Author Topic: Search (Read 6222 times)

ShadySue · « **on:** January 04, 2011, 14:52 »

New readers: the file is in the Dollar Bin. my brain has gone AWOL.

I was mulling with a member of my CN the balance of sticking with Alamy for editorial or trying iStock. I used the example of a file I've had on iStock since March 07, which has sold twice (in 2008) for a total of $1.13. I also have files on Alamy of the same building, taken a few years apart, and from different angles, from which I've had two downloads, to totally different markets, at $64.61 to me.
To be fair, I thought I should check my 'rivals' for that subject on iStock.
That's when the mystery started. I typed "People's Palace" and the search showed up no results.
I went into my own portfolio and typed Glasgow, and got 34 results, but that file wasn't one of them.
I had to fire up Deep Meta and type in People's Palace to find my file, then type in the number to iStock to confirm that I hadn't deactivated it for some reason. It's file #3066870. It's active. It has the keywords People's Palace and Glasgow, as the first two keywords which show on its page. People's Palace (Glasgow) is in the CV, and when you type People's Palace, the search system suggests completing it as People's Palace, but even clicking on that gives you zero results.
I have emailled Ducksandwich to see if he can find out what's going on. (I'm still banned from the forums, so can't post there).
I've tried searches for some of my other files, and they're still showing in search results.

The bottom line isn't really that that one file, which would never be a big seller, isn't being found, it's how many other files are totally lost to the search for no obvious reason - pissing off buyers and resulting in loss of earnings for us - and even more for iStock?

Added: I just searched 'Glasgow Green' another keyword on my file. My file didn't show up there either, but others did and have very few dls between them, sort-of confirming my original suspicion.

thesentinel · « **Reply #1 on:** January 04, 2011, 15:19 »

Iirc, there was/is a problem since latest fandabidozie F5 with non CV terms that contributors have added were/are not coming up in search results.

Were these terms non CV?

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** January 04, 2011, 15:26 »

Quote from: thesentinel on January 04, 2011, 15:19

Iirc, there was/is a problem since latest fandabidozie F5 with non CV terms that contributors have added were/are not coming up in search results.

Were these terms non CV?

No: Glasgow, People's Palace are both CV terms.

pet_chia · « **Reply #3 on:** January 04, 2011, 16:40 »

I haven't done it for a while, but in the past when I would try various searches to look for my files using the CV terms, I was frequently stymied and it was difficult to find them - not necessarily because of bugs but possibly because of oddities in the way CV are parsed or indexed. I really don't know what to make of it, but I will point out that I could easily find the images I had failed to find IS, by doing a google of the IS site using the same words.

I tried it just now and google is beautiful - I found thumbnails of my images using both the title and some of the keywords. From the customers' point of view, it would be a great thing if either google was to buy IS, or else if IS could somehow incorporate google search engine into their site. It would make it difficult to skew the search algorithm toward certain contributors or expensive content however.

lisafx · « **Reply #4 on:** January 04, 2011, 17:21 »

Quote from: pet_chia on January 04, 2011, 16:40

I tried it just now and google is beautiful - I found thumbnails of my images using both the title and some of the keywords. From the customers' point of view, it would be a great thing if either google was to buy IS, or else if IS could somehow incorporate google search engine into their site. It would make it difficult to skew the search algorithm toward certain contributors or expensive content however.

And there you have it. Seems like Istock long ago abandoned the idea of having the most functional search, and started using their search as a tool to control what buyers bought. We can all see how well that turned out

click_click · « **Reply #5 on:** January 04, 2011, 17:25 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 04, 2011, 15:26

Quote from: thesentinel on January 04, 2011, 15:19
Iirc, there was/is a problem since latest fandabidozie F5 with non CV terms that contributors have added were/are not coming up in search results.

Were these terms non CV?
No: Glasgow, People's Palace are both CV terms.

I tried "People's Palace" as well and no image is showing up. Either we both have the same search filter on or the search may be messed up...

rct · « **Reply #6 on:** January 04, 2011, 17:35 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 04, 2011, 17:21

And there you have it. Seems like Istock long ago abandoned the idea of having the most functional search, and started using their search as a tool to control what buyers bought. We can all see how well that turned out

Amazing how such a succinct and precise summary of what I think that most would agree has been apparent for awhile now can add clarity to the situation. Bravo.

cathyslife · « **Reply #7 on:** January 04, 2011, 17:36 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 04, 2011, 17:21

Quote from: pet_chia on January 04, 2011, 16:40

I tried it just now and google is beautiful - I found thumbnails of my images using both the title and some of the keywords. From the customers' point of view, it would be a great thing if either google was to buy IS, or else if IS could somehow incorporate google search engine into their site. It would make it difficult to skew the search algorithm toward certain contributors or expensive content however.

And there you have it. Seems like Istock long ago abandoned the idea of having the most functional search, and started using their search as a tool to control what buyers bought. We can all see how well that turned out

Indeed. You have hit the nail.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #8 on:** January 04, 2011, 17:37 »

I believe one of the broken things in search is terms with apostrophes. New Year's Day was broken over the holidays and those with Valentine's Day images were urging it be fixed in the bug thread. My guess is that this bug has busted your search term too.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** January 04, 2011, 17:50 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 04, 2011, 17:37

I believe one of the broken things in search is terms with apostrophes. New Year's Day was broken over the holidays and those with Valentine's Day images were urging it be fixed in the bug thread. My guess is that this bug has busted your search term too.

Oh, what an eejit I am! It's in the Dollar Bin!
At least the mystery is solved. Sorry all!