Quote from: lisafx on January 03, 2012, 23:19

Quote from: KB on January 03, 2012, 23:10


They need to go back to the best match the way it was when best match 2.0 was introduced. That best match gave a fair mixture of exclusive and independent files, new and old, and weighted by keywords. That's the only best match that makes sense to me, and it really was a BEST match due to the keyword weighting.

Absolutely right.  They spent ages developing best match 2.0 and it actually worked, was fair to every contributor, and put the best variety of content in front of buyers.  It was sheer idiocy to scrap it in favor of this mess.

That best match 2.0 makes sense if you have any consideration for buyers, but remember, the best match is designed to hike profits for istock. That's why best match 2.0 isn't being used any more.

Quote from: cclapper on January 03, 2012, 23:30

Quote from: lisafx on January 03, 2012, 23:19
Absolutely right.  They spent ages developing best match 2.0 and it actually worked, was fair to every contributor, and put the best variety of content in front of buyers.  It was sheer idiocy to scrap it in favor of this mess.

That best match 2.0 makes sense if you have any consideration for buyers, but remember, the best match is designed to hike profits for istock. That's why best match 2.0 isn't being used any more.

I think you're probably right.

But the stupidity of it, as I'm sure you know, is that what's in the best interest of buyers ultimately ends up being what's in the best interest of IS, too. The reverse is not true, and is a major cause in the apparent exit of buyers in droves.

Quote from: KB on January 03, 2012, 23:36

Quote from: cclapper on January 03, 2012, 23:30

Quote from: lisafx on January 03, 2012, 23:19
Absolutely right.  They spent ages developing best match 2.0 and it actually worked, was fair to every contributor, and put the best variety of content in front of buyers.  It was sheer idiocy to scrap it in favor of this mess.

That best match 2.0 makes sense if you have any consideration for buyers, but remember, the best match is designed to hike profits for istock. That's why best match 2.0 isn't being used any more.

I think you're probably right.

But the stupidity of it, as I'm sure you know, is that what's in the best interest of buyers ultimately ends up being what's in the best interest of IS, too. The reverse is not true, and is a major cause in the apparent exit of buyers in droves.

Yep. TPTB at Istock keep making sticking-plaster actions in an attempt to remedy the shortfall caused .. by their last sticking-plaster action ... for short-term gain. Unless and until they can see the bigger picture and start acting in the long-term interest of the business they are basically f**ked.

Nobody with any authority to make real decisions is in charge at Istock. They are now entering a tailspin without a qualified pilot onboard. If you're exclusive then make sure you have your parachute to hand. You will most likely need it before the end of 2012.

long term only exclusives at IS? No point uploading with this best match and how would a newbie get enough sales to go exclusive? All independents only at TS? Maybe in future newbies start there and go to IS as exclusive by some new formula? Strange results, definitely not the best images at front, just the most expensive. It is tricky, it is like a threat to exclusives - leave and your sales vanish and an attempt to keep them with sales in a decline at IS.

Profit will be great short term. Long term a strange strategy but do they think long term?

Very strange result for 'paintbox'. I can only imagine 'paint' is mapping to paintbox.

Quote from: Micro1 on January 03, 2012, 23:04
Dear iStockphoto,

Can you please change your search engine to favor DLs/Month. This way buyers get to see a fair representation of good images. Frankly, not all of your "exclusive" images are very good at all. Your future actually depends on keeping buyers happy, not looking after "exclusives" interests.

Downloads a month favors images that have already been favored by Best Match.

Two identical images one on page 1 and one 10 pages back - after a year I can tell you which one would have more downloads a month unequivocally - however I almost guarantee over a year downloads/view ratio of those two images would be near identical - and a much fairer judge of a files worth. x amount of buyers who viewed this file bought it - vs. x amounts of buyers who had this file pushed in front of them months on end bought it each month

Quote from: ShadySue on January 04, 2012, 01:37
Very strange result for 'paintbox'. I can only imagine 'paint' is mapping to paintbox.

Yes, the results for 'paint' and 'paintbox' are identical. 'Paintbox' doesn't seem to be in the CV, but I find it hard to believe that there isn't a single file tagged with that term. (If there really weren't any, that would explain what happened. The stupid programmers' choice of showing the closest matching term and not telling you that's what it did.) More likely, it's some sort of bug.

Quote from: wolfman on January 04, 2012, 02:35

Quote from: Micro1 on January 03, 2012, 23:04
Dear iStockphoto,

Can you please change your search engine to favor DLs/Month. This way buyers get to see a fair representation of good images. Frankly, not all of your "exclusive" images are very good at all. Your future actually depends on keeping buyers happy, not looking after "exclusives" interests.

Downloads a month favors images that have already been favored by Best Match.

Two identical images one on page 1 and one 10 pages back - after a year I can tell you which one would have more downloads a month unequivocally - however I almost guarantee over a year downloads/view ratio of those two images would be near identical - and a much fairer judge of a files worth. x amount of buyers who viewed this file bought it - vs. x amounts of buyers who had this file pushed in front of them months on end bought it each month

but views are too easy to rig - just set up a thing to view your rival's images a few thousand times to drop them from the search... maybe if they only counted buyer accounts...

actually what they claimed best match 2 was would make the most sense - too bad for everyone they couldn't actually stick with it.

Quote from: pancaketom on January 04, 2012, 03:25
actually what they claimed best match 2 was would make the most sense - too bad for everyone they couldn't actually stick with it.

Absolutely.

Looking at a handful of searches today, it seems the mix of indie/exclusive is improving. It's not that the top indie sellers have been moving further forward as much as the mix of independent files throughout is better. In particular, finding exclusive files mixed in at the end of searches, not just the indie ghetto at the end, seemed to be a return to something more reasonable.

I don't have any new files on iStock to watch how new independent files are being treated at the moment - has any independent risked uploading  - thus having files with which to check on search results?

Quote from: jsnover on January 04, 2012, 15:52
Looking at a handful of searches today, it seems the mix of indie/exclusive is improving. It's not that the top indie sellers have been moving further forward as much as the mix of independent files throughout is better. In particular, finding exclusive files mixed in at the end of searches, not just the indie ghetto at the end, seemed to be a return to something more reasonable.

I'm not finding that from my standard searches. Today is marginally worse in the number of non-exclusive images within the first 200 (from 13 to 10).

Quote from: gostwyck on January 04, 2012, 16:03

Quote from: jsnover on January 04, 2012, 15:52
Looking at a handful of searches today, it seems the mix of indie/exclusive is improving. It's not that the top indie sellers have been moving further forward as much as the mix of independent files throughout is better. In particular, finding exclusive files mixed in at the end of searches, not just the indie ghetto at the end, seemed to be a return to something more reasonable.

I'm not finding that from my standard searches. Today is marginally worse in the number of non-exclusive images within the first 200 (from 13 to 10).

Yep!  same old nonsense, files with zip dls and all that. In fact in some searches, the return is almost as if they have robbed a first year photo-college or something.

Just did a specialized search: nuclear industry and then I searched, within, for "interior"  and found 9, lousy files, dreadfully executed and totally irrelevant to what a nuke-plant, really looks inside.

Quote from: jsnover on January 04, 2012, 15:52
Looking at a handful of searches today, it seems the mix of indie/exclusive is improving. It's not that the top indie sellers have been moving further forward as much as the mix of independent files throughout is better. In particular, finding exclusive files mixed in at the end of searches, not just the indie ghetto at the end, seemed to be a return to something more reasonable.

I don't have any new files on iStock to watch how new independent files are being treated at the moment - has any independent risked uploading  - thus having files with which to check on search results?

I uploaded two files last week in the middle of the ridiculous shift in best match and at the time was wondering why I was bothering. The two images went 'live' only today albeit being accepted three days ago. Both appear as the first non-exclusive images on page one for their respective searches in best match (figs, isolated, group) (image number 18796958) and the second image (eggs, straw) (image number 18796924). I only used search words that I knew were in my file data which may have skewed the results in my favour, but at least they appear on the first page which is an improvement.

Quote from: wolfman on January 04, 2012, 02:35

Quote from: Micro1 on January 03, 2012, 23:04
Dear iStockphoto,

Can you please change your search engine to favor DLs/Month. This way buyers get to see a fair representation of good images. Frankly, not all of your "exclusive" images are very good at all. Your future actually depends on keeping buyers happy, not looking after "exclusives" interests.

Downloads a month favors images that have already been favored by Best Match.

Two identical images one on page 1 and one 10 pages back - after a year I can tell you which one would have more downloads a month unequivocally - however I almost guarantee over a year downloads/view ratio of those two images would be near identical - and a much fairer judge of a files worth. x amount of buyers who viewed this file bought it - vs. x amounts of buyers who had this file pushed in front of them months on end bought it each month

Shh, you are being too logical and rational. There's got to be some hidden agenda or your theories won't keep this thread going for page 26... and beyond! 

This "Best Match Shift" tale has more cliff hangers and plot variations than The Arabian Nights. Every day someone finds something new that has changed, even when it hasn't changed. Go back to Best Match 2.0 which people were seeing the effects and complaining of position changes, drops in sales and unfair prominent placement of 1) Exclusives, 2) Independents, 3) Old Files, 4) New files... depending on what agenda was popular for the day and of course the status of the person doing the search.

But wait, there's a punch line to that change. The new search hadn't even been put in place yet and nothing had changed. The only things that changed was the perception and imaginations of the people who thought something had changed.

And now (is it two years later?) The same perception continues, day after day.

"My photos aren't getting put up where they belong."  "Someone else's images are getting an unfair advantage" and my personal all time favorite "Everyone's pictures are being pushed to the back!" (impossible but entertaining as a theory)

I think that Green pictures have been moved up and in Feb. I'm ready to submit my theory that, landscape images will be placed ahead of Portrait. In March, I think we'll have food photo and small furry animals getting the boost. It doesn't matter, because every theory is right and none agrees with all the rest. I could take up reading tea leaves or animal entrails, that's more scientific!

Quote from: markhigginslong term only exclusives at IS? No point uploading with this best match and how would a newbie get enough sales to go exclusive? All independents only at TS? Maybe in future newbies start there and go to IS as exclusive by some new formula? Strange results, definitely not the best images at front, just the most expensive.

Yes Mark I tend to agree that this could be the scary end of all this fancy adjusting and chaos. A way for IS to have their exclusives and higher prices and cheap subs too.

Agree with all except the part about only the most expensive are at the front. Wasn't that contradicted by the theory that Independents were pushed to the front so IS would pay lower commissions, and make more money. Or was that swapped for the Exclusive to the front, so they could get their ranks up for the end of the year? Wait, old photos first, new photos don't have a chance.

It can't be all of those at the same can it?

Didn't Gostwyck work out that with the higher pricing for exclusive files, iStock now makes more by having them at the front than having the inde stuff there?

"Agree with all except the part about only the most expensive are at the front. Wasn't that contradicted by the theory that Independents were pushed to the front so IS would pay lower commissions, and make more money. Or was that swapped for the Exclusive to the front, so they could get their ranks up for the end of the year? Wait, old photos first, new photos don't have a chance.
"

The evidence supports exclusive and dearer at the front, not the other way around. It is not the commission they pay that they are thinking of.So 85% of $5 is not as good for IS as say $70 of $10. Long term it will create problems for them but now it is about maximising short term gain. The search is skewed and does not warrant arguing about.

Here's a new one...

Search for "animal" photos only under "Best Match."  7 out of the first 10 results are all audio files.    

Quote from: Karimala on January 05, 2012, 03:50
Here's a new one...

Search for "animal" photos only under "Best Match."  7 out of the first 10 results are all audio files.    

Quote from: Karimala on January 05, 2012, 03:50
Here's a new one...

Search for "animal" photos only under "Best Match."  7 out of the first 10 results are all audio files.    

You were being kind, as it's actually 7 out of the first 8.

Hmmm. All are Yuri's; I didn't recall he was exclusive for audio, but apparently he is.

Clearly, yet another bug. Interesting; if you search for audio only, a different selection comes up. I looked for 3 or 4 of those 7, and I couldn't find any on the first page (200).

Ha!  I didn't notice they were Yuri's.  I was too distracted by the howling dog being interrupted by "iStockphoto.com.......aaaoooooooooo.....iStockphoto.com."

Quote from: Karimala on January 05, 2012, 04:30
I was too distracted by the howling dog being interrupted by "iStockphoto.com.......aaaoooooooooo.....iStockphoto.com."

          (I find that voice SO creepy!)

Quote from: markrhiggins on January 04, 2012, 21:15
"Agree with all except the part about only the most expensive are at the front. Wasn't that contradicted by the theory that Independents were pushed to the front so IS would pay lower commissions, and make more money. Or was that swapped for the Exclusive to the front, so they could get their ranks up for the end of the year? Wait, old photos first, new photos don't have a chance.
"

The evidence supports exclusive and dearer at the front, not the other way around. It is not the commission they pay that they are thinking of.So 85% of $5 is not as good for IS as say $70 of $10. Long term it will create problems for them but now it is about maximising short term gain. The search is skewed and does not warrant arguing about.

What I'm trying to point out is "evidence suggests" that you can prove anything you want depending on what you search for and what search terms, because it's always changing. There is no answer.

Quote from: traveler1116 on December 21, 2011, 17:10
It looks the opposite to me, new files are all up front in the searches I've done.  Old files with lots of sales on the other hand seem to be pushed back.

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on January 04, 2012, 16:34

Quote from: jsnover on January 04, 2012, 15:52
Looking at a handful of searches today, it seems the mix of indie/exclusive is improving. It's not that the top indie sellers have been moving further forward as much as the mix of independent files throughout is better. In particular, finding exclusive files mixed in at the end of searches, not just the indie ghetto at the end, seemed to be a return to something more reasonable.

I don't have any new files on iStock to watch how new independent files are being treated at the moment - has any independent risked uploading  - thus having files with which to check on search results?

I uploaded two files last week in the middle of the ridiculous shift in best match and at the time was wondering why I was bothering. The two images went 'live' only today albeit being accepted three days ago. Both appear as the first non-exclusive images on page one for their respective searches in best match (figs, isolated, group) (image number 18796958) and the second image (eggs, straw) (image number 18796924). I only used search words that I knew were in my file data which may have skewed the results in my favour, but at least they appear on the first page which is an improvement.

Quote from: Zerkalo on November 15, 2011, 00:09
Has the best match changed again? Now I am getting DLs only during European working hours. No DLs on working hours Americas. That's very weird for me.

Anybody else having this pattern?

Quote from: ShadySue on November 15, 2011, 13:17
Nope, the very opposite. As I posted yesterday, I had one dl prior to 19:15GMT, then 5 dls after that. Still a poor day, but far worse during European working hours. No dls at all today, 1315GMT. I have few files of specifically American interest. (167/2729).

[Lobo] Sept. 25th on the IS forums:

best match seems to be in a place that the Warlocks are happy with right now. Does that mean everyone is going to be happy? No. Not everyone is going to be happy. Do we sort best match to please contributors who are searching every 20 minutes or so? No, we sort best match based on what we think the buying public is interested in. I should also note that there seems to be some inconsistencies with what one contributor is seeing verses with what another. I suspect this has something to do with the localized search.

Due to the fact that we aren't privy to the inner workings of the best match we are always going to wonder what the exact logic is behind the current search results. The fact is, no two people are actually seeing the identical search results so it becomes even more cumbersome. So, in a nut shell, things are how they are going to be for the foreseeable future. As soon as we have an indication that things are going to change we can expect things to stay the same.

This ends my update on best match and best match related concerns. If you have any direct questions or comments related to the current sort I'm going to direct you to Contributor Relations and then indicate my Hammer will be smashing all future threads that start with "best match Sort changed..." or the like.

[/quote]

Repeating this part:  Do we sort best match to please contributors who are searching every 20 minutes or so? No 

It changes. It changes based on what you may have looked at before. It changes by location. It could change based on a random change so at 1:01 people see older exclusive files, at 1:02 they would see, newer non-exclusive files, at 1:03 people see best sellers from their own time zone.

The threads over the past months have shown that superstition plays a large roll in what people are finding and in fact, some people have their mind made up, so it doesn't matter what they see. They are going to conclude that the evidence supports whatever they want it to support.

That's my point. There is hardly a bit of evidence for anything scientific to prove that Old, Exclusive files are being advanced to the front and new non-exclusive files are getting pushed to the back, on a consistent basis. Time after time, different people run an identical search and get different results, even the same people doing the same identical search and get different results.

But I am for this thread continuing and some day hitting 50 pages, instead of a new one every week, re-hashing the always changing claims and theories.

You can only conclude that there is no evidence and everything is different for everyone if you think that Lobo was telling the truth/has the faintest idea what he is talking about when he said everybody sees different things.

On the other side of the argument is the fact that pretty much everyone posting here sees the same thing when they do a search. I made a remark about the number one search result for Crete some time back, and Gostwyck looked it up and saw the same thing, even though we are in totally different markets (unless iStock thinks Arabia is part of the Western world).

If there was anywhere that was going to deliver a different "specially tailored for you" geographical search it would be Arabia, but it doesn't. If I search for summer and beach I get two shots of Santa sitting on an Australian beach, whereas even the crudest regional adjustment would not have Christmas-related images leading searches in the Muslim world.

Of course the best match has constant tiny changes, as new material is indexed or existing stuff gets reranked according to sales or views, but to suggest that means that we can't recognise gigantic shifts caused by deliberate policy decisions is a bit like saying nobody can state with certainty an earthquake has happened because the Earth is constantly deforming due to the Moon's gravitational field.

This thread was started by a Richter strength 8 earthquake. It's naive to think that nothing identifiable happened.

It's also a bit naive to believe lobo is right when he says the best match is designed according to "what the buying public is interested in" (can anybody define the "buying public"?) when it is clearly designed to push with what the selling agency wants to shift.

In fact, iStock is designed like a grocery shop. The grocer doesn't put what the public want on all the shelves at the front, he puts them at the back so you have to traipse past all the stuff you don't want and maybe think "oh, that's nice, I'll have one of those while I'm here" before getting to the milk that you went in for. And, like the grocer, iStock puts the expensive stuff it wants to shift at eye-level (which is what the first few lines of the best match amount to).

Like the grocer, iStock sometimes moves its goods about a bit or tries a new layout, and it happens for a reason that the observer can quite often understand.

OK racephotos what is the point of arguing about insignificant trivia. Clearly exclusive files are pshed to the front and independants back. Saying else is stupidity. Most of us (independents) hope it does not last but it hs a fair chance of staying.

Putting new files up is a wasted excercise. They get very few views.

Well that experiment didn't last long, or is it just me?
I'm just a small part time indie player over on istock with around 40 illustrations and around 2 weeks ago a handful of my best sellers that were in the first few pages under best match suddenly found their way into no mans land, way past 50% of the pages, as did all my files.
Today I checked and they're more or less back to where they were before.
Whilst I'm happy to have my files back in a more salable position this constant screwing around and experimenting with best match can only serve to annoy and frustrate buyers. It's one thing messing contributors about but constantly doing the same to buyers means they'll give up with istock and go elsewhere.
Best match should (mostly) mean most relevant irrespective of whether there is a little crown logo underneath otherwise it becomes meaningless.
I say (mostly) because there should always be room for tinkering, no point an image occupying front page when it hasn't sold in ages.