I don't know what exactly you mean by "promote" but what are you looking at that shows "every single one" as being the work of an exclusive artist?

On my screen, for "last three months", #2 is -M-I-S-H-A-, #6 is Yuri_Arcurs, #11 is solarseven, all of which are independents.

If I sort by "last week", #2 Atropat is an independent, #10, #12, #14, AND #15 are all Yuri_Arcurs, and #13 is onfocusmedia, also an independent.

So, more than 26% of the top 15 selling files of the past week belong to the same person, and that person is an independent. How does this factor into your very original conspiracy theory?

Interesting..

If "every single" image on the best seller list was in fact exclusive, it would indeed be interesting.  However, that is not the case at all. Hopefully people actually do their own checking before jumping on these silly bandwagons.

Ironarrow, it sounds as if you are doing very well in spite of istock plotting against you and their attempts to hold you back. 

Quote from: ironarrow on August 11, 2008, 19:16

I have 65 files, I am a non-exclusive and I make $1000 a month.. and thank god I keep going up everymonth..

65 Files yielding $1000 a month on istock alone?  That is hugely impressive for anyone, especially an independent.  Your work must be amazing!

Congrats!

Thank you,

Yes, on istock alone..  I do believe that I know what designers want.. 
I think being good is important but doing the right stuff is more important..

My favourite illustrations are not my bestsellers..

I don't know what exactly you mean by "promote" but what are you looking at that shows "every single one" as being the work of an exclusive artist?

So, more than 26% of the top 15 selling files of the past week belong to the same person, and that person is an independent. How does this factor into your very original conspiracy theory?

well i don't think there is any conspiracy theory, but i do think it is pretty well accepted and known that exclusive images are marketed and given better search results than non exclusive.

If this wasn't the case what sense would it really make to go exclusive and the claims that becoming exclusive can double, triple,.. or 6x your income would be pretty empty.

Quote from: ironarrow on August 11, 2008, 19:16

Quote from: dnavarrojr on August 11, 2008, 15:55

I used their "most popular" tool to see what people are buying and I noticed that every single one of the images/videos listed was from someone who is exclusive to IS.

So, I'm guessing if you're not exclusive, they don't promote your work?

Interesting..

I have 65 files, I am a non-exclusive and I make $1000 a month.. and thank god I keep going up everymonth..

I wonder what would happen if they were to promote me  I would then go exclusive in a heart beat..

If it's true, I would like to see that.

So would I.

The boost in the search results (which would only apply when the searcher uses the best match sort filter) is debatable, but even if true, is a far cry from the claim that they do not promote the work of independents. Everyone on the site benefits from the advertising efforts of istock, not just the one exclusive artist whose image may have been used in the ad.

Let's at least be realistic and acknowledge that best match is the default search, and likely to be used the majority of the time by prospective buyers.  I don't think there is any debate that best match favors exclusives, and as Leaf points out, they kinda have to if there is to be an advantage to being exclusive other than commission %.

best match's favoritism toward exclusives is strong.  This is something I have studied for months, so I'm sure of my claim.  I regularly run private lightboxes including my images and those of other contributors, and I can tell you that mine and other non-exclusives always end up near the bottom of sort.  Without fail.

I'll give a quick example.  I'm interested in shooting some different concepts this weekend, and I was thinking of creating "border style images."  So I went to iStock and searched for "border (composition)" to see how well strong images of that type sell.  I accepted the default best match sort.  Of the 24 results on page 1, 22 were exclusive images. 

Next I searched for "Halloween."  23 out of 24 first page images were from exclusives.

Then I searched for "Thanksgiving."  Again 22 out of 24 first page images were from exclusives.

I don't have a problem with it.  If iStock wants to reward exclusives with almost all of the best search positions, that's fine by me.  However there is no "debate" on this issue.  It is obvious to anyone who takes 10 seconds to look at search results. 



 

I agree with you Dan.

I think it's generally accepted by everyone that images from exclusive contributors are favoured in the best match placing. That's not the debate. The point is that the OP stated that "every single one of the images/videos listed was from someone who is exclusive to IS"   when they looked at the "most popular" images - and that is obviously untrue as Bittersweet has been saying.

I have had images in the first page of the search result when searched by Best Match and I'm not exclusive.

I have had images in the first page of the search result when searched by Best Match and I'm not exclusive.

Exactly. The search terms used for the "quick example" were terms that would yield many thousands of results. Very few designers, unless they have a whole lot of free time to waste, are ever actually going to search using a single term, especially on a site with so many images, so many of which are sloppily keyworded. Therefore anything related to types of searches that would for the most part only be performed by someone obsessing about their best match placement really aren't representative of the search habits of actual buyers.

On a side note, if you intended to search for "border", the drop down selection is actually "Frame (composition)" which yields over 48,000 results. Even the most infinitesimal best match advantage will be magnified with that many images in competition.

I chose the dropdown you indicated.  I guess I'm not seeing your point?  The best match results are as I listed, and as I already wrote I have studied this for several months.  I'm not going to waste my time posting 20 more examples when everyone knows what the results are going to be.

Look, I don't have a problem with the best match advantage exclusives are given.  What I don't understand is why certain exclusives won't even acknowledge that the advantage exists.  I would assume if it didn't exist, you wouldn't be exclusive in the first place.

I'm not saying that it doesn't exist (though I have seen no "official statement" either way). My point was that your examples tend to imply that all or nearly all of the first page is always occupied by exclusive images and that is misleading. I am exclusive and my images often fall behind those of independents in a best match search. I have really crappy sales days just like everyone else. Should I start a new thread and whine about them each time so that people might start to consider that maybe istock has ups and downs for both groups of contributors? Probably wouldn't do any good, and I guess I really don't care all that much.

But, as has been pointed out, the original post that started this whole thread was completely based in fantasy and whether there is a best match advantage or not does nothing to make it any more real.