Author Topic: Best match woes... (Read 24764 times)

Seren · « **on:** February 25, 2008, 02:39 »

I must have been lucky before.

But after my enforced three week break from iStock and coming back non-exclusive my files have sunk like stones. I had a few files that I could guarantee would sell most days, or at least a few times a week. They had really good search positions, several on the first page (I view twenty at a time, as I suspect most buyers do) and quite a few on the first two or three pages. Several times I had the first "non-vector" image in the search, due to working with kids doing sports at stuff and basically finding a niche market!

I wondered why I'd only made a fraction of the sales I usually do in the week since I've been back, so I just looked through my search results. I can't find any of my good sellers on the first twenty or thirty pages! They're been knocked so far back in the general search terms that it's not funny!

Surely if they were good enough to be on the front page of the best match (clear images, good "stock" and good keywording) then they're still good enough to be on that page? I mean, iStock even makes MORE from me than from exclusives! Surely not being exclusive doesn't make a file bad? The thing that is bothering me though, is my search positions aren't even as good as before I went exclusive! Must have had a few shake ups I didn't notice.

I guess this is my punishment for making a mistake about the contract, but it's frustrating. If these sales don't pick up to where I was last August before I went exclusive (and I've doubled my portfolio size since then, at least!) then it's just massively set back my need to go full time in September. Actually, that's not true, I have to go full time in September by any method possible...

Anyway, rant over. I feel a bit better!

Seren · « **Reply #1 on:** February 25, 2008, 02:50 »

Mind you, thinking about it, I guess that downloads per month is probably quite heavily weighted into the algorithm, so I guess it's to be expected!

Graffoto · « **Reply #2 on:** February 25, 2008, 03:24 »

Seren,

What was your reason for dropping your exclusivity?

fotografer · « **Reply #3 on:** February 25, 2008, 04:28 »

Recently the best match search seems to be giving a huge advantage to exclusives. My sales have dropped by 50% there over the last few months. It's the only site where I won't be getting a best match this month. I've gone from selling over 40 a day average to just over 20 at IS. This time last year IS was by far my best earner wheras this month I am making double on SS and 1 of the other sites have overtaken IS putting it in 3rd place.

Seren · « **Reply #4 on:** February 25, 2008, 04:42 »

Quote from: nosaya on February 25, 2008, 03:24

Seren,

What was your reason for dropping your exclusivity?

Loads of reasons. Mostly because I was building up a portfolio of images that iStock didn't want ("not suitable for stock" or things like, kayaking images shot at ISO800 to noisy, but of course there is no other way when shooting in a gorge in Wales...) so I wanted to offer these shots somewhere else.

I'm also not really happy with getting such little per usage on my better shots, so I've started offering my best other places for higher amounts. I'd rather it was bought once for a large amount, than several times for a smaller amount. I don't care about exposure and crediting, I care about the money.

Royalty Free images should demand a higher price than your average rights managed image, and something didn't sit right about me offering my work rights managed and undercutting it by so much for a royalty free sale.

Plus I was getting some really, really silly rejections that I really couldn't be bothered to send to scout. For instance, I took my new Canon 5D out shooting, early one morning. Took some sunrise shots where I live. Clear, deep blue skies, and deep blue water from the reflections in the harbour. All rejected for overfiltering. I didn't bloody do anything to them! They were great straight off the RAW file, no contrast bumps, no saturation bumps, that was just how they were! All marked no-resubmit. Just stupid. I think I'm going to chuck them on Alamy, since they're fairly unusual shots of where I live.

Plus they screwed up the business cards I ordered from them. Cropped really badly. How do you crop an isolated on white shot badly?

And the constant tweeking of best match.

And the culling of images that is such double standard. Either get rid of everything that is a trademark, or get rid of nothing.

And loads more I don't have time to type at the moment...

Peiling · « **Reply #5 on:** February 25, 2008, 09:04 »

whats new with istock? $:-\$ they have been tweaking that monster forever....

zorki · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2008, 09:46 »

I'm not exclusive there, but I might have my best month in two years there. I am seriously considering going exclusive at the next canister level, but gives me the creeps thinking about it. I've had a huge surge in sales since the beginning of the year and I'm thinking for once I am the beneficiary of some Best Match tweaking (finally!). I see what other exclusive members in my situation sell and there is no comparison, they sell far more than I do. IMHO, exclusives have a huge advantage over non-exlcusives (unless you are someone like Yuri).

lisafx · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2008, 16:15 »

Seren, thanks for posting this. I have been of the opinion for several months that the best match is increasingly weighted toward exclusives, so your report doesn't come as a big surprise. But it is good to see it confirmed by someone who has experienced both sides.

Don't know what to tell you except that as you build your portfolios on other sites your istock sales will become less important to your overall bottom line.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2008, 20:31 »

Quote from: fotografer on February 25, 2008, 04:28

Recently the best match search seems to be giving a huge advantage to exclusives.

I'm exclusive and my downloads have gone down drastically this month (down 60% over last month)!

It always amazes me how much people are willing to extrapolate their own experience to the general population. You can't draw general conclusions from anecdotal evidence (well I guess you can but you shouldn't). I'm not saying that exclusivity doesn't play a part in the best match, because it probably does, but I very much doubt has a significant effect.

fotografer · « **Reply #9 on:** February 26, 2008, 00:50 »

That's interesting. I'm sorry your dls have gone down so much but I find it reassuring that it isn't just us non exclusives as we suspected. The drop has been so dramatic lately that the obvious reason seemed to be that best match weighting. Thanks for letting us know that and it would be interesting if any other exclusive would let us know how they are doing.

Quote from: yingyang0 on February 25, 2008, 20:31

Quote from: fotografer on February 25, 2008, 04:28
Recently the best match search seems to be giving a huge advantage to exclusives.
I'm exclusive and my downloads have gone down drastically this month (down 60% over last month)!

It always amazes me how much people are willing to extrapolate their own experience to the general population. You can't draw general conclusions from anecdotal evidence (well I guess you can but you shouldn't). I'm not saying that exclusivity doesn't play a part in the best match, because it probably does, but I very much doubt has a significant effect.

Susan S. · « **Reply #10 on:** February 26, 2008, 06:28 »

I'm exclusive at istock and my sales are down a bit on January but not hugely - they have been very very volatile though - some really good days, and some shockers. If I have a few more of the good days it's conceivable I could equal the January sales figures, but it's more likely I'll be down around ten per cent. I do have a small portfolio, which is therefore subject to swings. And my best seller has just dropped off the most popular files page so it's sales have tanked, and I expected a slow down (some mean *insult removed* gave it a 4/5, knocking it out of the top fifteen ! - but it had six months of free pimping so I can't complain)

fotografer · « **Reply #11 on:** February 26, 2008, 10:01 »

Thanks for your input Susan and sorry about your best seller, I've had that happen a couple of times.
I think that they must have changed the best match again in the last couple of days. Yesterday was my best day for ages and in the last couple of days I have sold 7 images that have never sold before and several that had only had 1 or 2 sales previously.

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** February 26, 2008, 11:26 »

Agreed - people willing to share their experience is very much appreciated. I had assumed it was a best match issue also. Maybe more related to the price increase? Or maybe the phases of the moon, LOL.

Whatever the reason sales are down, and I do note that my personal search positions have suffered. Not all that paranoid to assume that is a contributing factor to lower sales...

Seren · « **Reply #13 on:** February 26, 2008, 11:27 »

I guess I must have been caught in both a best match change and my lowered rankings due to lowered d/l per month! Double Whammy!

zorki · « **Reply #14 on:** February 26, 2008, 12:11 »

Quote from: Susan S. on February 26, 2008, 06:28

I'm exclusive at istock and my sales are down a bit on January but not hugely - they have been very very volatile though - some really good days, and some shockers. If I have a few more of the good days it's conceivable I could equal the January sales figures, but it's more likely I'll be down around ten per cent. I do have a small portfolio, which is therefore subject to swings. And my best seller has just dropped off the most popular files page so it's sales have tanked, and I expected a slow down (some mean *insult removed* gave it a 4/5, knocking it out of the top fifteen ! - but it had six months of free pimping so I can't complain)

We've all be the recipient of changes in the best match search engine. I had an image that when you typed in the word "vineyard" it was on the first line of the search for like six months. Made a ton of money off it it, then some best match tweaking and 1.5 years later, maybe 3 downloads.

This is curious about the 4/5 rating. The IS zealots will tell you that ratings have no impact on best match searchs, but in your case they did. I remember having several people rate an image of mine about a year ago and it quickly zoomed to the top of the search for that object, but over time it has slowly slipped down the best match search results. So, I think there is some type of time thing to promote newer images.

Pixart · « **Reply #15 on:** February 26, 2008, 12:25 »

I wonder if they don't have some kind of 6 month rotation. Has anyone had a hot seller for more than 6 months? I have some that would sell daily or several times a day and when they hit six months they fell off the map.

vonkara · « **Reply #16 on:** February 26, 2008, 13:02 »

I don't think there is a rotation. As I see the most downl/month stay at the top whit small difference sometimes because of ratings and maybe many other things.

But if you talk about page 100 and more I think there's a rotation at this point. IS would not have advantage to let the same files there too much longer. But who knows?

zorki · « **Reply #17 on:** February 26, 2008, 13:11 »

Right now I'm seeing more sales in my older files than my newer ones. It's true though, if you have an image that doesn't start selling right off the mark, you can pretty much kiss it goodbye.

perkmeup · « **Reply #18 on:** February 26, 2008, 13:31 »

Istock’s best match really...really sucks….and favors exclusive people to the MAX, in fact it might as well not even include us non exclusives. It is one thing to pay exclusive more for being exclusive…ok I can live with that and it make good business sense, but if I have a good photo then it should have the same possibilities of being found as every other photo……but NO………..not Istock.

I have lots of Education photos on the site...I just did a keyword search of “Education Childhood” if you search by most downloaded I have photos on most pages starting with page 3. My best photo has 405 downloads......but if you search by best match....Holy….sh*%^&* I can’t even find my best seller…I looked thru 50 pages and not even 1 of my photos…………but if you search to the very very end….starting on page 290 and counting backwards you’ll find all my photos ……in fact many of theses pages have only my photos…such as page 289. How is it that ALL my photos are in one big group. Pretty simple…..I am not exclusive so pick up the table scraps…….

I sure hope buyers don’t use best match too much, cus…us no exclusives are going to get the short end of the stick.

In contrast sites like DT seem to much fairer on the best match search. I hope they pick up more market share so IS will be forced to get off their high horse and treat us a little fairer.

Susan S. · « **Reply #19 on:** February 26, 2008, 17:20 »

Quote from: zorki on February 26, 2008, 12:11

We've all be the recipient of changes in the best match search engine. I had an image that when you typed in the word "vineyard" it was on the first line of the search for like six months. Made a ton of money off it it, then some best match tweaking and 1.5 years later, maybe 3 downloads.

This is curious about the 4/5 rating. The IS zealots will tell you that ratings have no impact on best match searchs, but in your case they did. I remember having several people rate an image of mine about a year ago and it quickly zoomed to the top of the search for that object, but over time it has slowly slipped down the best match search results. So, I think there is some type of time thing to promote newer images.

It wasn't a change in the best match positioning that slowed sales down - the file was number fifteen on the highest rated in the last three months (actually highest rated ever!) page which really givs it lots of exposure - but the way that istock calculates ratings ordering is that 183 fives and one four is outrated by a file with just one 5... So if someone wants to get rid of a file on that page (or make sure that the image of the week never makes it onto it), all that they need to do is rate it 4 rather than 5, and it will never get the exposure. And it really does make a difference to the sales - my file dropped off temporarily while some other image was rating higher and my sales went down, until someone gave another of the top fifteen a 1/5 and my image went back up into the top fifteen again and its sales picked up.

I must confess that for the first few months I guarded that exposure jealously and sitemailed anyone that rated it less than five, politely asking whether they meant for their rating to bump the image off the highest rated page- and all the people concerned changed their ratings to 5s for me!

thesentinel · « **Reply #20 on:** February 26, 2008, 18:25 »

Quote from: perkmeup on February 26, 2008, 13:31

Istock’s best match really...really sucks….and favors exclusive people to the MAX, in fact it might as well not even include us non exclusives. It is one thing to pay exclusive more for being exclusive…ok I can live with that and it make good business sense, but if I have a good photo then it should have the same possibilities of being found as every other photo……but NO………..not Istock.

Yet the top selling iStock artist this month, again, by massive margin is the non exclusive Yuri.

lisafx · « **Reply #21 on:** February 26, 2008, 18:45 »

Yes, Yuri is quite a phenomenon. I would not judge istock's best match performance by Yuri though. He is the exception to the rule.

I suspect that people may actually come looking for Yuri's portfolio, so he may be a bit less reliant on the best match than some of the rest of us.

hatman12 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 27, 2008, 02:18 »

thesentinel - how do you get those numbers? Is there a league table somewhere?

hatman12 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 27, 2008, 02:32 »

Lets get a few things straight about the best match, because its not unfair and its not rocket science. Here's my understanding FWIW:

The last best match change happened many months ago and it was quite a radical change which limited a non-exclusive to having a max of four files in the first 100 of a search, and an exclusive to 8 files. The limitations were imposed due to the discovery of a 'rigging gang' of three photographers who were systematically buying a copy or two of every one of their new uploads within minutes of approval; this created a huge dl/month number for all of their files and guaranteed first page placement in any best match search. They were discovered due to the large number of files appearing on first pages and the similarity of the pictures (two of them were using the same camera, studio and props and may in fact have been the same person). These two accounts were both exclusive.

The limitations of 4 and 8 were imposed in order that such rigging could never happen again. I think its only fair that exclusives should have a higher number than non-exclusives. Apart from this, there is no preference to exclusives.

EXCEPT......

There is another factor that influences the placing in the search; it isn't best match but the faster approval times. Let me explain: the main component of best match is dl/month. This is calculated not from the approval date but from the upload date.

Now imagine this situation: a non-exclusive and an exclusive both upload a highly commercial file. The exclusive image is accepted within a day; the non-exclusive takes a week. Both files get a first download one day after approval.

The non-exclusive file gets an immediate dl/month number of 4 (because the upload was a week earlier). The exclusive file gets a dl/month number of 31 (because it was uploaded just a day before).

This explains why it appears that exclusives get preferential treatment in the best match. But the only advantage is gained by files that are highly commercial and attract immediate sales; over time, the 'time advantage' gets diuted away.

I hope all this makes sense. It is of course just my own understanding of how it all works.

Seren · « **Reply #24 on:** February 27, 2008, 02:45 »

Totally agree that the best match is no more "unfair" to exclusives or non. It's unfair to everyone.

The thing is, it's a bad system. Full stop.

Take my picture of a little girl doing archery. Not a great picture, but it illustrates a girl doing archery at a youth camp. A subject in demand I guess by the downloads it had last summer. Now, if you do a "best match" search for it, it's miles back. It's behind loads of crap that isn't archery. So therefore, if a customer does a search for archery, and finds other files that aren't relevant, what's that saying to them?

This isn't a best match at all - it's a popularity contest. With downloads per month and ratings still being in that equation somewhere it's a sheer popularity contest. That's not what the best match should be. For instance, if I had a really high positioned file in the "vegetable" search, and added "bouncy castle" as a keyword, it would show up high in the second search, even though it is not relevant. Wiking doesn't help, I've had two files with their keywords under review for 14 months now.

To get a true best match, iStock need to introduce some way of determining what the best files are. Such as picking one or two keywords as your "subject". So in the above example I could pick "archery" and "youth" as my subject, which would mean that theoretically a search for archery would only yield pictures of people doing archery. Not hundreds of pictures of vector targets (that look nothing like an archery target btw), or even totally random stuff that shouldn't be there.

But then again, I'm sure most half decent designers don't actually use the best match, I'm sure they use things like age and downloads to find the file they want. It's the multitude of uneducated buyers that use the best match search, the ones we need to cultivate into bigger and better buyers, that we could be putting off with the search algorithm itself. "Best Match" gives an illusion of some sort of hand sorted search, which of course it isn't.

Anyway, that was me thinking out load.

perkmeup · « **Reply #25 on:** February 27, 2008, 03:55 »

Well, I just figured out another item that drastically effects your placement in the best match search. Big time..... If you opt out of Extended licenses you will all but disappear off the radar on best match....regardless of how many downloads a photo has or how popular it is.

That was what my problem was. Last week i decided to opt out of Extended licenses due to the small amount that we receive from them...WOW a whole 20%...... that is when all my photos disappeared into the abiss. Yesterday i changed it back and opted in for extended licenses....and guess what....today my photos are back in view.

So i guess that IS's way of forcing you to allow EL's .....no matter what the price. If you opt out.....your sales will fall off dramatically... tough choice....I guess I grin an bear it.. $:-\$

Interesting insight hatman....I didn't know that....people are always trying beat the system

thesentinel · « **Reply #26 on:** February 27, 2008, 04:19 »

Quote from: hatman12 on February 27, 2008, 02:18

thesentinel - how do you get those numbers? Is there a league table somewhere?

All sales figures there are public domain and there is an istockapp called compare which can collate it

hatman12 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 27, 2008, 04:30 »

By the look of things you're not doing too badly yourself thesentinel. Congratulations on an excellent portfolio and sales record.

DanP68 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 27, 2008, 05:08 »

Quote from: Seren on February 25, 2008, 02:50

Mind you, thinking about it, I guess that downloads per month is probably quite heavily weighted into the algorithm, so I guess it's to be expected!

I believe it is too, from the statistical analysis I have done. Also look at Views/DL. This appears to me to be another large factor in best match. When I sort my portfolio by best match, it sorts almost exactly by Views/DL.

This explains how an image can suddenly catch fire without explanation. Any image can sit for months with little or no views. Let's say you have 3 views, 0 sales. Suddenly someone finds it by chance, and buys it after viewing it. Now you have a 4:1 ratio which is really strong. The image shoots up immediately. If the sale was not a fluke, you will now have a big best match advantage and many sales will follow.

I've had images not get touched for 2 to 3 months, then suddenly get their first purchase and shoot into my Top 10 best match sort. There is some luck involved to be sure. But as they say, the cream rises to the top.

DanP68 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 27, 2008, 05:15 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on February 25, 2008, 20:31

Quote from: fotografer on February 25, 2008, 04:28
Recently the best match search seems to be giving a huge advantage to exclusives.
I'm exclusive and my downloads have gone down drastically this month (down 60% over last month)!

It always amazes me how much people are willing to extrapolate their own experience to the general population. You can't draw general conclusions from anecdotal evidence (well I guess you can but you shouldn't). I'm not saying that exclusivity doesn't play a part in the best match, because it probably does, but I very much doubt has a significant effect.

Yingyang,

What about your earnings? My DL's are way down from the Fall, but the price increase has cushioned the fall to a degree. iSP earnings probably down 25 to 30%. Not something I want to see, but as long as other sites continue to make up the difference, and then some, I'm more than pleased.

DanP68 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 27, 2008, 05:22 »

Quote from: Susan S. on February 26, 2008, 17:20

I must confess that for the first few months I guarded that exposure jealously and sitemailed anyone that rated it less than five, politely asking whether they meant for their rating to bump the image off the highest rated page- and all the people concerned changed their ratings to 5s for me!

Susan,

I really dislike the community ratings. It seems like it has outlived its purpose, and is simply a relic from the days of free file sharing. Now it can be gamed, as you note, so that contributors are hurt by it.

I don't think anyone should be rating images except the reviewers. And even then, it should have a small weight.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #31 on:** February 27, 2008, 08:32 »

whenever some of my photos are downloaded on isp - honestly, i ask myself "how did they (customers) ever found these ones on the earth"..
b.t.w. you are wrong thinking that isp is earning more money on non-exclusives.
example: if you have some good photo, and you are exclusive with is - customer who likes that one have only one possibility to buy that specific image - to buy credits on isp, and buy that image.
if you are non-exclusive - customer can buy this image on other sites with "per photo sale" for ...(less money).

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #32 on:** February 27, 2008, 11:26 »

I'm glad to see I'm not an isolated case here...

I've had to take some time off due to a new little addition in the house, and to take care of my wife after a c-section.

My microstock income is probobly greater than any job I've had in the past. At least it was. my sales are declining VERY fast.

I'd love to know whats going on here. Do you have to fill the que every week to keep priority in searches?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #33 on:** February 27, 2008, 11:47 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 26, 2008, 18:45

Yes, Yuri is quite a phenomenon. I would not judge istock's best match performance by Yuri though. He is the exception to the rule.

Why not? He is subject to the same treatment as everyone else. Because people may hunt him out does not affect his Best Match behavior.

sharply_done · « **Reply #34 on:** February 27, 2008, 12:25 »

Quote from: hatman12 on February 27, 2008, 02:32

...
There is another factor that influences the placing in the search; it isn't best match but the faster approval times. Let me explain: the main component of best match is dl/month. This is calculated not from the approval date but from the upload date.
...

This also illustrates why you should avoid using Scout to appeal a rejection.

Scout takes such a long time that if your rejection is reversed, the file will have had zero DLs in the 4-6 weeks since you uploaded it. The intial best match placement of the image will be too low for the image to get the initial exposure it needs to become a healthy seller.

Rather than using Scout, you are better off to upload the file again.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #35 on:** February 27, 2008, 12:59 »

Thats interesting concerning approval times and best match. When I learned that shutterstock ranks images according to sales over time, it wasn't long before I saw the pattern at work with Istock's best match.

But if I could ask the more experienced here, what is it about taking some time off that causes sales to drop after a few weeks? I mean, Istock alone was doing $100 days for me, and now I'm fortunate to see $50. Its still has a random up and down, but overall the trend is pointing down.

pixelbrat · « **Reply #36 on:** February 27, 2008, 13:11 »

Quote from: Leo Blanchette on February 27, 2008, 12:59

But if I could ask the more experienced here, what is it about taking some time off that causes sales to drop after a few weeks? I mean, Istock alone was doing $100 days for me, and now I'm fortunate to see $50. Its still has a random up and down, but overall the trend is pointing down.

I don't know that I'd call myself "more experienced" but I am not seeing the same trend that you are as far as taking time off from IS. (This is definitely the case at SS though) I haven't uploaded anything to IS in ages, due in part to getting ready to sell my house, and I haven't noticed any significant loss in downloads from that. I'm not sure what could have caused that in your case. There are so many factors at work here that it would really be tough to try to nail that down. best match changes, ebb & flow, Jupiter lining up with Mars... who's to say.

Also wanted to edit to say that actually my earnings have gone up slightly each month, despite not uploading any new photos. Of course this could all change at a blink of an eye, I'm sorry to say.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #37 on:** February 27, 2008, 13:26 »

Thanks, nice to know its just chance.

I mean, if something sells, it should stay at the top by its own merrit. It would not make sense for images to plummit just cuz someone takes time off. So it could be as simple as chance.

I guess its back to work a bit early. The best advice I was ever given in regard to any financial matter: "Don't worry -- WORK!" -- an old signmaker I worked for.

(Edited to re-word)

pixelbrat · « **Reply #38 on:** February 27, 2008, 13:48 »

By the way, just wanted to say that I LOVE your work!! I rated a few of your illustrations a while back when I stumbled upon your port. Great portfolio!! Hope things start to look up for you. Oh and congrats on the new addition.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #39 on:** February 27, 2008, 14:10 »

Oh thank you!

I recognized yours too! I love this concept: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4089957

Very original.

I like this place -- a neutral haven to talk stock! Seems rather relaxed here too. Even with Sjlocke around! (Hehe, had to raz ya sean).

Phil · « **Reply #40 on:** February 27, 2008, 14:36 »

Quote from: Susan S. on February 26, 2008, 06:28

I'm exclusive at istock and my sales are down a bit on January but not hugely - they have been very very volatile though - some really good days, and some shockers. If I have a few more of the good days it's conceivable I could equal the January sales figures, but it's more likely I'll be down around ten per cent. I do have a small portfolio, which is therefore subject to swings. And my best seller has just dropped off the most popular files page so it's sales have tanked, and I expected a slow down (some mean *insult removed* gave it a 4/5, knocking it out of the top fifteen ! - but it had six months of free pimping so I can't complain)

post a link and we'll bang it back up there

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #41 on:** February 27, 2008, 14:43 »

Quote from: Leo Blanchette on February 27, 2008, 14:10

I like this place -- a neutral haven to talk stock! Seems rather relaxed here too. Even with Sjlocke around! (Hehe, had to raz ya sean).

I was just looking at your port yesterday - real nice series lately with your guy. You're like the what's-his-name-with-the-3d-gold-guys of 2d vector.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #42 on:** February 27, 2008, 14:55 »

HAha, I remember seeing those on Snap VIllage! BTW, no connection!

Seren · « **Reply #43 on:** February 27, 2008, 15:04 »

Quote from: hatman12 on February 27, 2008, 02:32

There is another factor that influences the placing in the search; it isn't best match but the faster approval times. Let me explain: the main component of best match is dl/month. This is calculated not from the approval date but from the upload date.

I've just been thinking about this.

I quite often set pictures to upload on iStock to fill my upload quotas for the week, then finish uploading them (keywording etc) like a week, two weeks later.

So I wonder if the upload date is when you first upload them into the system, or when you push them forward into the inspection queue?

fotografer · « **Reply #44 on:** February 27, 2008, 15:59 »

The upload date is the date you upload the image so you should always finish it off before it hits its upload slot so that it has a chance of getting downloaded quickly and getting a better dls/month

Susan S. · « **Reply #45 on:** February 27, 2008, 19:09 »

Quote from: rustyphil on February 27, 2008, 14:36

Quote from: Susan S. on February 26, 2008, 06:28
I'm exclusive at istock and my sales are down a bit on January but not hugely - they have been very very volatile though - some really good days, and some shockers. If I have a few more of the good days it's conceivable I could equal the January sales figures, but it's more likely I'll be down around ten per cent. I do have a small portfolio, which is therefore subject to swings. And my best seller has just dropped off the most popular files page so it's sales have tanked, and I expected a slow down (some mean *insult removed* gave it a 4/5, knocking it out of the top fifteen ! - but it had six months of free pimping so I can't complain)

post a link and we'll bang it back up there

You can't! Even if 1000 people rated it 5/5, the single 4/5 rating would kill it from the most popular files page. (lots of other much better files with higher numbers of 5/5 ratings have been dropped back in the same way - if someone gives a 1/5 rating, on an otherwise well rating and downloaded file then admin will generally overturn it but a 4/5 is a bit hard to argue with)

zorki · « **Reply #46 on:** February 27, 2008, 21:35 »

Frickin ratings system... get rid of it!

Seren · « **Reply #47 on:** February 28, 2008, 02:37 »

Ooops, I got a bit carried away and posted a huge blog on the subject!

Feel free to comment...
http://stockphotodiary.blogspot.com/

I do feel better now I've had a rant though!

Phil · « **Reply #48 on:** February 28, 2008, 06:07 »

Quote from: Susan S. on February 27, 2008, 19:09

Quote from: rustyphil on February 27, 2008, 14:36
Quote from: Susan S. on February 26, 2008, 06:28
I'm exclusive at istock and my sales are down a bit on January but not hugely - they have been very very volatile though - some really good days, and some shockers. If I have a few more of the good days it's conceivable I could equal the January sales figures, but it's more likely I'll be down around ten per cent. I do have a small portfolio, which is therefore subject to swings. And my best seller has just dropped off the most popular files page so it's sales have tanked, and I expected a slow down (some mean *insult removed* gave it a 4/5, knocking it out of the top fifteen ! - but it had six months of free pimping so I can't complain)

post a link and we'll bang it back up there

You can't! Even if 1000 people rated it 5/5, the single 4/5 rating would kill it from the most popular files page. (lots of other much better files with higher numbers of 5/5 ratings have been dropped back in the same way - if someone gives a 1/5 rating, on an otherwise well rating and downloaded file then admin will generally overturn it but a 4/5 is a bit hard to argue with)

yep sorry for that one. I hit reply early in the thread and read later how the system works and realised my mistake and forgot to go back.

Phil

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #49 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.

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?

digiology · « **Reply #75 on:** March 04, 2008, 11:31 »

Quote from: Seren on March 04, 2008, 04:39

Mind you, I guess in the USA legal system anything could happen. McDonalds coffee anyone?

Not to say there isn't frivolous lawsuits out there but IMO McDonalds coffee was waaaaay too hot!!!! I mean scorching! It was ridiculous. Your only saving grace was your mouth was too burnt to taste how bad the coffee actually was.

Seren · « **Reply #76 on:** March 04, 2008, 12:56 »

How can you sell coffee that is too hot? Surely the nature of black coffee is that it should be made with boiling water! If people are too idiotic to wait till it cools down to drink it then they deserve to be burnt. These people must make coffee at home, in which case they wouldn't sue themselves if they threw it down themselves or drunk it and burnt themselves... They'd just think about what an idiot they'd been. Or shout at their spouse for making it too hot.

zorki · « **Reply #77 on:** March 04, 2008, 14:35 »

If you don't know that case, an elderly woman ordered coffee at a McDonald's here in the USA somewhere. Spilled her coffee on her lap and caused 3rd degree burns on her privates as the coffee was something like 190F. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides... don't order coffee and try to drive and drink it at the same time and then also don't make coffee so hot that it's near the boiling point for people to pick up at a drive through widow at a fast food restaurant...

Seren · « **Reply #78 on:** March 04, 2008, 14:41 »

Quote from: zorki on March 04, 2008, 14:35

If you don't know that case, an elderly woman ordered coffee at a McDonald's here in the USA somewhere. Spilled her coffee on her lap and caused 3rd degree burns on her privates as the coffee was something like 190F. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides... don't order coffee and try to drive and drink it at the same time and then also don't make coffee so hot that it's near the boiling point for people to pick up at a drive through widow at a fast food restaurant...

Or just don't put hot coffee between your legs while you try to drive... seems pretty simple.

I've been there, had third degree burns on my upper thighs, but that time a colleague tipped hot drink into my lap straight out the kettle. It just didn't even cross my mind to sue my colleague or my workplace (who supplied the drink).

Anyway, I guess the point is that just because America has idiotic magistrates or whatever they're called that allow ridiculous cases to go through, iStock should see sense and realize that they're not in the wrong. I'd happily be a test case, because I believe I could argue my case in court. I just think that they're being blinkered when they ban some pictures and not others. A designer of a designer sofa could just as easily sue iStock as a car manufacturer.

What's even worse is that they're only banning "luxury" cars. I mean, that's like saying that designers that are paid more have more rights! Although they did could a Volvo as a luxury car, I'm not sure where that came from!

vonkara · « **Reply #79 on:** March 04, 2008, 15:27 »

I already have a Teddy bear rejected for copyright...also multiple sets of playing cards even whit the white face showing (not different than any other playing cards)

And the list is long. In a way everything is copyrighted and each time that I take pictures of an object I'm always afraid to have them rejected for copyright reason.

It's a part of the reason that I buy myself a macro lens after 3 or 4 like that. That way the magnification allow in some case to take only one part of the object. So you still know that it's a DVD player but it's more difficult to be recognised

Seren · « **Reply #80 on:** March 04, 2008, 15:31 »

But the point is, everything is copyrighted, even the macro shots of the DVD player - I'm sure the designer could identify their own design.

It's just such double standards. And it really bothers me that iStock feels that designer A has more rights than designer B just because they worked for a bigger company.

madelaide · « **Reply #81 on:** March 04, 2008, 16:17 »

SP removed all Harley Davidson images from their site, even if sold as editorial. Apparently HD has a very restrictive policy and may have threatened to sue the use of their image. I guess if you want to write an article about HD you have to ask them for their own images.

On the other hand, there are lots of images that would require a release and they have not (even nudes), all sold as editorial. But the risk of damage in a lawsuit from a girl whose ex-boyfriend puts her private photos for sale is certainly smaller.

Regards,
Adelaide

yingyang0 · « **Reply #82 on:** March 04, 2008, 19:40 »

Quote from: madelaide on March 04, 2008, 16:17

On the other hand, there are lots of images that would require a release and they have not (even nudes), all sold as editorial.

I'm curious what kind of editorial usage nudes could be used for?

madelaide · « **Reply #83 on:** March 04, 2008, 21:58 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on March 04, 2008, 19:40

I'm curious what kind of editorial usage nudes could be used for?

None, unless it's Playboy.

But people use that to be "able" to sell without a release. In theory a buyer can use it for editorial purposes, but it's more likely he will use it for personal pleasure only. "Editorial" is a term that has been abused for "I don't have a release but I want to sell it anyway".

These are mostly snapshootish nudes. More artistic ones almost always have a model release.

Regards,
Adelaide

vonkara · « **Reply #84 on:** March 05, 2008, 16:33 »

There's a very interesting tread on DT about all copyrights and trademarks situation. I don't read it completely because there is a lot of pages. But I will do. Here's the link

http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_148_pg1

cwwmbm · « **Reply #85 on:** March 06, 2008, 14:07 »

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?".

How do you know that?

thesentinel · « **Reply #86 on:** March 06, 2008, 16:05 »

Quote from: cwwmbm on March 06, 2008, 14:07

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?".
How do you know that?

Sort your own portfolio by Best Match and you can see the changes in the Force

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Best match woes... (Read 24764 times)

lisafx

lisafx

vonkara

lisafx

DanP68

DanP68

DanP68

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

vonkara

digiology

vonkara

vonkara

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors