking for things to be wrong, will cause them to be wrong.  Some cute little flames are not the downfall of MicroStock sales.

I don't know why people bother researching niches. I never have. If I feel like shooting something I do it. I don't care whether or not others have done it before. I certainly don't go and look it up. You never really know if an idea will catch fire or not - and just because someone else has failed with it doesn't say anything about whether yours will catch on.

Agreed.  I shoot what I want, without bothering with "market research".  The last thing I want to do is search and see someone else's ideas, because I might be influenced to shoot a certain way, or to NOT shoot a certain way out of fear of copying.  If I never see competing images then I am not influenced by them one way or the other.  I recently uploaded a photo and then later learned that someone had done a very similar shot before me.  At least my conscience was clear because I had never even seen his image. 

I don't know why people bother researching niches. I never have. If I feel like shooting something I do it. I don't care whether or not others have done it before. I certainly don't go and look it up. You never really know if an idea will catch fire or not - and just because someone else has failed with it doesn't say anything about whether yours will catch on.

Same here.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 02, 2011, 13:31

I don't know why people bother researching niches. I never have. If I feel like shooting something I do it. I don't care whether or not others have done it before. I certainly don't go and look it up. You never really know if an idea will catch fire or not - and just because someone else has failed with it doesn't say anything about whether yours will catch on.

Agreed.  I shoot what I want, without bothering with "market research".  The last thing I want to do is search and see someone else's ideas, because I might be influenced to shoot a certain way, or to NOT shoot a certain way out of fear of copying.  If I never see competing images then I am not influenced by them one way or the other.  I recently uploaded a photo and then later learned that someone had done a very similar shot before me.  At least my conscience was clear because I had never even seen his image.  

I've looked afterwards and found 5,000 of the same thing, but what the heck, maybe mine is going to attract someone different. (HA HA) With 15 million images, it's fairly difficult to come up with anything really "new". Why worry about it?

My other point was, I don't worry about people copying, just try to make mine good enough for the buyers to notice and download. Some old standards with many downloads may not be worth copying, so let the people who have not creativity waste their time on sold out ideas, out of date concepts?

By the way, one more indicator that the istock de numbers are correct and show the accurate number of contributors (active... have one photo, or actually past applying for membership) is the total downloads on IS compared to the numbers calculated on IS DE. Total number of files on IS vs the reported numbers calculated on IS DE.

I might be optimistic but I believe it to represent 96% of all active IS contributors.