Author Topic: Do individual contributors have rating algorithms besides "exclusive"? (Read 9216 times)

oxman · « **on:** September 22, 2011, 17:11 »

Does anyone know if IS assigns value ratings to individual contributors other than what comes with Exclusive status (which may just be an image rating).

For instance, if someone is selling many images and maxing out their uploads, will the system assign that contributor preferential algorithms in regards to file placement, faster inspections, foot massage etc?

Or are all contributors treated the same according to status?

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** September 22, 2011, 17:15 »

Quote from: oxman on September 22, 2011, 17:11

Does anyone know if IS assigns value ratings to individual contributors other than what comes with Exclusive status (which may just be an image rating).

For instance, if someone is selling many images and maxing out their uploads, will the system assign that contributor preferential algorithms in regards to file placement, faster inspections, foot massage etc?

Or are all contributors treated the same according to status?

There does 'appear' to be a person value (e.g. EdStock does very well), but at the moment the best match is changing so fast and is so different across different search terms that it's probably not as significant as it could be.

Artemis · « **Reply #2 on:** September 22, 2011, 18:19 »

I *think* 'monthly uploads' is a pretty important factor on iStock.When i stopped uploading on istock after sept '10 my sales dropped like a stone to about 1/4th of what they were, and sales picked up remarkably when i started uploading again, despite the new images not selling.
This is probably also one of the reasons why our dear 'Ed' is doing so well, having constant uploads .
(being arteficially protected by keeping all inhouse competition away from Edstock's playing field helps too i guess)

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** September 22, 2011, 19:18 »

Quote from: Artemis on September 22, 2011, 18:19

This is probably also one of the reasons why our dear 'Ed' is doing so well, having constant uploads .
(being arteficially protected by keeping all inhouse competition away from Edstock's playing field helps too i guess)

He's high in non-celeb shots too. His Queleas are still in positions 10 and 11 on a photos only search for 'African Elephant'.

Artemis · « **Reply #4 on:** September 22, 2011, 19:47 »

Exactely! *IF* as i suspect monthly uploads plays a decent role in best match ranking 'they' have a big advantage as they're not limited by the upload limits and have stellar upload numbers each month, resulting in this high best match ranking.

(i think its only part of it though... im sure there are other artificial ways to get the wholly owned and thus most profitable content in front of the best match)

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** September 22, 2011, 20:14 »

Interesting, as if high uploads get best match 'points', that will benefit the teams, who then stand even more to reach higher RCs, while many of the rest of us have lost out. That would not be to iStock's advantage IF the 'team' were exclusive.

Artemis · « **Reply #6 on:** September 22, 2011, 20:26 »

It's only speculation of course, but from what i experienced (with a non-exclusive port) it really looked like its a factor playing along.
I dont know the upload limits for exclusives, if they're pretty limiting, like the non-exclusives are, it doesnt matter whether you're a team or not because of the constant backlog of images waiting for new slots to open. If they arent limiting and are more than one person could fill up weekly it indeed wouldnt make sense profit-wise for istock (one could argue it does make sense to reward hard working, constant uploading people or teams more, but we all know PROFIT is the one and only bottomline there nowadays)

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** September 22, 2011, 20:37 »

'Golds' get 120 upload slots a week, even if they're only 'Fool's Gold', Diamonds get more and I guess BDs get more still. I couldn't find the page that tells you.
I'm sure it would be difficult for most Lone Wolves to fill even 120 slots on a regular basis without quality or variety falling, so only teams can really benefit.

RT · « **Reply #8 on:** September 23, 2011, 03:48 »

Quote from: oxman on September 22, 2011, 17:11

For instance, if someone is selling many images and maxing out their uploads, will the system assign that contributor preferential algorithms in regards to file placement, faster inspections, foot massage etc?

You have more faith in the iS programmers than I do

lagereek · « **Reply #9 on:** September 23, 2011, 04:34 »

Quote from: RT on September 23, 2011, 03:48

Quote from: oxman on September 22, 2011, 17:11
For instance, if someone is selling many images and maxing out their uploads, will the system assign that contributor preferential algorithms in regards to file placement, faster inspections, foot massage etc?

You have more faith in the iS programmers than I do

Yep! same here.

aeonf · « **Reply #10 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:02 »

When an inspector approves a file, the also assign a "rating" from 1 to 5 to the file (not to be mixed up with the regular "user rating" which don't affect anything).
This rating has a great affect on best match placement.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #11 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:06 »

Quote from: aeonf on September 23, 2011, 06:02

When an inspector approves a file, the also assign a "rating" from 1 to 5 to the file (not to be mixed up with the regular "user rating" which don't affect anything).
This rating has a great affect on best match placement.

You know this to be a fact or are you just guessing ?

RT · « **Reply #12 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:24 »

Quote from: aeonf on September 23, 2011, 06:02

When an inspector approves a file, the also assign a "rating" from 1 to 5 to the file (not to be mixed up with the regular "user rating" which don't affect anything).
This rating has a great affect on best match placement.

I've always had the upmost respect for iStock inspectors, they are the hardest working, highest skilled and nicest bunch of people you could ever want to meet

Difydave · « **Reply #13 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:27 »

Used to be, way back in the mists of time, that inspectors used to give a file an initial rating. That stopped five or six years ago. You could see the rating, but I can't remember how. Whether they give files any rating now, I don't know.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #14 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:32 »

Quote from: Difydave on September 23, 2011, 06:27

Used to be, way back in the mists of time, that inspectors used to give a file an initial rating. That stopped five or six years ago. You could see the rating, but I can't remember how. Whether they give files any rating now, I don't know.

inspectors can still and do give initial rating, but I don't think they have anything to do with best match placement.

Difydave · « **Reply #15 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:40 »

True, but in the old days they actually used to rate files 1-5. Now AFAIK the rating is only a five and puts the file automatically in Vetta. I haven't had that happen yet!

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:44 »

Quote from: aeonf on September 23, 2011, 06:02

When an inspector approves a file, the also assign a "rating" from 1 to 5 to the file (not to be mixed up with the regular "user rating" which don't affect anything).
This rating has a great affect on best match placement.

I don't believe for a moment that that's true, but I suspect you were just being facetious as to any attempt to 'guess' the best match., but forgot the smiley.

My evidence for that is thinking it's wrong is one of my pics which was on the top line of a particular search last week is now 411 for the same search.
My evidence for thinking there's a 'person' weighting is slightly difficult without calling someone out, but for example there is a high diamond contributor whose usual work is the general high key studio and isolation work, which sells very well. He happened to go on safari, and although his safari files (which are large series of near-identicals, all accepted) have low sales, they have been consistently appearing above other people with much higher 'safari' (i.e. better sales in the relevant searches) sales but lower 'overall' sales - through all the best match iterations of the last eighteen months, even the recent crazy bouncings.

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:47 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on September 23, 2011, 06:32

Quote from: Difydave on September 23, 2011, 06:27
Used to be, way back in the mists of time, that inspectors used to give a file an initial rating. That stopped five or six years ago. You could see the rating, but I can't remember how. Whether they give files any rating now, I don't know.
inspectors can still and do give initial rating, but I don't think they have anything to do with best match placement.

Absolutely they do give the ratings and absolutely they don't have anything to do with best match. I've had a few this year and they have gone into a special lightbox. IME an IR is almost a kiss of death (except for one) - like getting a sale off the 'recent acceptances', before they are even searchable. I've only had a tiny number of these latter, and they haven't generally gone on to do well.

Difydave · « **Reply #18 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:54 »

Again, several years ago there was a thread about a new best match. Several people who had been doing OK suddenly found themselves not doing so well. "Bitter" came on the forum to calm things down. His comment to one contributor was along the lines of "We'll see what we can do about that" I've often wondered whether they can weight individual results, but ultimately that would kill sales of new files from new contributors. . .

Zerkalo · « **Reply #19 on:** September 23, 2011, 07:11 »

Quote from: Difydave on September 23, 2011, 06:40

True, but in the old days they actually used to rate files 1-5. Now AFAIK the rating is only a five and puts the file automatically in Vetta. I haven't had that happen yet!

That's not always true. Sometimes they give an initial 5 rating and the files is not moved to Vetta. It's some kind of "OK, you did your best. But not enough for Vetta. Better luck next time".

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** September 23, 2011, 07:42 »

Quote from: Zerkalo on September 23, 2011, 07:11

Quote from: Difydave on September 23, 2011, 06:40
True, but in the old days they actually used to rate files 1-5. Now AFAIK the rating is only a five and puts the file automatically in Vetta. I haven't had that happen yet!
That's not always true. Sometimes they give an initial 5 rating and the files is not moved to Vetta. It's some kind of "OK, you did your best. But not enough for Vetta. Better luck next time".

Vetta, since the original ingestion which had different parameters, isn't about 'best', it's about a style, often dark, sepia, vignetted and/or with flare or other lighting that would normally be rejected.

Zerkalo · « **Reply #21 on:** September 23, 2011, 08:56 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 23, 2011, 07:42

Quote from: Zerkalo on September 23, 2011, 07:11
Quote from: Difydave on September 23, 2011, 06:40
True, but in the old days they actually used to rate files 1-5. Now AFAIK the rating is only a five and puts the file automatically in Vetta. I haven't had that happen yet!
That's not always true. Sometimes they give an initial 5 rating and the files is not moved to Vetta. It's some kind of "OK, you did your best. But not enough for Vetta. Better luck next time".
Vetta, since the original ingestion which had different parameters, isn't about 'best', it's about a style, often dark, sepia, vignetted and/or with flare or other lighting that would normally be rejected.

What I am trying to say is, an initial 5 rating doesn't automatically qualify a file for Vetta.

travelstock · « **Reply #22 on:** September 25, 2011, 01:26 »

Quote from: Zerkalo on September 23, 2011, 08:56

What I am trying to say is, an initial 5 rating doesn't automatically qualify a file for Vetta.

True - its almost like a consolation prize.

One of the nice things about inspections at IS is that they sometimes do go out of their way to include personalised messages, and you get some clues like this that the whole thing isn't just robotic.

aeonf · « **Reply #23 on:** September 25, 2011, 03:19 »

I was told this by someone who has several inspector friends.
Actually he himself is a member of this forum.

I have no way to verify this though, but if you ask me it does makes a lot of sense.
Once again this has NOTHING to do with initial rating or user ratings.

michealo · « **Reply #24 on:** September 26, 2011, 04:14 »

Quote from: Difydave on September 23, 2011, 06:40

True, but in the old days they actually used to rate files 1-5. Now AFAIK the rating is only a five and puts the file automatically in Vetta. I haven't had that happen yet!

Incorrect

A file given an initial 5 rating does not automatically go into Vetta, it does go for Vetta editor review but it can still be rejected for Vetta

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Do individual contributors have rating algorithms besides "exclusive"? (Read 9216 times)

oxman

ShadySue

Artemis

ShadySue

Artemis

ShadySue

Artemis

ShadySue

RT

lagereek

aeonf

Eyedesign

RT

Difydave

Eyedesign

Difydave

ShadySue

ShadySue

Difydave

Zerkalo

ShadySue

Zerkalo

travelstock

aeonf

michealo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors