Author Topic: Best match woes... (Read 24741 times)

pixelbrat · « **Reply #50 on:** February 28, 2008, 09:53 »

Quote from: Dr Bouz on February 28, 2008, 09:33

pixelbrat how did you got property release for figurines (toys)? i had a few nice images with toys (santa - velvet dolls actually) rejected with "no property release" rejection.

These were all approved without releases, believe it or not. I have had a handful that were indeed rejected for that reason but I must have had a different inspector on the rest. That's not to say they won't be deactivated later on given the new tighter standards they have been rolling out.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #51 on:** March 02, 2008, 03:54 »

thanks. excellent concept b.t.w.

Phil · « **Reply #52 on:** March 02, 2008, 04:56 »

I actually had a look on istock forums today (its pretty rare that I do)

in the suggestion section someone made the suggestion that number of downloads be made not visible (except to the owner of the file) much like shutterstock etc.

Their argument was it would stop so much copying of ideas etc which I think is correct

but personally I think it would spread sales around more. Less people would just buy the image that 5000 other thought was good and actually look for what they like themselves. thoughts?

maunger · « **Reply #53 on:** March 02, 2008, 07:55 »

Quote from: rustyphil on March 02, 2008, 04:56

I actually had a look on istock forums today (its pretty rare that I do)

in the suggestion section someone made the suggestion that number of downloads be made not visible (except to the owner of the file) much like shutterstock etc.

Their argument was it would stop so much copying of ideas etc which I think is correct

but personally I think it would spread sales around more. Less people would just buy the image that 5000 other thought was good and actually look for what they like themselves. thoughts?

all the user has to do is sort by downloads to see what is "hot" regardless of having the numbers in there. They won't take away that option from the buyers because some of them use it. Besides, SS's "most popular" kinda takes downloads into consideration so they in effect have the same ability for looking for things to copy.

louoates · « **Reply #54 on:** March 02, 2008, 10:33 »

Best match sort is very strange indeed. I've tested it many times against the "downloads" numbers using the most descriptive single keyword. To be truthful I can find very little "best match" to that one best keyword. Lots of spam keywords though having little to do with the actual image.

For example, my best keyword (that describes the image perfectly) on my best selling image pops up on page FIFTEEN -- even though it is the most downloaded image on the site that that keyword accurately describes.

I think what's going on is there's some keyword formula that defies any understandable reasoning. I used to think that there was a bias toward exclusives with "best match" but others have shown that not to be the case. I bet whomever came up with that sort formula is the same guy who designed the US tax code.

The FAR more accurate and useful sort IMHO is the download sort.

Pixart · « **Reply #55 on:** March 02, 2008, 11:17 »

Quote from: louoates on March 02, 2008, 10:33

For example, my best keyword (that describes the image perfectly) on my best selling image pops up on page FIFTEEN -- even though it is the most downloaded image on the site that that keyword accurately describes.

When I set out to buy an image I virtually always do so by sorting most downloaded, and a very brief search of the first couple pages of newest.

zorki · « **Reply #56 on:** March 02, 2008, 12:12 »

I think there are two types of desingers, lazy and creative. The lazy ones are happy to be 5000 downloader of popular image, while the more creative ones go digging deeper in the search engine for little used, but high quality images.

best match on IS is a constant source of debate. Obviously they will never tell us what is behind the curtain, but we are sure that many factors have a play in what hits the top of best match search. Keywords have the biggest influence, but then there are many intangibles like exclusivity, view/download ratio, acceptance ratio, newness, ratings... I'm pretty convinced that there is a hidden rating given by the original inspector. I'm sure there is way more we don't even know about.

sharply_done · « **Reply #57 on:** March 02, 2008, 14:03 »

Quote from: zorki on March 02, 2008, 12:12

... I'm sure there is way more we don't even know about.

Undoubtedly there is.

There's a semi-related article in this month's Wired Magazine about NetFlick's $1M search/match/suggestion algorithm competition, and how difficult it is to accurately determine what people are looking for. Go here to read it.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #58 on:** March 02, 2008, 14:31 »

If I may ask, how many of you have seen a dip in sales lately?

Are you exclusive or not?

sharply_done · « **Reply #59 on:** March 02, 2008, 15:21 »

I sure have - my IS DLs dropped by 15%+ last week, with a 20%+ drop in earnings ... Ack!

madelaide · « **Reply #60 on:** March 02, 2008, 15:21 »

In fact February was an awesome month in IS for me (and I'm non-exclusive). Even without counting the EL I had (my first there) it was my BME.

Now, March: so far not a single sale.

Regards,
Adelaide

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #61 on:** March 02, 2008, 15:45 »

Quote from: sharply_done on March 02, 2008, 15:21

I sure have - my IS DLs dropped by 15%+ last week, with a 20%+ drop in earnings ... Ack!

LoL I checked out your port on Istock and saw some window images I almost used for my brother's window cleaning biz brochure.

I'm wondering if this is a ripple effect from the backed up que along with a few other things at play (like the constantly huge influx of images). But as I was recently told, there are SOOO many variables that relate to us all and on an individual level, there is no theory thats gonna work very well to explain the ups and downs.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #62 on:** March 02, 2008, 16:25 »

Quote from: Leo Blanchette on March 02, 2008, 14:31

If I may ask, how many of you have seen a dip in sales lately?

Are you exclusive or not?

My earnings are up 60% over January and downloads are way up. One thing I have noticed is that the last week seemed to be the attack of the XSmalls. I'm hoping at least some of these are buyers trying the XS and then buying a larger size.

hatman12 · « **Reply #63 on:** March 02, 2008, 16:32 »

For Monday thru Thursday last week there was a glitch in the search system, with many files unavailable - hence the drop in downloads. There was a big red announcement on the support page presumably because they were getting so many support emails along the lines of 'I can't find my files'.

The problems were resolved on Friday.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #64 on:** March 02, 2008, 16:38 »

No way. That makes TOO much sense! That happened?

hatman12 · « **Reply #65 on:** March 02, 2008, 16:57 »

Also last week the 'newness' element of the best match equation was changed to give newer files a higher placement in search results.

This 'newness' component changes four or five times each year, which is why you'll see remarks like "Oh, it's nice to see some of my old files selling again" or "Why do my new files not get any views or sales?".

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #66 on:** March 02, 2008, 17:01 »

If ONLY I could have known this a week ago!!! That adds up perfectly. I've been searching my files and have found most of my work dropped five pages back from the norm. I checked the dates and wouldn't you know -- the new ones generally have priority!

vonkara · « **Reply #67 on:** March 02, 2008, 21:08 »

Quote from: Nazdravie on March 02, 2008, 16:25

Quote from: Leo Blanchette on March 02, 2008, 14:31
If I may ask, how many of you have seen a dip in sales lately?

Are you exclusive or not?
My earnings are up 60% over January and downloads are way up. One thing I have noticed is that the last week seemed to be the attack of the XSmalls. I'm hoping at least some of these are buyers trying the XS and then buying a larger size.

Mine down by 40% but whit the same amount of downloads. So Xsmall and small was the ones I see more for February

zorki · « **Reply #68 on:** March 02, 2008, 23:05 »

Quote from: hatman12 on March 02, 2008, 16:57

Also last week the 'newness' element of the best match equation was changed to give newer files a higher placement in search results.

This 'newness' component changes four or five times each year, which is why you'll see remarks like "Oh, it's nice to see some of my old files selling again" or "Why do my new files not get any views or sales?".

Jeez... this week it's new images, next week it's older images... could they possibly be consistent for once? After a couple of years I've had my best month. Please don't screw it up in March!

Phil · « **Reply #69 on:** March 03, 2008, 03:37 »

Quote from: zorki on March 02, 2008, 12:12

snip... I'm pretty convinced that there is a hidden rating given by the original inspector....

i think so too, there seems to be too much differences between new images. Something is at work right from the very start and this makes sense.

Anegada · « **Reply #70 on:** March 03, 2008, 15:32 »

Quote from: Dr Bouz on February 28, 2008, 09:33

pixelbrat how did you got property release for figurines (toys)? i had a few nice images with toys (santa - velvet dolls actually) rejected with "no property release" rejection.

I had that problem once at istock with some stuff, like tiny little christmas angels and trees from a 99 cent store. They considered it "artwork" I explained that to support and asked what to do. They told me to mention it in the description, like "item is a cheap mass-product from a 99-cent-store, not considered to be artwork" So I did that and so far I never had problems again.

madelaide · « **Reply #71 on:** March 03, 2008, 19:13 »

Quote from: Anegada on March 03, 2008, 15:32

"item is a cheap mass-product from a 99-cent-store, not considered to be artwork"

Sounds familiar...

And they're not even called "micro stuff".

Regards,
Adelaide

Seren · « **Reply #72 on:** March 04, 2008, 03:42 »

Quote from: Anegada on March 03, 2008, 15:32

I had that problem once at istock with some stuff, like tiny little christmas angels and trees from a 99 cent store. They considered it "artwork" I explained that to support and asked what to do. They told me to mention it in the description, like "item is a cheap mass-product from a 99-cent-store, not considered to be artwork" So I did that and so far I never had problems again.

I find this a bit of a joke with iStock. I mean, they're bothered about protecting the rights of a multi million pound company such as Ford Cars, but they're not bothered about protecting the rights of a designer of christmas ornaments, or a cutlery designer, or a clothes designer or a furniture designer...

That's what got me suspended from the iStock forums though, stating that point of view!

Phil · « **Reply #73 on:** March 04, 2008, 04:20 »

very simple imo, ford are more likely to take legal action

Seren · « **Reply #74 on:** March 04, 2008, 04:39 »

Quote from: rustyphil on March 04, 2008, 04:20

very simple imo, ford are more likely to take legal action

In Europe the case would be thrown out of court. It's perfectly legal to take and sell a picture of anyone or anything and sell it royalty free. The problems arise when the designers use the images incorrectly. Mind you, I guess in the USA legal system anything could happen. McDonalds coffee anyone?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Best match woes... (Read 24741 times)

pixelbrat

Dr Bouz

Phil

maunger

louoates

Pixart

zorki

sharply_done

Leo Blanchette

sharply_done

madelaide

Leo Blanchette

PaulieWalnuts

hatman12

Leo Blanchette

hatman12

Leo Blanchette

vonkara

zorki

Phil

Anegada

madelaide

Seren

Phil

Seren

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors