Hey, where are all the SS fans? You've been missing a trick.
SS does this so much better.
I'm not sure when last I went onto an individual file page on SS, but being astonished to discover that they didn't have a description, I hit on a random image there and saw that there are two horizontal strips, one being similars from the same contributor, which is ABOVE another strip of similars from the site as a whole.
So if someone is a clean keyworder, there's a better chance that their own similars are in fact 'similar', so the results are more relevant.
Downside is that the page layout is even more cluttered and ugly. (IMO)

Has to be one of the worst ideas anyone over there has had.

So everyone else does it and it's ok, but IS does it and it's the worst idea ever?

Quote from: ShadySue on August 13, 2013, 04:37

Has to be one of the worst ideas anyone over there has had.

So everyone else does it and it's ok, but IS does it and it's the worst idea ever?

It's not the worst idea ever, but it may be the worst implementation of this idea, ever.

- The similars are sometimes not even remotely related to the original file.

- Many IS contributors use the description field to show a link to a relevant lightbox or thumbs of their own similars. By placing the similars where IS did, it pushes the description information way down the page, usually below where most buyers would see it without scrolling. And why would they scroll if they don't know there's anything down there to see?

- I've checked several of my better selling files to see what thumbs appear. Despite having relevant similars, mine never seem to appear in the thumbs. And when I click through the files that do appear in the thumbs, it's almost like it's a daisy chain, with almost all the same files appearing in each file's similars.

I'm sure there are more reasons why this implementation sucks wind, but that's all I could come up with off the top of my head.

Quote from: bhr on August 13, 2013, 11:46

Both Getty and Shutterstock seem to have done okay without a description field.

Getty does have a description field, called 'Caption'.

So no 'Title' field.

And it's limited to 255 characters, making it almost impossible to say anything meaningful in editorial files, since their required format often takes up easily 1/3 to 1/2 of the available space.

DT does the same thing - strip of 5 small images underneath the chosen image's thumbnail "more stock photos from contributor's portfolio" and another strip of 5, "more similar images of xxxxx (title of image)." Clean and unobtrusive with title, description and keywords,which all factor into search.

I absolutely agree.  DT does this much better than Istock.  They first list similars from my own portfolio and then show some from a general search of the title.  This presents the buyer with a nice range of options. 

But of course the reason Istock doesn't do that is because it isn't so much about serving buyers as it is serving up images Istock makes more profit on. 

Fortunately, the images I checked, the ones linked at the bottom are mostly terrible and often completely irrelevant. 

I do think the layout should use the whole screen though, doesn't everyone have a widescreen monitor now?

I don't; but maybe most buyers have.
Actually, even without a widescreen the thums don't fill the width.

Added: just checked on my phone: the thumbs seem to fit perfectly into the horizontal and vertical width.

Hey, where are all the SS fans? You've been missing a trick.
SS does this so much better.
I'm not sure when last I went onto an individual file page on SS, but being astonished to discover that they didn't have a description, I hit on a random image there and saw that there are two horizontal strips, one being similars from the same contributor, which is ABOVE another strip of similars from the site as a whole.
So if someone is a clean keyworder, there's a better chance that their own similars are in fact 'similar', so the results are more relevant.
Downside is that the page layout is even more cluttered and ugly. (IMO)

Interesting, just checked out SS, they have "same model" strip of images. Do they key on the same model release? How would they know otherwise?

Quote from: ShadySue on August 14, 2013, 03:33

Hey, where are all the SS fans? You've been missing a trick.
SS does this so much better.
I'm not sure when last I went onto an individual file page on SS, but being astonished to discover that they didn't have a description, I hit on a random image there and saw that there are two horizontal strips, one being similars from the same contributor, which is ABOVE another strip of similars from the site as a whole.
So if someone is a clean keyworder, there's a better chance that their own similars are in fact 'similar', so the results are more relevant.
Downside is that the page layout is even more cluttered and ugly. (IMO)

Interesting, just checked out SS, they have "same model" strip of images. Do they key on the same model release? How would they know otherwise?

Yes, there is no other way.

\

/

At least with Istock I can select the images I want to show, that's got to better than having Dreamstime do it for you right?

this is true. I can even add in images that aren't similar but complement my image. at least that amount of customisation still exists.

What a horrible feature. Not the 'similar images' thing per se, but the placement is horrendous. At least place it at the bottom, below my description, name and lightboxes!

Yes.  Exactly.