pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Best Match shift 27 Jan 12  (Read 17819 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

michealo

« on: January 27, 2012, 05:56 »
0
Seems to be a major tweak last night, dialing down on the exclusive bump


wut

« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2012, 06:08 »
0
Ur saying it's time to consider ULing again? Well not until they sort out the royalty percentage bug. I guess that bug triggered the best match change or they just want to calm the vast majority of their contributors down...I really don't know whether they're complete muppets or top drawer crooks/cons artists anymore

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2012, 06:26 »
0
In two of my usual test vested interest searches, A/ V are more prominent than they've been for a couple of weeks, and another two look 'very similar' to how they were the last time I looked (Mon or Tues).
In my 'no vested interest' search on telesales, there are 5 indies in the top 20 'photos only', which is a slight improvement on how it was over New Year.
Not one indie in the top 200 'photos only' for Florence that I can see.
In all 5, it seems that newer files don't have much of a boost. In fact, one I had accepted on Tuesday is around 100 on its main search term.
Seems to have been several months that they've been employing different search algorithms for different searches.

« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2012, 07:35 »
0
IS isn't friendly any more for independent contributors...
Obviously they shift their customers to Getty, also they are sending many invitations to exclusive contributors to make transfer to Getty...
So probably Getty don't want to have two or more crews on different agencies, that cost much more....
In this transition period they will transfer Istock's market to Getty, some photographers also...
The work of independent photographers will be completely devalued through the Thinkstock...
So this is a process, not good for us!
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 14:18 by borg »

lagereek

« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2012, 08:28 »
0
Same pathetic rubbish, same irrelevant material, same generic stuff, it will never change.

Wait a minute!  just went back and had a look...........................  yep, same old generic rubbish.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 08:34 by lagereek »

« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2012, 09:37 »
0

Obviously they shift their customers to Getty, also they are sending many invitations to exclusive contributors to make transfer to Getty...

Is that a fact? I haven't heard that before. Are you talking about a complete transfer to Getty or just putting some files through there. If they are creaming off the best exclusives and making them Getty exclusives then it would mark a major change.

« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2012, 10:58 »
0
yep...new chance for indipendents..maybe istock not want anymore exclusive (best match shift +  acceptance rate = 0%)

« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2012, 12:47 »
0
Same pathetic rubbish, same irrelevant material, same generic stuff, it will never change.

Wait a minute!  just went back and had a look...........................  yep, same old generic rubbish.

Is that your posts you are talking about!?

No, its the moron that answered me. Oh what a pitty, so sad.

Can't get free entertainment like this anywhere else!  ;D

« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2012, 13:03 »
0
We all have our own personal litmus tests for this.  Mine is 'scotland'.  I have the #3 most downloaded "scotland" image, #2 if you dont count a vector of the flag.  It used to be quite high, and after the recent changes was totally buried.



This recent change did nothing to improve it its location, or at least I havent gone far enough back to find out where it actually is.  But when this image is on the front page (by 200), and mine is nowhere to be found by page 11, well... color me dissatisfied



(fyi i know that the "scotland fold" is a recognizable cat mutation, but this cat doesnt even have that)
(and in case the contributor is around, yes, this is a wonderful image by a talented artist... just not sure I agree with it's location in a Scotland best match)

lisafx

« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2012, 13:07 »
0
My download numbers today certainly don't support the notion of any improvement in placement of indie images.  Sales dismal as ever, after having improved slightly last week and early this week.  Now back in the gutter.  

I agree with Borg.  Istock isn't worth bothering with for indies anymore.  

« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2012, 13:42 »
0
One thing I don't understand is why more buyers don't sort by Downloads. I was a buyer on istockphoto.com for 10 years and nearly always got the best results that way.

RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2012, 14:14 »
0
We all have our own personal litmus tests for this.  Mine is 'scotland'.  I have the #3 most downloaded "scotland" image, #2 if you dont count a vector of the flag.  It used to be quite high, and after the recent changes was totally buried.



This recent change did nothing to improve it its location, or at least I havent gone far enough back to find out where it actually is.  But when this image is on the front page (by 200), and mine is nowhere to be found by page 11, well... color me dissatisfied



Glen Coe?  :)  Beautiful!

I agree with Borg.  Istock isn't worth bothering with for indies anymore. 


I agree with both of you. I think they are trying to get rid of us or shuffle everything over to ThinkStock.

« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2012, 14:34 »
0
IS isn't friendly any more for independent contributors...
Obviously they shift their customers to Getty, also they are sending many invitations to exclusive contributors to make transfer to Getty...
So probably Getty don't want to have two or more crews on different agencies, that cost much more....
In this transition period they will transfer Istock's market to Getty, some photographers also...
The work of independent photographers will be completely devalued through the Thinkstock...
So this is process, not good for us!

Interesting thought! But it's probably a bit more complicated than that. I don't think they would merge iStock with Getty, the prices are quite different. They are moving more talented exclusives to Getty so they can sell their work for more money, but not all exclusives are going to Getty. Those who shoot mostly what is considered now microstock staples will stay microstock. Getty can not ignore places like SS or FT and they will keep iStock and Thinkstock as competition to those. But higher priced "macro" market is still there - and although it did lose some (considerable) ground when micros emerged, there are still buyers that look for more interesting and more sophisticated images. Something that is hard to find on micros.
 I talked recently to a friend that works in publishing - they have a subscription to Thinkstock. Only if they don't find what they are looking for there, they'd look somewhere else. So for generic stuff that's easy to produce Thinkstock and such are and will be the places to go. For something more complicated there will be still macros. And Istock itself will be for people that for some reason don't want to buy subscriptions, although most companies prefer them. So whether or not iStock will turn into subscription site depends on how much revenue they get from people who buy images for credits.

lagereek

« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2012, 14:52 »
0
Really!  does anybody really care anymore?  this is beginning to sound like a broken record,  over and over again. I have personally taken over 20 buyers away from them, sending high-res files, telling them I can meet their future requirements,  within my fields, that is. Good enough for me. :)

ShadySue

« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2012, 16:39 »
0
Really!  does anybody really care anymore?  this is beginning to sound like a broken record,  over and over again. I have personally taken over 20 buyers away from them, sending high-res files, telling them I can meet their future requirements,  within my fields, that is. Good enough for me. :)
If you have direct contact with buyers, I can't imagine why you'd want to give a percentage of your money to any agency.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2012, 17:18 »
0
whatever they have done, it has killed my sales

« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2012, 17:29 »
0
whatever they have done, it has killed my sales
Like most best match changes, it'll be ephemeral

« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2012, 17:30 »
0
two posts removed for a little cat fight.... unnecessary really.

« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2012, 17:58 »
0
One thing I don't understand is why more buyers don't sort by Downloads. I was a buyer on istockphoto.com for 10 years and nearly always got the best results that way.

same here. especially after knowing that best match didn't mean best match for the buyer. Besides, I always wanted to see the number of downloads the image I was thinking of buying had. I would generally not buy one with blue flames (too much exposure) but would move back a couple/few pages and still get a nice-looking, selling image.

« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2012, 18:37 »
0
My download numbers today certainly don't support the notion of any improvement in placement of indie images.  Sales dismal as ever, after having improved slightly last week and early this week.  Now back in the gutter.  

I agree with Borg.  Istock isn't worth bothering with for indies anymore.  

Seriously +1.  Here it is Friday, and I haven't even made it to $1 earned for the week.  WTH?  I used to earn a payout a week.  >:( >:( >:(  Yeh, sure...I've been deactivating images, but not so many that I'd go from $100 per week to less than a freakin' dollar.  I'm pi$$ed.

« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2012, 18:42 »
0
Same here - I was never a big player in this, but 1 DL for less than $2 this week, and 2 last week.  It wasn't even a dwindling off, it just suddenly crashed. 

« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2012, 18:43 »
0
I take that back.  Just added yesterday's and today's sales, and woohoo...I'm up to just under $2 for the week.   >:( >:( >:(

« Reply #22 on: January 27, 2012, 18:44 »
0
Same here - I was never a big player in this, but 1 DL for less than $2 this week, and 2 last week.  It wasn't even a dwindling off, it just suddenly crashed. 

I'm a mid-tier player...gold canister.  This is absolutely ridiculous.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2012, 18:44 »
0
I take that back.  Just added yesterday's and today's sales, and woohoo...I'm up to just under $2 for the week.   >:( >:( >:(

Look out, Big Stock.  iStock is closing in on you.   ;)

lisafx

« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2012, 19:12 »
0
Same here - I was never a big player in this, but 1 DL for less than $2 this week, and 2 last week.  It wasn't even a dwindling off, it just suddenly crashed. 

I'm a mid-tier player...gold canister.  This is absolutely ridiculous.

Wow!  $100/wk to $2!!  That's insane.  No amount of Eb and Flow could ever explain what's going on at Istock.  Unless it's a lava flow on the level of what happened to Pompei.   :o 

« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2012, 19:45 »
0
My download numbers today certainly don't support the notion of any improvement in placement of indie images.  Sales dismal as ever, after having improved slightly last week and early this week.  Now back in the gutter.  

I agree with Borg.  Istock isn't worth bothering with for indies anymore.  

Seriously +1.  Here it is Friday, and I haven't even made it to $1 earned for the week.  WTH?  I used to earn a payout a week.  >:( >:( >:(  Yeh, sure...I've been deactivating images, but not so many that I'd go from $100 per week to less than a freakin' dollar.  I'm pi$$ed.

thats incredible.. gotta be something regarding upload too not only best match (buyers bailing also).. never had a week with over 100$ (I am with 70$ this January and 49 sales, my BME is at around 200$ with PP sales).. I have never stopped uploading.. but as a very new corner I still see grow at IS.. the future looking at yourself and other doesnt look promising..

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2012, 19:52 »
0
my sales are half what a normal day would be. maybe a little less than half. the whole week has been up and down.

« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2012, 19:59 »
0
Same here - I was never a big player in this, but 1 DL for less than $2 this week, and 2 last week.  It wasn't even a dwindling off, it just suddenly crashed. 

I'm a mid-tier player...gold canister.  This is absolutely ridiculous.

Wow!  $100/wk to $2!!  That's insane.  No amount of Eb and Flow could ever explain what's going on at Istock.  Unless it's a lava flow on the level of what happened to Pompei.   :o 

You're right.  Nothing can explain any of these things we've been reporting here.  My drop may have taken just over a year to unfold, but still...$100 to $2 per week?!?  Sales on certain images, that used to have regular sales, coming to a dead halt in August 2010 despite showing up with only 80 other images in the search?!?  And then selling just fine from September 2010 onward on Thinkstock?!? 

Someday this crap is gonna catch up with them.  One of these days, someone is going to uncover the truth about what's happening.  They can't hide all of these glitches forever...there's just too many of them.     

traveler1116

« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2012, 20:05 »
0
Same here - I was never a big player in this, but 1 DL for less than $2 this week, and 2 last week.  It wasn't even a dwindling off, it just suddenly crashed. 

I'm a mid-tier player...gold canister.  This is absolutely ridiculous.

Wow!  $100/wk to $2!!  That's insane.  No amount of Eb and Flow could ever explain what's going on at Istock.  Unless it's a lava flow on the level of what happened to Pompei.   :o 

Nothing can explain any of these things we've been reporting here.   
You just said "Yeh, sure...I've been deactivating images", that might explain it???

« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2012, 20:14 »
0
i think sales for indies come from searches by downloads. Eventually these will dry up as exclusive files gain sales. New files? Not worth putting up. Long term only exclusives.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2012, 20:22 »
0
Too many people saying I shouldn't has convinced me that I should.  There must be a lot of Sean Lockes in here.   ;D

I have altered my pattern, however.  I can see that everything I upload goes directly to Thinkstock.  I think I am not the only one.  I can see how the Thinkstock competition affects my Shutterstock sales.  Therefore, I only upload SS rejects to iStock.  Surprisingly, it seems to be working.  My SS rejects are being accepted and are selling at iS and/or TS.

As for Karimala's situation ... it is not comforting but could it possibly be because those images that you haven't deleted are being sold at TS?

ED: I think you only see the TS sales at the end of the month?
 
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 20:24 by WarrenPrice »

« Reply #31 on: January 27, 2012, 20:23 »
0
Same here - I was never a big player in this, but 1 DL for less than $2 this week, and 2 last week.  It wasn't even a dwindling off, it just suddenly crashed.  

I'm a mid-tier player...gold canister.  This is absolutely ridiculous.

Wow!  $100/wk to $2!!  That's insane.  No amount of Eb and Flow could ever explain what's going on at Istock.  Unless it's a lava flow on the level of what happened to Pompei.   :o  

Nothing can explain any of these things we've been reporting here.  
You just said "Yeh, sure...I've been deactivating images", that might explain it???

No.  Deactivating some images doesn't explain a 98% drop in income, especially when the vast majority were non-sellers or only had one download years ago.  And the drop started well before I started deactivating images.  

ShadySue

« Reply #32 on: January 27, 2012, 20:40 »
0
i think sales for indies come from searches by downloads. Eventually these will dry up as exclusive files gain sales. New files? Not worth putting up. Long term only exclusives.
A lot, but I don't know what average percentage, of sales will be from existing lightboxes, but if things don't change that will eventually dry up too.

Noodles

« Reply #33 on: January 27, 2012, 21:48 »
0
I take that back.  Just added yesterday's and today's sales, and woohoo...I'm up to just under $2 for the week.   >:( >:( >:(

You seem to have a nice portfolio, Karimala. That's just crazy to earn only $2 in a week from it. This current best match shift does not seem to have affected my (exclusive) sales yet. Personally, I'd rather it was more fair and balanced across the board. These good and bad spikes can be demoralising for everyone.

lagereek

« Reply #34 on: January 28, 2012, 01:59 »
0
Really!  does anybody really care anymore?  this is beginning to sound like a broken record,  over and over again. I have personally taken over 20 buyers away from them, sending high-res files, telling them I can meet their future requirements,  within my fields, that is. Good enough for me. :)
If you have direct contact with buyers, I can't imagine why you'd want to give a percentage of your money to any agency.


Yes, but this is buyers that over the years have contacted me for high-res pics, etc, they are not regulars, if you know what I mean, still, I hear from many of them, now and then. Now weather they still buy from IS or n ot?  I dont know. :)

lagereek

« Reply #35 on: January 28, 2012, 02:04 »
0
Same here - I was never a big player in this, but 1 DL for less than $2 this week, and 2 last week.  It wasn't even a dwindling off, it just suddenly crashed.  

I'm a mid-tier player...gold canister.  This is absolutely ridiculous.

Wow!  $100/wk to $2!!  That's insane.  No amount of Eb and Flow could ever explain what's going on at Istock.  Unless it's a lava flow on the level of what happened to Pompei.   :o  


You're right.  Nothing can explain any of these things we've been reporting here.  My drop may have taken just over a year to unfold, but still...$100 to $2 per week?!?  Sales on certain images, that used to have regular sales, coming to a dead halt in August 2010 despite showing up with only 80 other images in the search?!?  And then selling just fine from September 2010 onward on Thinkstock?!?  

Someday this crap is gonna catch up with them.  One of these days, someone is going to uncover the truth about what's happening.  They can't hide all of these glitches forever...there's just too many of them.    

I agree 100%,  theres just too much going on here, too much for just being coincidences, etc. There is always something happening, always something negative. Not one single positive thing has come out of this place for the last 2 years. I am seriously beginning to wonder if there is any skullduggery goings on.

« Reply #36 on: January 28, 2012, 10:58 »
0
Same here - I was never a big player in this, but 1 DL for less than $2 this week, and 2 last week.  It wasn't even a dwindling off, it just suddenly crashed.  

I'm a mid-tier player...gold canister.  This is absolutely ridiculous.

Wow!  $100/wk to $2!!  That's insane.  No amount of Eb and Flow could ever explain what's going on at Istock.  Unless it's a lava flow on the level of what happened to Pompei.   :o  

Nothing can explain any of these things we've been reporting here.  
You just said "Yeh, sure...I've been deactivating images", that might explain it???

No.  Deactivating some images doesn't explain a 98% drop in income, especially when the vast majority were non-sellers or only had one download years ago.  And the drop started well before I started deactivating images.  

How many images do you have on iStock from 2011 and 2010?

« Reply #37 on: January 28, 2012, 11:50 »
0
Same here - I was never a big player in this, but 1 DL for less than $2 this week, and 2 last week.  It wasn't even a dwindling off, it just suddenly crashed.  

I'm a mid-tier player...gold canister.  This is absolutely ridiculous.

Wow!  $100/wk to $2!!  That's insane.  No amount of Eb and Flow could ever explain what's going on at Istock.  Unless it's a lava flow on the level of what happened to Pompei.   :o  

Nothing can explain any of these things we've been reporting here.  
You just said "Yeh, sure...I've been deactivating images", that might explain it???

No.  Deactivating some images doesn't explain a 98% drop in income, especially when the vast majority were non-sellers or only had one download years ago.  And the drop started well before I started deactivating images.  

How many images do you have on iStock from 2011 and 2010?

Up until 2 weeks ago, I had 800 images.  A year ago, I had 825.  Now I have 648.  Like I said, most of the deactivated images were non- or low sellers, so deactivation doesn't explain such a drastic drop in income.  There's something else going on, like perhaps unreported sales.  I can't help but think there's sales getting lost in the system and many of us aren't get paid what's owed to us.  It's already a known fact that some of the Thinkstock earnings from September weren't added to PP totals, so it's possible there's many other sales floating around that haven't been reported, too.

« Reply #38 on: January 28, 2012, 11:57 »
0
I take that back.  Just added yesterday's and today's sales, and woohoo...I'm up to just under $2 for the week.   >:( >:( >:(

You seem to have a nice portfolio, Karimala. That's just crazy to earn only $2 in a week from it. This current best match shift does not seem to have affected my (exclusive) sales yet. Personally, I'd rather it was more fair and balanced across the board. These good and bad spikes can be demoralising for everyone.

Thanks, Noodles.  Yeh...it's very demoralizing and depressing.  Who would want to add more images to their portfolio, if they only have a chance of selling at Thinkstock?  IS was once a great company and contributors could look forward to earning decent money, but that's just not the case anymore.  The day when I pack my bags and leave is drawing closer everyday.     

« Reply #39 on: January 28, 2012, 15:06 »
0
Same here - I was never a big player in this, but 1 DL for less than $2 this week, and 2 last week.  It wasn't even a dwindling off, it just suddenly crashed.  

I'm a mid-tier player...gold canister.  This is absolutely ridiculous.

Wow!  $100/wk to $2!!  That's insane.  No amount of Eb and Flow could ever explain what's going on at Istock.  Unless it's a lava flow on the level of what happened to Pompei.   :o  

Nothing can explain any of these things we've been reporting here.  
You just said "Yeh, sure...I've been deactivating images", that might explain it???

No.  Deactivating some images doesn't explain a 98% drop in income, especially when the vast majority were non-sellers or only had one download years ago.  And the drop started well before I started deactivating images.  

How many images do you have on iStock from 2011 and 2010?

Up until 2 weeks ago, I had 800 images.  A year ago, I had 825.  Now I have 648.  Like I said, most of the deactivated images were non- or low sellers, so deactivation doesn't explain such a drastic drop in income.  There's something else going on, like perhaps unreported sales.  I can't help but think there's sales getting lost in the system and many of us aren't get paid what's owed to us.  It's already a known fact that some of the Thinkstock earnings from September weren't added to PP totals, so it's possible there's many other sales floating around that haven't been reported, too.

I meant how many did you submit to IS last year and the year before.

Micro1

« Reply #40 on: January 28, 2012, 17:06 »
0
I take that back.  Just added yesterday's and today's sales, and woohoo...I'm up to just under $2 for the week.   >:( >:( >:(

I know how you feel, my sales have halved since last year at iStockphoto.

« Reply #41 on: January 28, 2012, 19:16 »
0
I meant how many did you submit to IS last year and the year before.

Only 22.

« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2012, 21:57 »
0
My Jan sales at Istock are about 25% of January last year. Not encouraging

« Reply #43 on: January 29, 2012, 09:33 »
0
I take that back.  Just added yesterday's and today's sales, and woohoo...I'm up to just under $2 for the week.   >:( >:( >:(

Look out, Big Stock.  iStock is closing in on you.   ;)


ROFLMAO  ;D ;D

wut

« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2012, 10:34 »
0
I'm on a EL rush lately, got 200 cr EL a few days ago and another 125cr today. If it keeps going like that I'm gonna start liking IS again :o ;D

wut

« Reply #45 on: February 02, 2012, 06:05 »
0
Any news? Notify me when it'll become sensible again for indies to start uploading again. I just hope that there'll be a reason for someone to send me that notification :D

ShadySue

« Reply #46 on: February 02, 2012, 07:34 »
0
Any news? Notify me when it'll become sensible again for indies to start uploading again. I just hope that there'll be a reason for someone to send me that notification :D
I'd have thought that an EL rush was a reasonable reason.

wut

« Reply #47 on: February 02, 2012, 08:12 »
0
Any news? Notify me when it'll become sensible again for indies to start uploading again. I just hope that there'll be a reason for someone to send me that notification :D
I'd have thought that an EL rush was a reasonable reason.

Yeah and then I probably wouldn't get one for months and feel pretty stupid :)

I guess nothing much has changed, since there were no reports lately. I'll just hold off until those reports start coming in

« Reply #48 on: February 02, 2012, 16:03 »
0
Problem is that you need to upload just before Indies reach the top of the search so that you can get through the days of processing/review and then join the changes as the Indies peak.  We have to figure out the cycle of the routine M changes to decide when to submit.

BTW, Yesterday was my first day with no downloads, for a non-holiday Wednesday, in years.  So exclusives with older files were at the bottom apparently.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
9845 Views
Last post February 26, 2011, 04:42
by ShadySue
120 Replies
27487 Views
Last post May 11, 2011, 16:22
by Jo Ann Snover
240 Replies
39741 Views
Last post September 24, 2011, 10:24
by nataq
69 Replies
14915 Views
Last post November 15, 2011, 08:17
by ShadySue
1233 Replies
143249 Views
Last post July 19, 2012, 09:31
by wut

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results