pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Is what you are currently doing working?  (Read 9048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

namussi

« Reply #25 on: October 05, 2017, 20:43 »
+1
Sorry for the long responses.  I feel it is often useful to understand my thinking; this hopefully gives you a better understanding of what we are doing and why. 


Long, general responses don't work well on forums. It's better to address individuals' specific points directly with a paragraph or two.

Focus on the benefits to us.


namussi

« Reply #26 on: October 05, 2017, 20:46 »
+1
And if you do still want to make long posts, break them a bit with bullet points and subheadings.

« Reply #27 on: October 05, 2017, 21:20 »
0
And if you do still want to make long posts, break them a bit with bullet points and subheadings.

Haven't entirely read a single one.

« Reply #28 on: October 06, 2017, 00:41 »
0
I can't quite work out if by paying contributors get higher placement and to me thats a fundamental contradiction. Too many similars in search returns. To my eyes no better than agency searches. Nice theory not seeing the benefits in the implementation.

« Reply #29 on: October 06, 2017, 00:59 »
0
"Yes, your images are probably already in our organic search results if they are listed with an agency.  Using our paid Advertising or Platform replaces your images within our search results, and sends the buyer straight to your site or selling page where you make/keep more money."

ok - some useful info. Instead on an image appearing directing to SS it points to my site where in theory I can earn more.

So the '500 images' relates to - how many images are on my site? Or how many links I get? Or how many sales I get?

namussi

« Reply #30 on: October 06, 2017, 01:33 »
0
It is our goal to connect image buyers as close to the source creator (or agency that pays the creator directly) as possible, thus reducing the unnecessary intermediaries that exist in our industry.

Your search engine is an extra intermediary.



namussi

« Reply #31 on: October 06, 2017, 01:37 »
0
I can't quite work out if by paying contributors get higher placement and to me thats a fundamental contradiction. Too many similars in search returns. To my eyes no better than agency searches. Nice theory not seeing the benefits in the implementation.

It sounds like a contradiction. PicturEngine is supposed to remove the distortions caused by paying for placement. And yet it offers a pay-for-placement service. What's the point of paying for placement if the search engine automatically negates its effects?


Semmick Photo

« Reply #32 on: October 06, 2017, 01:49 »
+3
Sorry. No idea what you do....beyond this email....


This project goes back to 2012 (at least here)

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/check-out-picturengine/
http://www.microstockgroup.com/selling-direct/picturengine-black-friday-cyber-monday-90-day-trial-offer!/
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/picturengine-some-thoughts/
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/picturengine-is-ready!


Paying 480 dollars for something that never delivered anything. That whole thing was a mess and still is. Horrible website even poorer search results. Lost all faith in the project and owners. Just my opinion.

« Reply #33 on: October 06, 2017, 02:17 »
0
It is our goal to connect image buyers as close to the source creator (or agency that pays the creator directly) as possible, thus reducing the unnecessary intermediaries that exist in our industry.

Your search engine is an extra intermediary.
Although not so if you have your own web site and pay this outfit. (well I think those posts are so hard to follow ;-)) But the agencies are not really unnecessary....

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #34 on: October 06, 2017, 03:09 »
+1
All agencies need a complete clean-out!  they need to do away with at least 40-50% of all garbage just sitting there obstructing and creating search problems. Thats the general feedback of many art-buyers, directors of some ad-agencies. " impossible to find" is an expression very often heard today.

I will get flamed for this but SS and Getty need to disappear from the stock world! I know we earn money from them but their business-model is just terrible! collecting and accepting so much crap its just unbelievable.

I spoke to somebody who was working with the old Fotolia but left when Adobe took over and who confirmed really what I was afraid of from the very start of that marriage that Adobe should stick to programs/softwares and not meddle with trying to sell stock bigtime!

« Reply #35 on: October 06, 2017, 03:53 »
+1
All agencies need a complete clean-out!  they need to do away with at least 40-50% of all garbage just sitting there obstructing and creating search problems. Thats the general feedback of many art-buyers, directors of some ad-agencies. " impossible to find" is an expression very often heard today.

I will get flamed for this but SS and Getty need to disappear from the stock world! I know we earn money from them but their business-model is just terrible! collecting and accepting so much crap its just unbelievable.

I spoke to somebody who was working with the old Fotolia but left when Adobe took over and who confirmed really what I was afraid of from the very start of that marriage that Adobe should stick to programs/softwares and not meddle with trying to sell stock bigtime!
If SS business model is terrible what does that say about all the other agencies who are still miles behind? Whether we like it or not its still pretty successful for them....but I do agree its getting worse they really need to either cull their site as you describe which would be expensive and everyone would be squealing when their images are pulled or more likely improve their search technology to bring "better" images to the front.

« Reply #36 on: October 06, 2017, 03:55 »
+1
There was so much BS talked about PicturEngine years ago.  I initially fell for it but then I thought about it properly and realised it wasn't going to work.  The search looks a mess to me now but that's not a surprise.  I hope people didn't lose money on this.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #37 on: October 06, 2017, 04:36 »
0
All agencies need a complete clean-out!  they need to do away with at least 40-50% of all garbage just sitting there obstructing and creating search problems. Thats the general feedback of many art-buyers, directors of some ad-agencies. " impossible to find" is an expression very often heard today.

I will get flamed for this but SS and Getty need to disappear from the stock world! I know we earn money from them but their business-model is just terrible! collecting and accepting so much crap its just unbelievable.

I spoke to somebody who was working with the old Fotolia but left when Adobe took over and who confirmed really what I was afraid of from the very start of that marriage that Adobe should stick to programs/softwares and not meddle with trying to sell stock bigtime!
If SS business model is terrible what does that say about all the other agencies who are still miles behind? Whether we like it or not its still pretty successful for them....but I do agree its getting worse they really need to either cull their site as you describe which would be expensive and everyone would be squealing when their images are pulled or more likely improve their search technology to bring "better" images to the front.

well in the case of SS it attracts just about everyone with a mobile phone churning out millions of hopefull budding photographers. Before they used to have some sort of a test I believe 7/10 had to be approved now its nothing. They just accept images for the sake of getting assets. No good! as you said yourself anything goes churning up  the search completely!

« Reply #38 on: October 06, 2017, 15:14 »
0
I can't quite work out if by paying contributors get higher placement and to me thats a fundamental contradiction.
Just like Google and other search engines, the paid results get mixed into the organic search results. 
Unlike Google, our search is not PPC or PPV. Instead, our ranking engine decides the image order, what is best for the viewer searching.
So YES, paid search gets a better "chance" of being seen, BUT ONLY those images that match the users search criteria get seen.  We ONLY want to show users relevant search results. 

When Google started it was all organic content, no paid.  Then Google offered paid.  Now do a Google search and count the paid vs organic on the page. 
We are trying to learn from others, and improve upon their models to adapt to our industry.

Too many similars in search returns. To my eyes no better than agency searches. Nice theory not seeing the benefits in the implementation.
I agree and plan to stack visual similars from the same photographer and same shoot etc.  When it comes to stacking visual sims, we have to be careful. 
Some of the things we are working on are.
Figuring out what image attracts the most attention (within a photographers collection from a single shoot/subject) This is not a random decision.  It is a big responsibility to decide what image gets top placement in a group of similars from a photographer if a single shot is shown in the search results. 
We are gathering data now to perform this stacking task using our ranking system.  There are a lot of moving parts.  It is not a one size fits all solution.

« Reply #39 on: October 06, 2017, 15:27 »
+1
"I agree and plan to stack visual similars from the same photographer and same shoot etc." I think that could improve things greatly

« Reply #40 on: October 06, 2017, 15:33 »
0
So the '500 images' relates to - how many images are on my site? Or how many links I get? Or how many sales I get?

Number of Images.

Select the total number of images you want us to represent in the drop-down. http://www.picturengine.com/#pricing-plans
We are evolving, listening to the needs of creators and offer a new tiered pricing structure for our Photographer Platform.

« Reply #41 on: October 06, 2017, 15:43 »
0
It is our goal to connect image buyers as close to the source creator (or agency that pays the creator directly) as possible, thus reducing the unnecessary intermediaries that exist in our industry.

Your search engine is an extra intermediary.
Not sure what you mean.  We are closing the distance gap between buyer and creator. Do you consider other search engines like Google or Bing to be "extra intermediaries"?  Or are they needed to find what you are looking for, in a sea of information on the web?

My focus is on:
1. A better, smarter image search. (we are working on that)
2. Helping image creators make/keep more money.



« Reply #43 on: October 08, 2017, 01:41 »
+3
JustinB, how can you say "I am working toward a solution for our collective future" while at the same time I see images from sites like DepositPhotos are high up in your search?  Perhaps  lucky for us that Picturengine doesn't appear to be much use for buyers.  I think it ruins your credibility, you can't claim to be trying to help us while helping sites that make it unsustainable.

Sites like Alamy and Pond5 keep the industry sustainable for me.  There's others that pay 50% but they need more contributors and buyers to back them.  PicturEngine promotes sites that pay us very little and makes the industry more unsustainable.

I do think there will be a better way to sell image licenses in the future.  Blockchain technology looks interesting.  I think we will have a very low fee option one day without having to pay middlemen.  Until then, sites that pay 50% will do for me.

namussi

« Reply #44 on: October 09, 2017, 21:27 »
0
It is our goal to connect image buyers as close to the source creator (or agency that pays the creator directly) as possible, thus reducing the unnecessary intermediaries that exist in our industry.

Your search engine is an extra intermediary.
Not sure what you mean.  We are closing the distance gap between buyer and creator. Do you consider other search engines like Google or Bing to be "extra intermediaries"?  Or are they needed to find what you are looking for, in a sea of information on the web?

My focus is on:
1. A better, smarter image search. (we are working on that)
2. Helping image creators make/keep more money.

Yup. You're a more-focussed version of Google image search.

You are another intermediary for photographers who want to sell photos. At the moment, they can choose to sell through iStock, SS, etc. Or they can go it alone and set up their own websites to sell direct, and hope that search engines direct business their way, and that customers return to buy more.

Presumably you'd like more photographers to set up their own sites rather than selling through agencies.





namussi

« Reply #45 on: October 09, 2017, 21:30 »
+2
The most successful companies focus on what customers want, not suppliers.


« Reply #46 on: October 10, 2017, 01:27 »
0
It is our goal to connect image buyers as close to the source creator (or agency that pays the creator directly) as possible, thus reducing the unnecessary intermediaries that exist in our industry.

Your search engine is an extra intermediary.
Not sure what you mean.  We are closing the distance gap between buyer and creator. Do you consider other search engines like Google or Bing to be "extra intermediaries"?  Or are they needed to find what you are looking for, in a sea of information on the web?

My focus is on:
1. A better, smarter image search. (we are working on that)
2. Helping image creators make/keep more money.

Yup. You're a more-focussed version of Google image search.

You are another intermediary for photographers who want to sell photos. At the moment, they can choose to sell through iStock, SS, etc. Or they can go it alone and set up their own websites to sell direct, and hope that search engines direct business their way, and that customers return to buy more.

Presumably you'd like more photographers to set up their own sites rather than selling through agencies.

If I remember correctly, the big sites can be included for free while contributors with a smaller collection have to pay?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  That never seemed like a good idea to me, would be interesting if it was the other way around.  The big sites have big advertising budgets, they need to spend it on something.  Individuals aren't able to compete with their spending power.  Some big sites have decided to not use PicturEngine anyway, making it much less useful than it could potentially be.

« Reply #47 on: October 10, 2017, 08:27 »
+1
Or just curate the larger catalogs with the talent and proper keywording you think works and would be useful to buyers. That would attract both a customer base on the buyer side that you could either make referrals off or give you some market to attract paying contributors. I've always thought the idea at PE was interesting, but I never saw the reason anybody would find my site there over Google enough for me to pay to play.

GraniteCove

« Reply #48 on: October 10, 2017, 09:05 »
+1
"Yes, your images are probably already in our organic search results if they are listed with an agency.  Using our paid Advertising or Platform replaces your images within our search results, and sends the buyer straight to your site or selling page where you make/keep more money."

I think the project is intriguing on a number of levels but after looking at your pricing plans I am confused by your business model. As mentioned in a previous reply, offering lower rates to agencies than to individuals does seem to contradict one of your expressed goals. The real confusion for me though is in your advertising only packages. For instance, let's say that I as an individual wanted to leverage your advertising to drive sales to a specific stock site that offered higher commissions or to increase my ranking there, how does your algorithm handle conflicts between two or more paying advertisers? In other words, if your platform gains popularity to the point where it disrupts agency sales what is stopping agencies from advertising alongside contributors. Since the majority of us contribute to multiple agencies how exactly would that work? Furthermore, how would/does it handle conflicts between paying contributors for similar searches? At the moment it looks as though your site only returns one page of results for any of the search terms I input, however what happens when that expands to ten, or a hundred, or a thousand? I know if I am paying the same amount for exposure as my competitors then I don't want page 20 or even page 2. I want number 1 page 1. So then what? Sort by popularity, relevance, new? I get that for free already. Maybe by rotation then? I suspect I get that for free already too, so the only thing I can see if the platform takes off is a pay for placement auction scheme similar to Google adwords. Is that correct?

Forgive my skepticism but I like to know what I am actually getting before I spend my money. By the way, are you aware your splash page explicitly states "PicturEngine features unbiased searches"? You should probably remove that.

« Reply #49 on: October 10, 2017, 10:05 »
+1
When you think about it an "unbiased" search is a logical impossibility.

Microstock InsiderEnvato Elements

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
39 Replies
8966 Views
Last post March 30, 2009, 00:08
by sgcallaway1994
25 Replies
7279 Views
Last post April 01, 2009, 06:15
by CofkoCof
HEY... It's Working

Started by WarrenPrice Cutcaster

19 Replies
6633 Views
Last post February 23, 2011, 17:15
by stockastic
1 Replies
1783 Views
Last post January 29, 2013, 13:11
by 08stock08
1 Replies
1877 Views
Last post February 09, 2014, 06:38
by Beppe Grillo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements