Author Topic: Manual vs. Auto Disambiguation (Read 9173 times)

marcviln · « **on:** January 09, 2007, 04:04 »

I went back and looked at my D/Ls for Nov and Dec at iStock and noticed that the sales have been running about 4 to 1 in favor of the files I didn't disambiguate.

This would seem to argue in favor of giving up on the onerous task of DA-ing altogether.

That said, I'm not sure how many total files I have DA'ed out of the total portfolio, so maybe it's just proportional. I would also note that my Dec sales were 1/2 the previous year, when I had many fewer images on the site.

All in all not a stellar sign for 2007.

What has your experience been in terms of DA'ed vs un-DA'ed sales?

[my iStock p'folio]: http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=503685

vicu · « **Reply #1 on:** January 09, 2007, 08:27 »

The fact that your sales are half of last year, when most people have experienced increases nearly every month, doesn't tell you anything??

madelaide · « **Reply #2 on:** January 09, 2007, 15:13 »

My sales increased a lot since disambiguation started - I can't be sure however this was the reason. I still get "not disambiguated" images downloaded (and I take the opportunity to disambiguate them) but the disambiguated ones are by far the most common with me (it is true however that now most of my images are disambiguated).

Regards,
Adelaide

marcviln · « **Reply #3 on:** January 10, 2007, 08:34 »

Quote from: vicu on January 09, 2007, 08:27

The fact that your sales are half of last year, when most people have experienced increases nearly every month, doesn't tell you anything??

Vicu - That was a rather snarky comment considering I was just soliciting other peoples' experiences. And, from what I have seen in other groups, it was inaccurate. Many other people have noticed severe income drops at iStock since the DA-ing debacle began.

Not everyone, to be sure, but have a look at this thread: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/message/13037

Also, as noted in my original message, my sales have been overwhelmingly non-DA'ed files.

That tells me something.

vicu · « **Reply #4 on:** January 10, 2007, 12:12 »

Sorry for being snarky. It is exasperating to see the attitude of some photographers who don't give a rat's about the effect their un-disambiguated portfolio is having on the rest of the community. They don't have any motivation or desire to fix their files at iS because they have their images spread out all over the place and feel they can make it up somewhere else. Maybe this attitude doesn't apply to you. I apologize if I misdirected my frustration unwarrantedly.

As the exact same images from one photographer get spread across many sites, and (some of) those sites increase their traffic, it is inevitable for bargain shoppers to seek out the cheapest outlet for their image purchases. Some people obviously believe that the 25 cents to 1.00 they save on their image purchase is worth the time it takes to comparison shop among several sites. Maybe it is.

It is not surprising that those photographers might experience slowing downloads at the higher priced sites, especially when they use their same username on each portfolio. In most cases, a simple Google search makes your portfolios very easy to find and a shopper who is the least bit savvy will know which site they can get it for cheapest (a subscription whenever possible, I'd guess=the lowest payout to the photographer).

Just a thought.

madelaide · « **Reply #5 on:** January 10, 2007, 18:00 »

Quote from: vicu on January 10, 2007, 12:12

It is not surprising that those photographers might experience slowing downloads at the higher priced sites, especially when they use their same username on each portfolio. In most cases, a simple Google search makes your portfolios very easy to find and a shopper who is the least bit savvy will know which site they can get it for cheapest (a subscription whenever possible, I'd guess=the lowest payout to the photographer).

Vicu,

I'm not sure people (most of them at least) do that kind of cheaper price shopping, judging by what I read some designers saying - they seem to prefer certain sites and generally stick to them. Maybe for an EL they would shop more, given the cost involved.

I haven't seen any reduction in IS in January - maybe it's just me, of course, and we often see people doing well in a site in one month while another complains of a slow month there. On the contrary, my dlds per day has increased 30% (and - what's better - my average $ per sold image has raised from 40 to 46c) but I would wait longer to confirm that trend, because December had less business days.

Regards,
Adelaide

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** January 11, 2007, 03:28 »

i can't say my experience with disambiguation has been very positive. I decided a few months ago that I would try it out and set out with my best selling images. The day after my istock earnings significatly were reduced and I am now earning about 1/4 of what i was earning before. My top images which once sold 18x per month has not sold for the last month. The sales stopped the day i disambiguated........

I decided to try it a little more today.. perhaps if i disambiguated some images that have never sold well, they will start selling.

hymowitzer · « **Reply #7 on:** January 11, 2007, 06:06 »

What is "disambiguate"? and if you do it....can you undo it?

leaf · « **Reply #8 on:** January 11, 2007, 06:17 »

if you have images on istock allready and you edit an image or when you upload new images you will be presented with your keywords along with a choice of what you meant by them.

if you have the keywords
human
chair
sit

you will have to click checkboxes to tell istock if you meant for example
human > person
human > group of people

chair > stool
chair > easy chair
chair > recliner
chair > board member

and so on.. for all your keywords. Doing this is disambiguating your keywords.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #9 on:** January 11, 2007, 07:36 »

Quote from: hymowitzer on January 11, 2007, 06:06

...can you undo it?

No, you cannot. Once an image has been DAed, it cannot be un-DAed (unless you delete the photo and resubmit it).

fintastique · « **Reply #10 on:** January 11, 2007, 10:24 »

I found a significant improvement in DLs with photos with more than one word in the title such as "celtic cross" "notre dame" etc

I am using imagemanager to upload and once the files have been accepted I go through the DA ordeal

leaf · « **Reply #11 on:** January 11, 2007, 10:27 »

is that image manager thing working now?... i guess perhaps it is if you are using it.

Void · « **Reply #12 on:** January 12, 2007, 19:54 »

I have been watching this DA thing on the sales page and on my images the ones I havents DAed are selling the best.....
I choose to ignore it from now on....

madelaide · « **Reply #13 on:** January 12, 2007, 20:23 »

I don't keep that record so clearly. All images I sold after October are disambiguated now, but I can't say how many I da'ed after the sale, though I haven't done that lately though. So, at least for one month, all I sold were da'ed images.

I have one da'ed image that used to sell well for my standards (16 dlds) and I haven't sold it since September.

I have a series of images (=same subject) that I haven't da'ed yet. None of its images has been downloaded since Sept (but they were never best-sellers here anyway). I'll do it and then follow its performance.

Regards,
Adelaide

epixx · « **Reply #14 on:** January 23, 2007, 21:34 »

I find the whole DA thing very confusing, and the threads on iS are so long that they don't bring much clarity to the theme. What I've noticed is that some of the files that I hadn't DA'ed, didn't appear in searches at all. That changed after I DA'ed them.

Also, after the whole mess started, and yes, I think that it's a mess, some of my bestsellers dropped by around 100%. There may of course be seasonal variations etc., but I don't find the situation very encouraging.

For me, the result is that I'm frequently selling more on Fotolia and DT than on iS. But as long as I sell somewhere, I suppose it's ok.

fintastique · « **Reply #15 on:** January 25, 2007, 04:43 »

I suppose if you have ambigious keywords such as building and you don't DA then your sales may increase for the image turns up in searches where it shouldn't. However I found some of my images from St Andrews (in Scotland) were lost in searches as St = street and andrews referred to people.

I am wondering will iStock after a while force DA.

Been a great month at iStock so far they are 2nd biggest earner behind SS (FT doing quite well but I have a 4x bigger portfolio)

Egypix · « **Reply #16 on:** January 25, 2007, 05:28 »

My sales increased since disambiguation started. I turned all to Manual to be seen

http://www.istockphoto.com/hamdan

pixelbrat · « **Reply #17 on:** January 25, 2007, 14:31 »

I might be wrong but didn't they also change the Best Match search within a month or so of implementing the whole DA disaster? Based on that it might be hard to distinguish which had more of an impact on sales. I had record sales in October after one of their many search changes. Then they changed it again and my sales went back down. All of my files have been DA'd and my sales are much better than before, but again, I can't tell if it's due to DA-ing or changes in the Best Match searches.

Then again, I suffer from CRS (can't remember sh*t) so my memory of timings might be off...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Manual vs. Auto Disambiguation (Read 9173 times)

marcviln

vicu

madelaide

marcviln

vicu

madelaide

leaf

hymowitzer

leaf

GeoPappas

fintastique

leaf

Void

madelaide

epixx

fintastique

Egypix

pixelbrat

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors