Author Topic: 'Fuzzy' stat's on Istock. (Read 7508 times)

gostwyck · « **on:** June 05, 2009, 05:40 »

Istock have removed the exact data from download numbers of both individual contributors and also images, thus disabling 3rd party applications like multimedia.de's chart.

Personally I'm a bit disappointed as it was always interesting but I guess it'll probably save me quite a bit of unproductive time!

I think in the longer term it might be a good thing for all of us who do this to earn a living though. It's going to make it more difficult for newbies to assess the potential of the industry and all the motivation that the data provided.

Any thoughts?

Milinz · « **Reply #1 on:** June 05, 2009, 05:43 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 05, 2009, 05:40

Istock have removed the exact data from download numbers of both individual contributors and also images, thus disabling 3rd party applications like multimedia.de's chart.

Personally I'm a bit disappointed as it was always interesting but I guess it'll probably save me quite a bit of unproductive time!

I think in the longer term it might be a good thing for all of us who do this to earn a living though. It's going to make it more difficult for newbies to assess the potential of the industry and all the motivation that the data provided.

Any thoughts?

Probably they don't need newbies anymore... Only pros!

Gannet77 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 05, 2009, 05:49 »

Much as I said in the forum - I liked the charts but I'm not surprised at this.

It made it easy to track total sales for all of iStock on a daily/monthly basis and that is information they have never released, and have said they won't, in the past.

runamock · « **Reply #3 on:** June 05, 2009, 06:18 »

I've never really understood why they had this information on display at all. It’s useful for us to see which files are selling well but dangerous to be on public display.

null · « **Reply #4 on:** June 05, 2009, 06:29 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 05, 2009, 05:40

Any thoughts?

I don't feel that public info on sites should bear any sales info and if such info can be harvested easily by third party aps, it should be made impossible. Too much divulging of personal info on the net already. Not all prying eyes are friendly.

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** June 05, 2009, 06:36 »

It looks stupid now. Are they really going to stick with this? I think they should either show the actual number of downloads or nothing at all, like shutterstock. Perhaps they should give us a choice.

Phil · « **Reply #6 on:** June 05, 2009, 06:39 »

Personally I think it would be good to get rid of sort by downloads and showing of number of downloads. it would generate more creativity, stop so much copying, encourage buyers to delve deeper into the collection etc etc.

this change really on stops 3rd party pages etc. I can still by downloads, can see that an image has ">7800 downloads" and know it is a big seller and copy it etc.

Phil

Karimala · « **Reply #7 on:** June 05, 2009, 06:44 »

I'm 100% supportive of this move, and would actually prefer they remove all stats, like SS. Since day one, I haven't liked it that the majority of my stats are available for public view. My numbers are no one's business except mine.

RT · « **Reply #8 on:** June 05, 2009, 07:28 »

Remove all the download information, including flames IMO.

lisafx · « **Reply #9 on:** June 05, 2009, 09:53 »

Quote from: Phil on June 05, 2009, 06:39

Personally I think it would be good to get rid of sort by downloads and showing of number of downloads. it would generate more creativity, stop so much copying, encourage buyers to delve deeper into the collection etc etc.

Bingo! ITLR it has been bad for the industry because now the databases are choked with too many similar images. Nobody wins when the sales in any area are spread too thin.

I just checked on istock, though, and I can still see the sales numbers. Can someone explain?

Gannet77 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 05, 2009, 10:20 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 05, 2009, 09:53

Quote from: Phil on June 05, 2009, 06:39
Personally I think it would be good to get rid of sort by downloads and showing of number of downloads. it would generate more creativity, stop so much copying, encourage buyers to delve deeper into the collection etc etc.

Bingo! ITLR it has been bad for the industry because now the databases are choked with too many similar images. Nobody wins when the sales in any area are spread too thin.

I just checked on istock, though, and I can still see the sales numbers. Can someone explain?

You can still see EXACT sales numbers? Not ">100", ">1000", etc.?

sharply_done · « **Reply #11 on:** June 05, 2009, 10:28 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 05, 2009, 09:53

...
I just checked on istock, though, and I can still see the sales numbers. Can someone explain?

Instead of displaying the exact number of DLs a file or contributor has, iStock now rounds this number off to the nearest 10 if there are between 11 and 99 DLs and to the nearest 100 if there are more than 100 DLs. Exact DLs are still shown if the file has 10 or less DLs or if the file has an even multiple of 10 or 100 DLs. Only *you* can still see the exact number of total and individual file DLs *you* have.

iStock now shows DLs like this: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, >10, >20, >30, ..., >90, 100, >100, 200, >200, 300, >300, ...

DanP68 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 05, 2009, 10:34 »

Lisa,

We can still see our exact numbers on our "My Uploads" page, which is on display for the contributor only. You will notice that if you click on "View Portfolio" you will see the fuzzy numbers.

I agree with what was expressed prior. While this may seem to be a good first step, it looks silly, and it still reveals most of the information anyhow. I would prefer, as most would, that the DL stats simply be removed from public view altogether.

sharply_done · « **Reply #13 on:** June 05, 2009, 11:01 »

Quote from: DanP68 on June 05, 2009, 10:34

...
I agree with what was expressed prior. While this may seem to be a good first step, it looks silly, and it still reveals most of the information anyhow. I would prefer, as most would, that the DL stats simply be removed from public view altogether.

I can guess that the motivation behind it is to eliminate 'scraping' (go here if you don't know what that is), but rounding off DLs isn't a very effective way to do that. Scraped data will still be valid, just not on a day-to-day basis. Also, it will be relatively easy for those who have a large scraped dataset to come up with a 'defuzzing' variable.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** June 05, 2009, 11:02 »

Well, if the main point was to stop Jim Pickerell and others from using the charts data for profit or whatever reason, that is now accomplished.

sharply_done · « **Reply #15 on:** June 05, 2009, 11:12 »

Forget about that guy - if I was at iStock I'd be more concerned about giving my competitors unfettered access to my sales data. I'd be very surprised if all the 'Big 6' weren't engaged in some sort of scraping to track such things as market size and share. Pretty vital stuff, I should think.

alias · « **Reply #16 on:** June 05, 2009, 12:29 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 05, 2009, 09:53

the databases are choked with too many similar images. Nobody wins when the sales in any area are spread too thin.

Right. Some have been complaining of decreasing sales. That has to be about more and more images which are basically covering the same topics. All this copying of ideas is in danger of stifling creativity. A feedback loop. There is a bunch of work which basically all looks more or less the same. Ideally you do not want other photographers looking at your portfolio or knowing your numbers.

gostwyck · « **Reply #17 on:** June 05, 2009, 12:40 »

Quote from: alias on June 05, 2009, 12:29

Ideally you do not want other photographers looking at your portfolio or knowing your numbers.

True __ that's why I'm anonymous here and rarely if ever post on forums that provide a link back to my port. Giving someone 'inspiration' could prove very expensive in the long run.

DanP68 · « **Reply #18 on:** June 05, 2009, 13:16 »

Quote from: sharply_done on June 05, 2009, 11:12

Forget about that guy - if I was at iStock I'd be more concerned about giving my competitors unfettered access to my sales data. I'd be very surprised if all the 'Big 6' weren't engaged in some sort of scraping to track such things as market size and share. Pretty vital stuff, I should think.

I hadn't considered it from that perspective. Well done. I believe you are on to the real reason behind this, and all the more reason for the DL figures to disappear entirely in time.

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** June 05, 2009, 13:21 »

I see what you guys are talking about now. Thanks for the explanation.

This is a step in the right direction, but I agree with the rest of you that it would be better to remove sales numbers altogether.

If it is really so very important to a buyer, they should be able to sitemail support and get that info. No reason on Earth other contributors need that information.

michealo · « **Reply #20 on:** June 05, 2009, 14:40 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 05, 2009, 12:40

Quote from: alias on June 05, 2009, 12:29
Ideally you do not want other photographers looking at your portfolio or knowing your numbers.

True __ that's why I'm anonymous here and rarely if ever post on forums that provide a link back to my port. Giving someone 'inspiration' could prove very expensive in the long run.

The two bitterest enemies in semiconductors have a comprehensive cross licensing agreement ...

You are misguided

madelaide · « **Reply #21 on:** June 05, 2009, 15:49 »

What is the difference between showing ">60" and the actual number "63"?

RT · « **Reply #22 on:** June 05, 2009, 15:56 »

Quote from: madelaide on June 05, 2009, 15:49

What is the difference between showing ">60" and the actual number "63"?

I'm guessing but I'd imagine that in order for sites like iStockcharts to work they need an actual number, as the reason iS have done this is to stop those sites it would appear to do just that and yet still give buyers the more or less info about number of downloads.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 'Fuzzy' stat's on Istock. (Read 7508 times)

gostwyck

Milinz

Gannet77

runamock

null

sharpshot

Phil

Karimala

RT

lisafx

Gannet77

sharply_done

DanP68

sharply_done

Sean Locke Photography

sharply_done

alias

gostwyck

DanP68

lisafx

michealo

madelaide

RT

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors