Author Topic: iStock SEO Testing‏ (Read 19593 times)

eyewave · « **Reply #75 on:** October 31, 2014, 10:57 »

I just got the image list and immediately opted out. Four of the eight images they wanted to use were from my ten best sellers - not only on istock but almost everywhere.

If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
(that's what istock always does, though. Rarely for the better.)

bunhill · « **Reply #76 on:** October 31, 2014, 13:23 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2014, 08:19

I don't particularly want my IS images to have good SEO because they skim too much of the take.

So this is probably a stupid question. But if you don't like selling your content at iStock then why upload there at all ?

-----

I have long been very dismissive of SEO - but, truthfully, the iStock email and and article has got me thinking about the best way to describe content and how that relates to what people specifically search for. Also - I had forgotten how excellent the DeepMeta software is for bulk editing.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #77 on:** November 01, 2014, 00:42 »

iStock is a joke !

there will be zero benefits from adding titles and description for the simple reason that this was maybe true until 4-5 yrs ago but nowadays to rank on google you need a ton of links pointing to your page and a solid trusted domain with high-PR.

IS has a trusted domain and high PR but who is linking to istock's pages ? nobody or very few in the best scenario, and even if they do it's probably junk traffic, not potential buyers.

so the guys at IS are totally clueless and ask us to make a test drive ? moreover, they expect WE spend hours editing titles and descriptions, this is ridicolous they make billions of $ and expect me and you to work for free.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #78 on:** November 01, 2014, 06:51 »

Quote from: bunhill on October 31, 2014, 13:23

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2014, 08:19
I don't particularly want my IS images to have good SEO because they skim too much of the take.

So this is probably a stupid question. But if you don't like selling your content at iStock then why upload there at all ?

-----

It's like asking Universal, "if you don't want to sell your movies in the Wallmart dollar bin why let them sell them at all". Well movie studios do want their movies to be sold for a dollar a piece. They just want to sell them in cinemas first for $20+ a seat, then on blue ray for $30, then pick up the impulse buyers down the line in Wallmart for $1 a go while simultaneously selling the bluray on Amazon for a higher price. It's about maximising your return.

So the answer is that I do want IS to sell my images, I just want to make sure that I maximise my return by getting as many sales as I can from better paying sites first/ simultaneously. If a customer is already tied to IS I want them to buy my image rather than another one. If they are searching for an image through Google I want them to find my work elsewhere.

You may as well ask "why not just sell direct and forget about the agencies". Well I could, but I would selling a few hundred licenses not a few hundred thousand. I still want to send people to my own site as much as possible when I can.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #79 on:** November 01, 2014, 06:54 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on November 01, 2014, 00:42

.....who is linking to istock's pages ? nobody or very few in the best scenario, and even if they do it's probably junk traffic.....

Yes, another consequence of abusing their contributors who used to actually refer buyers to the site. I used to do it myself many years ago, seems unthinkable now.

ShadySue · « **Reply #80 on:** November 01, 2014, 07:31 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on November 01, 2014, 00:42

... moreover, they expect WE spend hours editing titles and descriptions, this is ridicolous they make billions of $ and expect me and you to work for free.

I wouldn't want anyone else changing my titles and descriptions any more than I'd like someone else changing my keywords. That can only work in a specialist agency.

rimglow · « **Reply #81 on:** November 01, 2014, 08:29 »

So what if they change the title and description around and you hate it? Can you change it back? iStock is notorious fixing things that aren't broke.

B8 · « **Reply #82 on:** November 01, 2014, 11:09 »

Quote from: KB on October 30, 2014, 09:56

Quote from: B8 on October 30, 2014, 01:57
It all seems like an exercise in desperate futility as with almost all of their changes ever since they pressed the self destruct button the first time in September 2012.
+1

Except I think the first press of that self-destruct button was in September 2010, when they created the RC system, reneging on the "Grandfathering" contract many signed, and creating ill-will among many exclusives and indies alike. When the History of iStock's Rise and Fall is written, I believe that will mark the beginning of the end.

The reason I said September 2012 was when iStock pressed the self destruct button was because from that day forward I saw my monthly income and monthly downloads on iStock start to drop steadily every month to a level where my total monthly downloads now are less than 1/10th of what they were before.

Since then, no matter how many more new pictures I add, no matter how well I optimize my keywords, etc, my income just keeps declining.

I don't think any of the previous changes leading up to that date, including the creation of RC system, or any other changes they instituted before September 2010 had any measurable negative effect on my iStock income the same way that September 2012 changes did.

September 2012 was when they more of less crashed the site at the very start of the peak selling season month for stock photo sales. They introduced cash prices which scared many buyers away, they took away the zoom tool for a period of time while they made some poorly implemented site upgrades, they opened up the flood gates to unlimited amounts of uploads from contributors, they removed the quality inspection standards to where they pretty much accept anything now, and the site slowed down to almost unusable levels for nearly 3 months while they attempted to fix everything they broke on September 1. At the same time they started flooding the site with low quality/overpriced Getty content, and the Best Match search became almost unusable for nearly 3 months until around December 2012 once the 3-month peak selling season came to an end.

That was also the same time when they changed the system to only start registering views on pictures viewed by photo buyers logged into the site. After that basically all new pictures stopped registering enough views, which causes most new pictures uploaded now to more or less disappear into the abyss shortly after being uploaded. All of that was enough to drive away a fortitude of long standing quality iStock buyers. Now we are finally at the point of desperation, perhaps you can even call it capitulation where they are now trying last-ditch tactics like trying to drive people searching for free photos to the iStock site from Google Images.

But lastly, let's not forget they also did Self Destruct again this year in September 2014 when they changed the whole pricing system and basically cut everyone's income in half again by reducing the prices to almost 1/3 of what they were before on XXL and XXXL files and putting the prices up so high on small sized image to where web-use photo buyers no longer find the prices affordable. Not to mention the big pay cut earlier in 2014 we all took when they started offering all of our pictures at subscription prices as well.

KB · « **Reply #83 on:** November 01, 2014, 12:07 »

Ah, what a wonderful trip down memory lane.

My DLs peaked in Jan 2012, and it has been a steady decline ever since:

My DLs are down about 2/3 from their 2011 average.

But DLs tell only part of the story, of course:

My earnings didn't start to noticeably deteriorate until the new subscriptions plan was introduced earlier this year.

So if I was going by only my own earnings, I'd have to say they pressed the self-destruct button in April 2014. But I think that would be more clearly labeled the KB-destruct button. The seeds of their demise were planted in September 2010 (or, if one prefers, whatever the date of the first Getty buyout was in 2008 by H&F).

MilanLipowski · « **Reply #84 on:** November 03, 2014, 12:42 »

I like new changes of iStock. Search results will be much better and buyers will buy what they need and more – it doesn’t matter if it is shot from exclusive contributor or not. Erasing borders between exclusive and non-exclusive contributor is the right step for business. iStock knows it and this is the reason why upload limits has been changed.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #85 on:** November 03, 2014, 19:34 »

For me they picked one file that was uploaded in 2003 and has a grand total of 6 downloads. The last sale was in 2009. If this project makes it sell better I'm all for it.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #86 on:** November 03, 2014, 20:15 »

Quote from: MilanLipowski on November 03, 2014, 12:42

I like new changes of iStock. Search results will be much better and buyers will buy what they need and more – it doesn’t matter if it is shot from exclusive contributor or not. Erasing borders between exclusive and non-exclusive contributor is the right step for business. iStock knows it and this is the reason why upload limits has been changed.

not to mention that exclusivity on microstock was a sad joke since the beginning.

ShadySue · « **Reply #87 on:** November 03, 2014, 20:20 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on November 03, 2014, 19:34

For me they picked one file that was uploaded in 2003 and has a grand total of 6 downloads. The last sale was in 2009. If this project makes it sell better I'm all for it.

That sounds like a good test file. Keep us posted.

tickstock · « **Reply #88 on:** November 04, 2014, 10:54 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 03, 2014, 20:20

Quote from: StanRohrer on November 03, 2014, 19:34
For me they picked one file that was uploaded in 2003 and has a grand total of 6 downloads. The last sale was in 2009. If this project makes it sell better I'm all for it.
That sounds like a good test file. Keep us posted.

Yep if it sells in the next 5 years it'll be a huge success. In all seriousness probably nothing can be told from one file. If these are the kinds of files they are choosing you probably need to see statistics for all 15,000 trial images to get anything close to useable numbers. And even then you would probably need to wait years.

Leo · « **Reply #89 on:** November 04, 2014, 15:30 »

Its a true marvel how much flack Symbiostock received for it's strategies and emphasis on SEO and search engine traffic, and now an agency is starting to take the concept seriously. Often the project was attacked for being SEO based, with people insisting that paid marketing was the only way to success, and only agencies could play that in that arena, and what a foolish concept an SEO-based network is.

Now people can say "Yeah, my Symbiostock images rank high in google" as though it were a little thing, and don't really put two-and-two together when the idea is voiced that sales could come from google traffic from a respected agency.

Even more of an irony, Symbiostock started due to iStock giving away images. Now they are "testing" one of the main fundamentals Symbiostock is built on.

Last I checked iStock pages use javascript-generated hashes in the URL making it virtually impossible for a bot to crawl them. In the past most companies would block bots because they used up too much bandwidth. I wonder if the change is being made because now they have plenty of room for more traffic and are looking for new traffic sources.

Honestly though, I don't think istock is the problem, or google searches. I used to question agencies until I dealt with contributors.

Now I say, put Symbiostock's social model in the hands of Lobo, and you'll see a whole new level of success.

Lightrecorder · « **Reply #90 on:** November 04, 2014, 15:33 »

Everyone with a Symbiostock site praised you for the SEO you incorporated.

ShadySue · « **Reply #91 on:** November 04, 2014, 15:45 »

Quote from: tickstock on November 04, 2014, 10:54

Quote from: ShadySue on November 03, 2014, 20:20
Quote from: StanRohrer on November 03, 2014, 19:34
For me they picked one file that was uploaded in 2003 and has a grand total of 6 downloads. The last sale was in 2009. If this project makes it sell better I'm all for it.
That sounds like a good test file. Keep us posted.
Yep if it sells in the next 5 years it'll be a huge success. In all seriousness probably nothing can be told from one file. If these are the kinds of files they are choosing you probably need to see statistics for all 15,000 trial images to get anything close to useable numbers. And even then you would probably need to wait years.

From what's being reported, they've chosen a real cross-section, from bestsellers to old low/non-sellers, which makes sense.
I haven't noticed any mention of new files being chosen, but obviously I'm only privy to a tiny number of the total 15,000.

We'll almost certainly not get any sort of full analysis which would let us decide whether adding more to the description would be likely to help. They'll no doubt say that it has been very successful, but how that would pan out would be difficult to say. They have said that subs have been very successful,with increased spend by buyers; but most people (who are reporting) other than newbies are concerned about falls, even rapid falls in income. Which may only men the pie is getting divided into too many tiny pieces. Good for the company, not much help to individuals.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #92 on:** November 05, 2014, 00:35 »

Quote from: Leo on November 04, 2014, 15:30

iStock pages use javascript-generated hashes in the URL making it virtually impossible for a bot to crawl them.

wrong.
Google Bot is indexing rendered javascript pages since a LONG time.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #93 on:** November 05, 2014, 00:45 »

Quote from: Lightrecorder on November 04, 2014, 15:33

Everyone with a Symbiostock site praised you for the SEO you incorporated.

the problem with SEO is that google is tweaking his algorithm every 6-12 months, often with dramatic domino effects.

the realistic scenario is that sites made with Symbio can perform very well in 2014 and getting sandboxed into oblivion after the next google re-rank or update.

everything now is considered good SEO is actually taken for granted in the actual google rank process, what google is now really looking for is not even links but just pages that have been linked by genuine high-PR sites, while having tons of links from directories, forums, blogs, and low-ranking sites has become worthless since at least 3 yrs, that's why even the top directories now are in disarray including Yahoo and DMOZ.

there's spam everywhere, also on youtube and FB/twitter.

the only reason photo sites still rank for some "long tail" query is because there's not much competition for rare keywords and long queries, but it won't last forever.

after the next google re-rank you can easily lose 70-80% of your visitors overnight and there's absolutely nothing you can do to "fix" it.

SEO should just be seen as a plus, it's crazy to fund your whole business on something so unstable and uncontrollable like google/bing rankings.

to sell online you must plan spending at least 50% or your potential earnings in advertising or in ways that somehow can bring potential buyers on your site, there's are no shortcuts.

stock agencies spend billions in ads, they know they can't trust SEO or begging google for a free meal.

Leo · « **Reply #94 on:** November 05, 2014, 01:32 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on November 05, 2014, 00:35

Quote from: Leo on November 04, 2014, 15:30
iStock pages use javascript-generated hashes in the URL making it virtually impossible for a bot to crawl them.

wrong.
Google Bot is indexing rendered javascript pages since a LONG time.

You got a little over excited there.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #95 on:** November 05, 2014, 02:16 »

Quote from: Leo on November 05, 2014, 01:32

Quote from: Hobostocker on November 05, 2014, 00:35
Quote from: Leo on November 04, 2014, 15:30
iStock pages use javascript-generated hashes in the URL making it virtually impossible for a bot to crawl them.

wrong.
Google Bot is indexing rendered javascript pages since a LONG time.
You got a little over excited there.

it means the bot is rendering the page with javascript/ajax/css before indexing the final html.

actually the reason behind this is anti-spam rather than genuine interest in indexing ajax sites.

said that, it won't usually index stuff like comments stored into Discus plugins etc, and you can stop the google bot from indexing JS using .htaccess

in the case of iStock probably they could not see many benefits in google search until recently.

Red Dove · « **Reply #96 on:** November 05, 2014, 11:07 »

I thought Mike Le Dray was the King of SEO

Maximilian · « **Reply #97 on:** November 05, 2014, 11:27 »

oh.. since i was invited to this "test" i do not sell anything..
before every day.. everything was fine. Now iam sad

Good job istock

Lightrecorder · « **Reply #98 on:** November 05, 2014, 13:38 »

Quote from: Red Dove on November 05, 2014, 11:07

I thought Mike Le Dray was the King of SEO

He is the king of selfoverinflation

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock SEO Testing‏ (Read 19593 times)

eyewave

bunhill

Hobostocker

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

ShadySue

rimglow

B8

KB

MilanLipowski

StanRohrer

Hobostocker

ShadySue

tickstock

Leo

Lightrecorder

ShadySue

Hobostocker

Hobostocker

Leo

Hobostocker

Red Dove

Maximilian

Lightrecorder

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors