[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=80951&page=1[/url]
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=80951&page=1[/url]
best match is going to reward good keywording....bollocks
With the launch of our new keyword ranking system the culmination of years of work by thousands of people will come to fruition, providing iStock clients with what we think will be the most impressive and most exact search results, for community created media, found anywhere on the planet.
Proof of the pudding as they say.
Let's see what happens once this is implemented, both to search results - do you get a nice mix of images, old and new, etc. - and to our sales.
Where will vectors end up? They've been trashed in the best match for a while now, so I hope they resurface (I'ld like to start back on that tack again, but have been contributing images only because it seemed a waste to dump vectors into a search that trashed them).
QuoteWith the launch of our new keyword ranking system the culmination of years of work by thousands of people will come to fruition, providing iStock clients with what we think will be the most impressive and most exact search results, for community created media, found anywhere on the planet.
This kind of assertation scares me. :)
Regards,
Adelaide
Posted By rogermexico:QuotePosted By kelvinjay:QuotePosted By kkthompson:
On 2008-12-09 15:09:33, bitter wrote:
For artists it means a massive shift. The results for everyone, are going to be very, very different.
Given that massive changes to the best match are one of the main complaints in any best match thread, it will certainly be interesting to see how this one pans out. I guess we'll just have to wait & see...
Yeah, I know it's kind of a contradictory sounding message, but the goal is to have one last big shake so that we can move to something more stable. By blending this ranked keyword data into the algorithm, it should make it on the whole more stable. In the past we've been seeing really wild swings whenever the guys have gone into tweak the mix - this is aimed at alleviating those swings and giving us something more reliable.
A little more about the "blend":OMG now I'm lost ::)
Posted By kkthompson:
On 2008-12-09 15:09:33, bitter wrote:
For artists it means a massive shift. The results for everyone, are going to be very, very different.
I don't see how a search algorithm could see what is the subject in the image and look at the keywords if they are relevent...
Maybe they will (finally) also evaluate relevance by searching title and description.LOL..You really like how DT search work :)
Regards,
Adelaide
Does this mean???? that if an image for example: a picture of a woman sitting in a chair on the grass.It would be ok, but again if it's not penalizing the sales made from exposure. Like the ones from lightboxes or the file of the week and everything
Say it has 3 keywords "woman, chair, grass"
A buyer searches for the keyword "woman" and buys the image. Now the image will rank higher under the keyword "woman" but will not rank higher under the keywords "grass and chair". Another happy shopper buys the image by searching keywords "woman, chair" now image moves up best match for "woman and chair" but not for keyword "grass". Individual keyword ranking would be great as long as the image is not penalized for having the relevant keyword "grass".
Maybe they will (finally) also evaluate relevance by searching title and description.
Regards,
Adelaide
My interpretation of keyword ranking is a little different, so it will be interesting to see how the system is actually implemented. I see it as the order of a keyword in a list (and maybe the number of words in the list) determines how much weight it has, not some arbitrary? weighting determined by istock. But maybe I'm wrong
It work at DT at least. I never saw spamming in the title. And I think you can't put 2 times the same word in the description or title. And more I think that if you have more than 5 words in the desc.. they get less relevent. But I must find the right article to be sureMaybe they will (finally) also evaluate relevance by searching title and description.
Regards,
Adelaide
Doubtful, since they aren't translatable, and easily spammable.
Does this mean???? that if an image for example: a picture of a woman sitting in a chair on the grass.It would be ok, but again if it's not penalizing the sales made from exposure. Like the ones from lightboxes or the file of the week and everything
Say it has 3 keywords "woman, chair, grass"
A buyer searches for the keyword "woman" and buys the image. Now the image will rank higher under the keyword "woman" but will not rank higher under the keywords "grass and chair". Another happy shopper buys the image by searching keywords "woman, chair" now image moves up best match for "woman and chair" but not for keyword "grass". Individual keyword ranking would be great as long as the image is not penalized for having the relevant keyword "grass".
It's ok quoting MrThompson but has anyone thought about WHY istockphoto is changing best match and tiering the collection.My interpretation of keyword ranking is a little different, so it will be interesting to see how the system is actually implemented. I see it as the order of a keyword in a list (and maybe the number of words in the list) determines how much weight it has, not some arbitrary? weighting determined by istock. But maybe I'm wrong
Yes, you're wrong, in this case:
"A long time ago we developed an algorithm to rank keywords on each file. Since then, we've been tracking data for every single file on iStock. Guess what? It works."
Are we going to see this keyword ranking somewhere? So we can remove keywords that drags us down or replace them with better ones.
Are we going to see this keyword ranking somewhere? So we can remove keywords that drags us down or replace them with better ones.
I interpret the ranking to work a little differently. It seems to me that images will rank separately for each keyword. For instance, say you have an image of a cow, and keywords: cow, milk. If buyers DL your image after searching for "cow," your image will be ranked higher for every new search for the word "cow." If buyers fail to DL your image after searching for "milk," your image will be ranked lower for every new search for keyword "milk."
I could be wrong, but I believe that is what the new system purports to do.
I interpret the ranking to work a little differently. It seems to me that images will rank separately for each keyword. For instance, say you have an image of a cow, and keywords: cow, milk. If buyers DL your image after searching for "cow," your image will be ranked higher for every new search for the word "cow." If buyers fail to DL your image after searching for "milk," your image will be ranked lower for every new search for keyword "milk."
Despite their faults, they continue to be the trailblazers in this industry.
I interpret the ranking to work a little differently. It seems to me that images will rank separately for each keyword. For instance, say you have an image of a cow, and keywords: cow, milk. If buyers DL your image after searching for "cow," your image will be ranked higher for every new search for the word "cow." If buyers fail to DL your image after searching for "milk," your image will be ranked lower for every new search for keyword "milk."If it manage to work as we say, then I hope IS will understand that speeching of myself, only 60% of my DT sales are made with relevent keywords. Others are from exposure (without keywords) and weird or not fully relevent keywords, sometimes not even in the list. Then I don't know if managing some lightboxes or beeing on front page will be advantaging anymore.
I could be wrong, but I believe that is what the new system purports to do.
There seems to be the assumption that an improved search engine will significantly improve sales. I personally think that istock has a rather distorted view of what makes good search. Banning conceptual keywords, for a start. Somehow I doubt that they'll be dragging too much market share from other sites with this move. If they do manage it, no doubt others will revamp their search engines to follow suit.
We will begin pulling leavers and turning dials to slowly turn up ranking in best match starting next weekI expect the results to be very interesting. Might have a few good laughs about it. I did some thinking the other day and it will be very hard to get the parameters right. Much much harder than with best match 1.0. And we all know they couldn't do it even with many tries. But then again, do they need to get them right? 8)
The fact of the matter is that best match can hurt a contributor just as easily as it can help them. No doubt, this next best match shift will hurt some people, including some of the same folks who are applauding and cheering "Go istock!" over this announcement. While we all hope the best match change will help everyone in a positive way, we also need to be a little more realistic and not be so surprised when next month there is another thread about best match killing sales with posts by some of the same people who are cheering for istock in today's thread.
It's ok quoting MrThompson but has anyone thought about WHY istockphoto is changing best match and tiering the collection.
IMO they are nervous... are you sitting down ....$1.1 million payed a week to contributors which is about 30%-40% payout.So we can assume istock makes$ 2 million from OUR work.
I have looked through the other micro sites collections these past 2 months and if istock still thinks it offers the best images at the best prices they are mistaken.
I can only keep uploading what i consider to be stock worthy images to istockphoto but i certaintly dont view the company through 'rose titnted spectacles ' anymore.
Do you think a lot of exclusives will quit being exclusive if the search actually finds the real best match? A lot of exclusives have had a pretty big jump in sales since the best match change so this "massive shift", I think thats what they are saying, would probably hurt the exclusives much more than nonexclusives.
They're incorporating other buyers' satisfaction with a keyword/image relationship to present future buyers with the images that may actually best suit their needs.
Is that wrong? What better way to see if a keyword is valid for an image, than if a buyer spent money on an image after finding it through that keyword?
I am guessing you are right about that they won't change it too much but if this new best match is going get the best search results they need to change it so exclusive or nonexclusive images are equal because there is nothing better for the buyer about exclusive images. Something has to give, either it isn't the best search or exclusives and nonexclusives need the same best match treatment and that will hurt exclusives now.
I thought it was more than adding a relevancy factor, didn't they say "massive shift"?
I wonder if the new Premium Collection for exclusive images may be a way to address this exclusive vs. non bias in the best match.
Is that wrong? What better way to see if a keyword is valid for an image, than if a buyer spent money on an image after finding it through that keyword?
Is that wrong? What better way to see if a keyword is valid for an image, than if a buyer spent money on an image after finding it through that keyword?I'll repeat it. At Dreamstime, each keywords used for downloading an image is showing in our image stats. 40% of my sales are made from irrelevent keywords or without any keywords. Probably because of some sort of exposure, lightboxes or collections... I don't know?
Posted By bitter:Quote
Posted By mikemcd:
I don't know better than anyone else what this new best match shift will do to our sales, but let's take a quick look back at the original message here:
"With best match, we have one, clear goal: to put the best content in front of our clients. We have finite slots on the first page and tens-of-thousands of files vying for those spots."
As always, best match changes are done with the buyers in mind, rightfully so. I think istock is making the right move here, but that often means that many of us end up disappointed with the result. best match changes have been and will remain to be done for the buyers, not for us.
I'm as hopeful as anyone that this works out positively for everyone. But as a contributor I'm not singing istock's praises for this move and giving them the standing ovation, and I'm baffled as to why anyone else is. Some of the same people complaining about slow sales since the last best match change are now here saying "Yay, best match change!" Sure it's possible that things could get better for those who suffered because of the last change. But there's an equal chance that things will take another dive for those same people after this one.
Fingers crossed, I am cautiously optimistic about this. If it works out, great. But if it doesn't, I won't be back here in the forums next month with the same group who will be scratching their heads saying "What happened to my sales?," as if no one could see that potential result coming.
I'm happy you noticed how carefully I chose my words. We are not promising everyone will like the new best match, nor promising increased royalties to anyone or group in particular. Our goal is to improve the search experience for clients. That's all. We have to assume that the theory of well keyworded files being found and purchased more often than poorly keyworded files is true in this endeavor.
In case any of you missed Bitter's latest input into the discussion:Woo Yay!!! ::) ;DQuotePosted By bitter:Quote
Posted By mikemcd:
I don't know better than anyone else what this new best match shift will do to our sales, but let's take a quick look back at the original message here:
"With best match, we have one, clear goal: to put the best content in front of our clients. We have finite slots on the first page and tens-of-thousands of files vying for those spots."
As always, best match changes are done with the buyers in mind, rightfully so. I think istock is making the right move here, but that often means that many of us end up disappointed with the result. best match changes have been and will remain to be done for the buyers, not for us.
I'm as hopeful as anyone that this works out positively for everyone. But as a contributor I'm not singing istock's praises for this move and giving them the standing ovation, and I'm baffled as to why anyone else is. Some of the same people complaining about slow sales since the last best match change are now here saying "Yay, best match change!" Sure it's possible that things could get better for those who suffered because of the last change. But there's an equal chance that things will take another dive for those same people after this one.
Fingers crossed, I am cautiously optimistic about this. If it works out, great. But if it doesn't, I won't be back here in the forums next month with the same group who will be scratching their heads saying "What happened to my sales?," as if no one could see that potential result coming.
I'm happy you noticed how carefully I chose my words. We are not promising everyone will like the new best match, nor promising increased royalties to anyone or group in particular. Our goal is to improve the search experience for clients. That's all. We have to assume that the theory of well keyworded files being found and purchased more often than poorly keyworded files is true in this endeavor.
My test case for the istock best match is to type 'business' into the search field and check out the first page (100) results. There are a few changes there from a couple of weeks ago, but not sure that the overall relevance has improved significantly.
My test case for the istock best match is to type 'business' into the search field and check out the first page (100) results.I use my own portfolio sorted by best match. Easier to follow and lot less exhausting to look at (Vaumit face :P)
My test case for the istock best match is to type 'business' into the search field and check out the first page (100) results. There are a few changes there from a couple of weeks ago, but not sure that the overall relevance has improved significantly.
What exactly are you testing for? If it is supposed to be indicative of which images might actually be sold, shouldn't it at least be remotely close to the reality of what a buyer might search for? No designer in their right mind is going to come to a site, enter "business" into a search engine, see that their search has yielded 255,328 results, and start flipping pages.
I'm guessing you must not ever actually use the search engine for the purpose of finding a file to purchase which serves a specific need?
What exactly are you testing for? If it is supposed to be indicative of which images might actually be sold, shouldn't it at least be remotely close to the reality of what a buyer might search for? No designer in their right mind is going to come to a site, enter "business" into a search engine, see that their search has yielded 255,328 results, and start flipping pages.
I'm guessing you must not ever actually use the search engine for the purpose of finding a file to purchase which serves a specific need?
And would you be a buyer, photographer (contributor) or both?
What exactly are you testing for? If it is supposed to be indicative of which images might actually be sold, shouldn't it at least be remotely close to the reality of what a buyer might search for? No designer in their right mind is going to come to a site, enter "business" into a search engine, see that their search has yielded 255,328 results, and start flipping pages.
I'm guessing you must not ever actually use the search engine for the purpose of finding a file to purchase which serves a specific need?
And would you be a buyer, photographer (contributor) or both?
I am both, but primarily a designer.
What exactly are you testing for? If it is supposed to be indicative of which images might actually be sold, shouldn't it at least be remotely close to the reality of what a buyer might search for? No designer in their right mind is going to come to a site, enter "business" into a search engine, see that their search has yielded 255,328 results, and start flipping pages.
I'm guessing you must not ever actually use the search engine for the purpose of finding a file to purchase which serves a specific need?
And would you be a buyer, photographer (contributor) or both?
I am both, but primarily a designer.
So what term do you use to determine the efficacy of a site's search engine? From my perspective "business" is a pretty good determinant - if the site brings up a toddler playing with a mobile phone in the first 20 images then I know the search engine is lousy ... if it turns up all relevant or arguably relevant images then I know the search engine is probably working pretty well ...
What exactly are you testing for? If it is supposed to be indicative of which images might actually be sold, shouldn't it at least be remotely close to the reality of what a buyer might search for? No designer in their right mind is going to come to a site, enter "business" into a search engine, see that their search has yielded 255,328 results, and start flipping pages.
I'm guessing you must not ever actually use the search engine for the purpose of finding a file to purchase which serves a specific need?
And would you be a buyer, photographer (contributor) or both?
I am both, but primarily a designer.
So what term do you use to determine the efficacy of a site's search engine? From my perspective "business" is a pretty good determinant - if the site brings up a toddler playing with a mobile phone in the first 20 images then I know the search engine is lousy ... if it turns up all relevant or arguably relevant images then I know the search engine is probably working pretty well ...
Obviously a toddler appearing in a business search is not relevant. Unfortunately, the search engine is somewhat handicapped by the potential (and likelihood) or inaccurate keywords attached to the files.
I guess my point is, I don't ever search for a term. Unless what I'm looking for is rare and hard to find, so that there will only be a few to choose from anyway, my search box will be something like:
business woman smiling "looking at camera"
or
"manual worker" "protective workwear" man industrial
or
office man business team
For me, this is a more efficient way to search because my results are narrowed down from the beginning. I do not have time to sort through hundreds of pages of results.
So what term do you use to determine the efficacy of a site's search engine? From my perspective "business" is a pretty good determinant - if the site brings up a toddler playing with a mobile phone in the first 20 images then I know the search engine is lousy ... if it turns up all relevant or arguably relevant images then I know the search engine is probably working pretty well ...
Well, I thought I understand what you meant. I thought you were trying to determine how the best match might affect you by judging the arrangement of the results to your one word search. I was just questioning what those findings really represent when they are not typical of how most buyers search (based on my own practices, and those of other buyers who have discussed this on the forums before).
I wonder if the new Premium Collection for exclusive images may be a way to address this exclusive vs. non bias in the best match.
I can't see how that would happen. My expectation is that a very small portion of content will end up in the premium collection - I don't expect anything of mine will be put there. Those people with professional setups (studio or location) are, I think, the ones who'll see their content there. I believe the notion is to provide some incentive to produce the more costly stuff, which is a great idea, but it isn't going to change how a large number of us part timers work.
So that leaves a huge portion of the content in either the bargain bin or the regular collection. I think the exclusive queue, which gives new images an edge of a few days, is probably a fine bias to keep in the best match-v2 results, but otherwise images should sink or swim based on their saleability.
What I have really disliked is watching images that sell move back in the best match ranking, especially if they just sold versus attracted a lot of looky-loos. That seems to be the polar opposite of what should be happening. What was Joe Gough's lovely analogy? Something about taking the hot selling items away from the front of the store and hiding them in a store room in the back so you couldn't find them.
Wow, that is so much better. My flamers that were on the last page are now back on the first page and my 'crap' is now rigt where it should be on the last page.Same here. I'm also getting about the same ammount of downloads as before the October best match change. Hoping it stays like this :D
So you can probably tell that a lot of things have been happening here at headquarters in the deep plumbing on the site. You've seen the first results of the ranked keywords in the enhanced "More Like This" feature. You seem excited by it, and we certainly are.
We've been testing best match 2.0 with ranked keywords internally on our dev environment for quite some time. Before we push it live, we want to try it on the live data to see exactly how it goes. So next week, along with some other tweaks, best match 2.0 will be launched as an internal beta. Yup, admins will be able to select it from the drop-down menu of search results. If all goes well, you'll see it pushed live about a week after that. We're not giving an exact date yet, as we have a lot of other stuff to get our the door (CSS & Audio for example). But rest assured we're moving as quickly as we can.
The next few months is going to be very exiting. Once we give birth to Audio, many things will be coming to fruition after a long time in the pipeline.
Thanks!
So you can probably tell that a lot of things have been happening here at headquarters in the deep plumbing on the site. You've seen the first results of the ranked keywords in the enhanced "More Like This" feature. You seem excited by it, and we certainly are.
We've been testing best match 2.0 with ranked keywords internally on our dev environment for quite some time. Before we push it live, we want to try it on the live data to see exactly how it goes. So next week, along with some other tweaks, best match 2.0 will be launched as an internal beta. Yup, admins will be able to select it from the drop-down menu of search results. If all goes well, you'll see it pushed live about a week after that. We're not giving an exact date yet, as we have a lot of other stuff to get our the door (CSS & Audio for example). But rest assured we're moving as quickly as we can.
The next few months is going to be very exiting. Once we give birth to Audio, many things will be coming to fruition after a long time in the pipeline.
Thanks!
...
I am pretty upset about all of this, though I realize for many it is working out. I am not fooling myself that they care whether I remain exclusive or not. but if this continues for more than a month, I will be checking out some of the other sites. I don't want to depend on IS completely.
You should be aware that if you decide to drop your exclusivity with IS, all the images you uploaded as an exclusive will be removed. This is done so that people do not take advantage of the increased upload limits and then switch back to non-exclusive once their portfolio is 'large enough'. (Here's the contract ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url]) - see Section 12.a.(i))
Those deciding to go exclusive would do well to take this into account before 'making the jump'. A good strategy might be to hold back on uploading your best imagery until the two or three weeks immediately preceding your exclusivity application.
You should be aware that if you decide to drop your exclusivity with IS, all the images you uploaded as an exclusive will be removed.
You should be aware that if you decide to drop your exclusivity with IS, all the images you uploaded as an exclusive will be removed. This is done so that people do not take advantage of the increased upload limits and then switch back to non-exclusive once their portfolio is 'large enough'. (Here's the contract ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url]) - see Section 12.a.(i))
Those deciding to go exclusive would do well to take this into account before 'making the jump'. A good strategy might be to hold back on uploading your best imagery until the two or three weeks immediately preceding your exclusivity application.
You should be aware that if you decide to drop your exclusivity with IS, all the images you uploaded as an exclusive will be removed. This is done so that people do not take advantage of the increased upload limits and then switch back to non-exclusive once their portfolio is 'large enough'. (Here's the contract ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url]) - see Section 12.a.(i))
Those deciding to go exclusive would do well to take this into account before 'making the jump'. A good strategy might be to hold back on uploading your best imagery until the two or three weeks immediately preceding your exclusivity application.
Hi Stacey,
Over the past few days I read your posts on Istock forums. You're vivacious and straight forward and I like that.
But there is something else you need to keep in mind.
At IStock they keep on feeding you this idea that IS is the 8-th wonder of the world and all other sites are nothing but crappy mediocrity.
It is not true.
I don't like IS and don't want you stuck there, but think twice!
Some of your files, including old flames, have little chance of passing the reviewers of today.
You'll be losing quite a number of them, no to mention all the extra bonuses.
If you really want to leave IS, you need to take things step by step and think in advance.
Good luck and hope things turn for the better!
One day soon you may be able to break free...
Anna
You should be aware that if you decide to drop your exclusivity with IS, all the images you uploaded as an exclusive will be removed. This is done so that people do not take advantage of the increased upload limits and then switch back to non-exclusive once their portfolio is 'large enough'. (Here's the contract ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url]) - see Section 12.a.(i))
Those deciding to go exclusive would do well to take this into account before 'making the jump'. A good strategy might be to hold back on uploading your best imagery until the two or three weeks immediately preceding your exclusivity application.
You should be aware that if you decide to drop your exclusivity with IS, all the images you uploaded as an exclusive will be removed. This is done so that people do not take advantage of the increased upload limits and then switch back to non-exclusive once their portfolio is 'large enough'. (Here's the contract ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url]) - see Section 12.a.(i))
Those deciding to go exclusive would do well to take this into account before 'making the jump'. A good strategy might be to hold back on uploading your best imagery until the two or three weeks immediately preceding your exclusivity application.
Wow! That's harsh! I can see the reasoning behind it but it seems a bit heavy handed IMO. I liked the old days when istock used the carrot to get and hold exclusives, rather than the stick.
Stacey, even without this penalty for dropping exclusivity, I think you are wise to wait until at least a few weeks in to the launch of best match 2 before deciding. I am emotional and passionate about things, like I can tell that you are. But usually when I make a decision in haste or out of anger it turns out badly.
I am really enjoying the sales I am having the last few weeks, but I don't think it will last. I am pretty certain istock will be giving the exclusives another big boost soon. Maybe each individual exclusive is expendable, but not a large number of them and surely istock will want to keep you guys happy. :)
Hi Stacey,
I'm sure Lisa is right. Hang on there, things will get better!
January was a lousy month all over the board. IS is not the only one experiencing lower sales.
However, be wise and think ahead. Start building a secondary port, something handy to fall back on if times turn bad again.
Better safe than sorry, right?
Meanwhile I'll still be waiting for your naked photos!
I kind wait to watch them, (the men I mean), go bananas :)
Good luck Stacey, better times are right around the corner!
Anna
Isn't it possible that you're misreading the termination clause? I think that what they're addressing is that they have the right to take 30 days to stop selling all the content if you leave the site altogether. IOW, that this clause isn't talking about a switch from exclusive to non?Ask in the "secret forum" ;)
If it's an issue for anyone, I'd suggest contacting contributor relations to see if this delete your exclusive uploads interpretation is really correct.
Isn't it possible that you're misreading the termination clause? I think that what they're addressing is that they have the right to take 30 days to stop selling all the content if you leave the site altogether. IOW, that this clause isn't talking about a switch from exclusive to non?
If it's an issue for anyone, I'd suggest contacting contributor relations to see if this delete your exclusive uploads interpretation is really correct.
I've not had a sale in over 24 hours.....when normally I would have almost 50 by now. I'm feeling fairly certain that my iStock career has suddenly tanked. I was doing so well, consistently up until the end of November, none of the best match shakes really affected me for over a year. now right before hitting gold, my sales have been steadily declining. it started around 30% decrease from one day to the next, and now not one sale in almost two days.
I find the announcement inadequate. it is like most of the announcements. sounds great, all the right words, but it doesn't really tell me anything new.
I am pretty upset about all of this, though I realize for many it is working out. I am not fooling myself that they care whether I remain exclusive or not. but if this continues for more than a month, I will be checking out some of the other sites. I don't want to depend on IS completely.
Isn't it possible that you're misreading the termination clause? I think that what they're addressing is that they have the right to take 30 days to stop selling all the content if you leave the site altogether. IOW, that this clause isn't talking about a switch from exclusive to non?
If it's an issue for anyone, I'd suggest contacting contributor relations to see if this delete your exclusive uploads interpretation is really correct.
Are the search results generated with BM2 these days or not?
Isn't it possible that you're misreading the termination clause? I think that what they're addressing is that they have the right to take 30 days to stop selling all the content if you leave the site altogether. IOW, that this clause isn't talking about a switch from exclusive to non?
If it's an issue for anyone, I'd suggest contacting contributor relations to see if this delete your exclusive uploads interpretation is really correct.
Yes, I'll grant that it's possible I misread/misunderstood it, but I think either is extremely unlikely. And here's why:
If it was possible to turn exclusivity on and off in 90 day intervals without incurring a penalty, I'd jump aboard that ship in a second. When I wasn't exclusive I'd upload only to SS, FT, StockXpert, and 123. After 90 days I'd remove my images from those agencies, switch back to exclusive at IS, then upload my new images to them. After 90 days I'd cancel my IS exclusivity and repeat the process. This would give me the best of both worlds, allowing me to have similar/identical portfolios on all agencies, effectively nullifying the exclusive image advantage that IS enjoys.
But then again, maybe it is possible to do this, but nobody's tried it yet. If this is the case, you can bet that IS will shut that door pretty quickly now that it's been mentioned on a public forum.
Are the search results generated with BM2 these days or not?
The answer would be "no" at this point. They mention in the thread that they will be testing a beta version in house, if all goes well will release shortly after.
If you open up a image on istock there is a tab that says "more like this" Its my understanding this running on best match 2.0 ,this will give you an idea of what the search is going to be like. I must say it looks quite impressive going from that. Everyone else will be playing catch-up
Isn't it possible that you're misreading the termination clause? I think that what they're addressing is that they have the right to take 30 days to stop selling all the content if you leave the site altogether. IOW, that this clause isn't talking about a switch from exclusive to non?
If it's an issue for anyone, I'd suggest contacting contributor relations to see if this delete your exclusive uploads interpretation is really correct.
Yes, I'll grant that it's possible I misread/misunderstood it, but I think either is extremely unlikely. And here's why:
If it was possible to turn exclusivity on and off in 90 day intervals without incurring a penalty, I'd jump aboard that ship in a second. When I wasn't exclusive I'd upload only to SS, FT, StockXpert, and 123. After 90 days I'd remove my images from those agencies, switch back to exclusive at IS, then upload my new images to them. After 90 days I'd cancel my IS exclusivity and repeat the process. This would give me the best of both worlds, allowing me to have similar/identical portfolios on all agencies, effectively nullifying the exclusive image advantage that IS enjoys.
But then again, maybe it is possible to do this, but nobody's tried it yet. If this is the case, you can bet that IS will shut that door pretty quickly now that it's been mentioned on a public forum.
Another interesting thing about best match 2.0 is it might prove to be a usefull keywording tool. You can browse similar images and get an idea of the keywords most often used for downloading a particular file type. I'm not suggesting copying someone else's keywords :) but you can at least make sure you have the 4 most popular "relevant" words.I copy keywords all the time..In fact i use the search engine facility like a buyer to hunt down a similiar photo to the one i am about to upload for inspection. Mid adult,one mid adult man,mid adult men,carrying on shoulders,vibrant color,real people,stereotypically working class.
Another interesting thing about best match 2.0 is it might prove to be a usefull keywording tool. You can browse similar images and get an idea of the keywords most often used for downloading a particular file type. I'm not suggesting copying someone else's keywords :) but you can at least make sure you have the 4 most popular "relevant" words.I copy keywords all the time..In fact i use the search engine facility like a buyer to hunt down a similiar photo to the one i am about to upload for inspection. Mid adult,one mid adult man,mid adult men,carrying on shoulders,vibrant color,real people,stereotypically working class.
The more you copy the more you learn.
So i copy other's peoples keywords ...call the cops !
But I am still a bit confused...
Can someone give some " calendar"...
When best match 2.0 could affect on our sales so far, and when it will start again, at least roughly...!???
You might want to read the actual statement from an actual employee of istock, rather than trying to filter through a bunch of interpretations (some of which are not exactly accurate).
Here's the link to the latest official announcement (from Friday):
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=83392&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=83392&page=1[/url])
Just a suggestion...
You should be aware that if you decide to drop your exclusivity with IS, all the images you uploaded as an exclusive will be removed. This is done so that people do not take advantage of the increased upload limits and then switch back to non-exclusive once their portfolio is 'large enough'. (Here's the contract ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url]) - see Section 12.a.(i))
You should be aware that if you decide to drop your exclusivity with IS, all the images you uploaded as an exclusive will be removed. This is done so that people do not take advantage of the increased upload limits and then switch back to non-exclusive once their portfolio is 'large enough'. (Here's the contract ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url]) - see Section 12.a.(i))
You should be aware that if you decide to drop your exclusivity with IS, all the images you uploaded as an exclusive will be removed. This is done so that people do not take advantage of the increased upload limits and then switch back to non-exclusive once their portfolio is 'large enough'. (Here's the contract ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url]) - see Section 12.a.(i))
This interpretation is completely incorrect. Canceling exclusivity does not result in all your content being removed from the site. All that happens is that your content is "removed" from being considered exclusive after 30 days (i.e., removed from exclusive-only searches, promotions, royalties, etc). After 90 days you can apply again to become exclusive if you wish.
I would encourage anyone with questions/concerns about the Artist Supply Agreement to contact iStock Contributor Relations directly.
This interpretation is completely incorrect. Canceling exclusivity does not result in all your content being removed from the site. All that happens is that your content is "removed" from being considered exclusive after 30 days (i.e., removed from exclusive-only searches, promotions, royalties, etc).
tation is completely incorrect. Canceling exclusivity does not result in all your content being removed from the site. All that happens is that your content is "removed" from being considered exclusive after 30 days (i.e., removed from exclusive-only searches, promotions, royalties, etc). After 90 days you can apply again to become exclusive if you wish.
I would encourage anyone with questions/concerns about the Artist Supply Agreement to contact iStock Contributor Relations directly.
FYI KB a forum admin does not make policy descisions at istockphoto.I suspect there main job is to ensure all the children play nicely in the playground ! The saying "money for old rope " comes to mind....This interpretation is completely incorrect. Canceling exclusivity does not result in all your content being removed from the site. All that happens is that your content is "removed" from being considered exclusive after 30 days (i.e., removed from exclusive-only searches, promotions, royalties, etc).
That well may be what iStock does (and you would certainly know), however you can't blame anyone for "interpreting" the agreement in that way, since that's what it states:
(i) iStockphoto shall remove the applicable Accepted Exclusive Content from the Site within thirty (30) days of the termination of this Agreement;
If that isn't what iStock intended, then perhaps they need to change the contract. Because as it is written, they certainly have the legal right to remove all exclusive content, as stated.