MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

How has the 4/3/11 Best Match change affected your sales?

Sales are up a lot
0 (0%)
Sales are up a little
10 (11.1%)
No change
18 (20%)
Sales are down a little
12 (13.3%)
Sales are down a lot
50 (55.6%)

Total Members Voted: 78

Author Topic: The 4/3/11 Istockphoto Best Match Change  (Read 54446 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: April 05, 2011, 19:12 »
0
Well I think we all agree over the last couple of years Istock been busy damaging their own reputation with buyers and contributors. Of course exclusive contributors wouldn't want all that crap to be public and known to customers cause it's damaging their sales.
However, I as non-exclusive don't care much if Istock loses half of it's customers. These people still have need to buy images and they'll buy them somewhere else, and I'll make sure my portfolio is present there.
And yes, that would mean I've wasted time uploading to Istock - but hey, this is how this business is done. Over the years, I've spent time uploading to LuckyOliver, Photoshelter, MediaMagnet, Stockxpert, Albumo, USPhotostock, ImageCatalog,... this is not the entire list probably, but all of them closed their doors. So some other sites picked up their customers, and I am still alive and selling.
And I don't care if Istock was an industry leader for a while - that can change in a blink of an eye. And looks like that blink is happening right now unless people who are making decisions on Istock have an epiphany and stop abusing both buyers and contributors....


« Reply #151 on: April 05, 2011, 19:24 »
0
...

2) you're directly attempting to hurt fellow contributors who are exclusives at the agency you are working to pull business away from. and your seeming disregard for this is compounded by the fact that you're still collecting income from iStock despite actively pushing buyers away from iStock
...

This is truly illogical.

 If Lisa contributes to 10 agencies and chooses to direct buyers to one of the ten (for whatever reason; it could be she's close to a new royalty level there, or it could be her best earner or it could be that she knows the buyer is price conscious and that agency is the cheapest) she's not trying to hurt those who don't have a portfolio there.

And it's fine to do business with companies that you hate, loathe and despise - if I didn't, I wouldn't have a bank, a cell phone company or a cable company. I have at various times worked for or done business with companies that I couldn't stand; companies that I wouldn't lift a finger to help because they'd behaved so badly to their customers or employees. This is just part of the ugly truth of adult life.

I've chosen to be an exclusive with iStock and I completely get other contributors acting in their own interests and that their interests aren't mine. As I pointed out in an earlier post in another thread, sometimes iStock is the cheapest place to buy images from independents, especially those from top sellers like Lisa or Yuri. If you were a volume buyer of images, a SS subscription might be the best deal rather than IS. I don't mind anyone pointing these things out to buyers, for whatever reason. In the long run, I think someone who gives a buyer bad advice on purpose out of spite will only be hurting themselves (they'll lose all credibility), so I don't suppose that person could do IS or anyone else much harm anyway.

We don't have to pass some sort of morality test to collect our weekly earnings from IS - we only have to produce and upload images that sell. Heaven protect me from some sort of regime that you can't collect earnings from IS unless you post at least 50 woo yays a week or refer 10 buyers or...

« Reply #152 on: April 05, 2011, 19:53 »
0
---------------------------------------
If the search ever gets back to something close to rational, I bet there would be a lot of interest from buyers in being able to hide Vetta and Agency, even if it just leaves an empty space.  I imagine it would save buyers some time and dashed hopes when looking for the perfect image only to find it out of their price range cause they did not check out the camera first. 

However my guess is Istock would not be too happy if you created something like that.   :)


I do have a script that changes the color of the background to make it more obvious...
IS_search_buyerTools.user.js
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297012&page=1

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #153 on: April 05, 2011, 23:52 »
0
...

2) you're directly attempting to hurt fellow contributors who are exclusives at the agency you are working to pull business away from. and your seeming disregard for this is compounded by the fact that you're still collecting income from iStock despite actively pushing buyers away from iStock
...

This is truly illogical.

 If Lisa contributes to 10 agencies and chooses to direct buyers to one of the ten (for whatever reason; it could be she's close to a new royalty level there, or it could be her best earner or it could be that she knows the buyer is price conscious and that agency is the cheapest) she's not trying to hurt those who don't have a portfolio there.

And it's fine to do business with companies that you hate, loathe and despise - if I didn't, I wouldn't have a bank, a cell phone company or a cable company. I have at various times worked for or done business with companies that I couldn't stand; companies that I wouldn't lift a finger to help because they'd behaved so badly to their customers or employees. This is just part of the ugly truth of adult life.

I've chosen to be an exclusive with iStock and I completely get other contributors acting in their own interests and that their interests aren't mine. As I pointed out in an earlier post in another thread, sometimes iStock is the cheapest place to buy images from independents, especially those from top sellers like Lisa or Yuri. If you were a volume buyer of images, a Shutterstock subscription might be the best deal rather than IS. I don't mind anyone pointing these things out to buyers, for whatever reason. In the long run, I think someone who gives a buyer bad advice on purpose out of spite will only be hurting themselves (they'll lose all credibility), so I don't suppose that person could do IS or anyone else much harm anyway.

We don't have to pass some sort of morality test to collect our weekly earnings from IS - we only have to produce and upload images that sell. Heaven protect me from some sort of regime that you can't collect earnings from IS unless you post at least 50 woo yays a week or refer 10 buyers or...

JoAnn, I didn't accuse Lisa of anything. Lisa responded to my post and we discussed it. secondly, you've paraphrased what I said and what you seem to think I meant by it, and you're wrong. what I suggested was that actively campaigning to destroy business--which is in fact what some contributors are trying to do according to what they're bragging about here and elsewhere--while still uploading to the site you're steering business away from is illogical.

I'm not preaching morality or anything else. in fact I'm usually on the end of accusations claiming how immoral it is to be exclusive with iStock/Getty these days. morality has nothing to do with any of it. I completely agree that we all have to do what's in our individual best interests. I have zero issue with pointing buyers to any agency you want to point them to, especially and obviously in the case of independents. I was simply referring to smear tactics, which I disagree with.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 00:08 by SNP »

lagereek

« Reply #154 on: April 06, 2011, 00:51 »
0
WEDNESDAY MORNING in Europe!

well this so called"tweaking"  have not worked over here and not over there or down-under either (according to IS forum) on the contrary, sales overall are down just about 70% for Independants AND Exclusives, may they be diamonds or beginners.

I suppose we simply............................... tweak on and on and on. Its a search-engine, not rocket-science.

« Reply #155 on: April 06, 2011, 01:00 »
0
FYI, update from Andrew:

"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."

Why does this read to me as "We've completely lost control of what the program is doing but we're hoping the computer will let us straighten things out soon".

Has iStock actually built HAL from 2001?

I can almost hear the hardware talking to him:

"Look Andy, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you..."

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #156 on: April 06, 2011, 01:03 »
0
FYI, update from Andrew:

"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."

Why does this read to me as "We've completely lost control of what the program is doing but we're hoping the computer will let us straighten things out soon".

Has iStock actually built HAL from 2001?

I can almost hear the hardware talking to him:

"Look Andy, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you..."


lol. I can totally picture that too.

WEDNESDAY MORNING in Europe!

well this so called"tweaking"  have not worked over here and not over there or down-under either (according to IS forum) on the contrary, sales overall are down just about 70% for Independants AND Exclusives, may they be diamonds or beginners.

I suppose we simply............................... tweak on and on and on. Its a search-engine, not rocket-science.

that's a pretty big blanket Christian, lol. I don't think you can state how much we're ALL up or down. this best match tweak has positively affected my sales...but I know it can just as easily swing the other way tomorrow. the best match is definitely strange right now. they are definitely tweaking. and tweaking. and tweaking.

lagereek

« Reply #157 on: April 06, 2011, 01:42 »
0
Stacey!  actually I can more or less. Ive got collegues and friends, also with same cannister rank as myself in many corners and when chatting to them, its pretty gloomy.

however as you say, lets hope they tweak a bit more, shall we.

best. Chris.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #158 on: April 06, 2011, 01:56 »
0
 :)

« Reply #159 on: April 06, 2011, 02:21 »
0
we should ask Istock to implement a "worst match" option. It might get us some sales

« Reply #160 on: April 06, 2011, 04:08 »
0
FYI, update from Andrew:

"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."

Why does this read to me as "We've completely lost control of what the program is doing but we're hoping the computer will let us straighten things out soon".

Has iStock actually built HAL from 2001?

I can almost hear the hardware talking to him:

"Look Andy, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you..."
:)  Whenever I read something from istock, I will hear that voice now.

lagereek

« Reply #161 on: April 06, 2011, 06:37 »
0
Well I normally have around 15-20 dls just in the first two hours in the morning (european) time, yesterday, 4 and this morning 2. yet, Im pretty favored in this present best match, most relevant searches in my categories will show plenty om my pics on first two pages, great!  and yet hardly anything.

Is it that buyers have totally abandoned us and that this is nothing at all to do with best match changes, etc?  something is not right here, it doesnt add up?

Im putting this to the test!,  the more they tweak this best match, the more it should also gradually show result, even if theyre slow.

lisafx

« Reply #162 on: April 06, 2011, 09:29 »
0

Why does this read to me as "We've completely lost control of what the program is doing but we're hoping the computer will let us straighten things out soon".

Has iStock actually built HAL from 2001?

I can almost hear the hardware talking to him:

"Look Andy, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you..."

Thank you for that!  Love starting the day with a good laugh :D

« Reply #163 on: April 06, 2011, 09:55 »
0
Well I normally have around 15-20 dls just in the first two hours in the morning (european) time, yesterday, 4 and this morning 2. yet, Im pretty favored in this present best match, most relevant searches in my categories will show plenty om my pics on first two pages, great!  and yet hardly anything....

I'm on Pacific Time, so when I get up, Europe's day is nearly over. This morning there was just one sale overnight - like a weekend, not a Wednesday. Things are very erratic.

The big thing I still don't have in focus is what on earthy possessed them to start messing with this in the first place? This nonsense about local relevance? And to do this while they still have a huge pile of unfixed bugs just seems crazy (I'd want to test changes in small doses and on an otherwise working system, not just keep on randomly tweaking this and that hoping I'll get something that looks good).

« Reply #164 on: April 06, 2011, 10:00 »
0
Here's something funny. I am in the hole a few dollars from the last clawback. I have 5 images left up in my port, and I actually had a sale early this morning! So I'm a tad bit less in the hole now, but I should check my files. Maybe they are number 1 in the best match.  :o

« Reply #165 on: April 06, 2011, 10:18 »
0
Strange thing is that sales are looking fairly "normal" for me. Not a good week by any standards, but not really bad as you might expect with the changes.

It looks to me as if apart from the temporary comeback of the slider, the sort is actually slightly less V&A centric today. Not by much though, and there are still far too many files from individual contribs clumped together. Get to about page three (200 a page) and it looks more or less like a list sorted by age, again with big clumps of individuals work (although that might be expected with an age sort)
All in all it still looks an awful mess to me. Got to agree with jsnover above. Why did they make these huge changes? Seems like madness to me.
The fact that it's extremely slow being put right leads me to believe that it might be having the desired effect for them though.

lagereek

« Reply #166 on: April 06, 2011, 10:28 »
0
Well I normally have around 15-20 dls just in the first two hours in the morning (european) time, yesterday, 4 and this morning 2. yet, Im pretty favored in this present best match, most relevant searches in my categories will show plenty om my pics on first two pages, great!  and yet hardly anything....

I'm on Pacific Time, so when I get up, Europe's day is nearly over. This morning there was just one sale overnight - like a weekend, not a Wednesday. Things are very erratic.

The big thing I still don't have in focus is what on earthy possessed them to start messing with this in the first place? This nonsense about local relevance? And to do this while they still have a huge pile of unfixed bugs just seems crazy (I'd want to test changes in small doses and on an otherwise working system, not just keep on randomly tweaking this and that hoping I'll get something that looks good).


You know thats EXACTLY what I have been asking myself, why, with all the troubles and overhanging anger from contributors,  do they start messing with this???  they could have waited until things had settled a bit but no,  they simply had to go ahead knowing full well it was going to stir.

Now this leads me to believe, that something or somebody have got them in a vice and simply forced them to move ahead.

« Reply #167 on: April 06, 2011, 10:32 »
0

All in all it still looks an awful mess to me. Got to agree with jsnover above. Why did they make these huge changes? Seems like madness to me.


Out of desperation? Either istocks growth might have stopped or they are starting to see declining revenue. Lots of diamonds both exclusive and non saying downloads dropping like mad recently. Lots of indies saying bme on shutterstock seems to indicate buyer migration. They are tinkering with the best match to try to maximize whatever profit imo.

jen

« Reply #168 on: April 06, 2011, 10:35 »
0
Well I normally have around 15-20 dls just in the first two hours in the morning (european) time, yesterday, 4 and this morning 2. yet, Im pretty favored in this present best match, most relevant searches in my categories will show plenty om my pics on first two pages, great!  and yet hardly anything....

I'm on Pacific Time, so when I get up, Europe's day is nearly over. This morning there was just one sale overnight - like a weekend, not a Wednesday. Things are very erratic.

The big thing I still don't have in focus is what on earthy possessed them to start messing with this in the first place? This nonsense about local relevance? And to do this while they still have a huge pile of unfixed bugs just seems crazy (I'd want to test changes in small doses and on an otherwise working system, not just keep on randomly tweaking this and that hoping I'll get something that looks good).
I'm all for them constantly trying to improve the best match - and I think local relevancy could actually be a really cool feature if implemented correctly.  But it really just seems like all of the departments are doing their own thing without communicating with each other.  Like there's a dev team working on bug fixes while another team works on best match and another team works on rolling out editorial and they're all just working on their own stuff without a unified plan.  They need to take a step back and fix everything and stop testing things on the live site. :\

« Reply #169 on: April 06, 2011, 11:16 »
0

All in all it still looks an awful mess to me. Got to agree with jsnover above. Why did they make these huge changes? Seems like madness to me.


Out of desperation? Either istocks growth might have stopped or they are starting to see declining revenue. Lots of diamonds both exclusive and non saying downloads dropping like mad recently. Lots of indies saying bme on shutterstock seems to indicate buyer migration. They are tinkering with the best match to try to maximize whatever profit imo.

Making changes is fine, it's making these huge changes that make a mess of the results that I don't get. Seems to me that every time they do something like this they alienate a few more contribs, and much more importantly lose buyers. The idea that fewer, larger sales make more profit is OK up to a point, but somewhere along the way a balance point has to be reached. We might already be there. One thing is sure, offering buyers what looks like a smaller cross section of less relevant material, just because it's more profitable to the company seems like a recipe for a disaster long term.
I really, really hope I'm wrong.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #170 on: April 06, 2011, 11:47 »
0
I wonder how many files just aren't being seen because of search bugs.
Old news: Weeks ago, I had a direct IT ticket put in on my behalf because my "Highland cattle" (A CV phrase) don't show up in a search for highland cattle. They are still not showing on that search. Plenty of others pics, not of 'highland cattle' do show up because they are keyworded 'cattle' and (mostly wrongly) Highland (Highland Region [Scotland]).

Last night I discovered that none of my four files of the Grand Central Station shows up on a search for Grand Central Station. As I'm banned, I wrote to a Mod to ask who to contact. Here's the issue:
I have four editorial pics up from "Grand Central Station". They've been up for a few weeks now. I can find them in a search for New York and/or station.
But they don't show up in a search, even just in my own port, for Grand Central Station.

NB Grand Central Station is in the CV.
If you type it in, you get a hint under as you type. If you type on the hint, it truncates to Grand Central, shows 59 pics of GCS, none of them mine.

If I type in "Grand Central Station" in quotation marks, the results go down to 53 hits, and again I'm not in there.

I don't have editorial switched off - I can see an editorial file in the general search, and, as I said, I can see the files in under NY and/or station.

I tried logged in via Firefox and logged out in IE, same results.
On of my CN tried it too, same results.

(Actually it's affecting loads of other pics, not just mine. searching for GCS, I could only see one editorial file: searching New York and station there are several.)

I wonder how many other files are being 'lost' during searches like this. In both of my cases: Highland Cattle and Grand Central Station, they're invisible on their main keyword phrase.

« Reply #171 on: April 06, 2011, 11:47 »
0
About 40% drop for me. 
Fotolia and SS are kicking ass though, even DT is doing better than usual... - it does look like buyers are moving over.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #172 on: April 06, 2011, 11:47 »
0
Well I normally have around 15-20 dls just in the first two hours in the morning (european) time, yesterday, 4 and this morning 2. yet, Im pretty favored in this present best match, most relevant searches in my categories will show plenty om my pics on first two pages, great!  and yet hardly anything....

I'm on Pacific Time, so when I get up, Europe's day is nearly over. This morning there was just one sale overnight - like a weekend, not a Wednesday. Things are very erratic.

The big thing I still don't have in focus is what on earthy possessed them to start messing with this in the first place? This nonsense about local relevance? And to do this while they still have a huge pile of unfixed bugs just seems crazy (I'd want to test changes in small doses and on an otherwise working system, not just keep on randomly tweaking this and that hoping I'll get something that looks good).
I'm all for them constantly trying to improve the best match - and I think local relevancy could actually be a really cool feature if implemented correctly.  But it really just seems like all of the departments are doing their own thing without communicating with each other.  Like there's a dev team working on bug fixes while another team works on best match and another team works on rolling out editorial and they're all just working on their own stuff without a unified plan.  They need to take a step back and fix everything and stop testing things on the live site. :\

^ what you said x 2  :) Difydave, I can't see them offering irrelevant results on purpose. doesn't make sense. sales are up for a lot of people too, though that's not meant as a defense. we're all weary of the changes including me, even though this best match shift has my dls up by a good 15%. I find the inconsistency very unsettling even when it happens to be working out for me. many times it hasn't worked out for me. I'd like to see the best match humming along as it seemed to be, without big shifts. I liked the very minor shifts from day to day, without any major tweaks. since the new search and website releases, it's been so up and down.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 11:53 by SNP »

« Reply #173 on: April 06, 2011, 12:00 »
0
even though this best match shift has my dls up by a good 15%.

Is there a pattern to your increase in downloads? Is it older files that are selling well for you? Or are you just selling more of what you usually sell.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #174 on: April 06, 2011, 12:08 »
0
even though this best match shift has my dls up by a good 15%.

Is there a pattern to your increase in downloads? Is it older files that are selling well for you? Or are you just selling more of what you usually sell.

it's a weird mix. still getting new sales, but old files are being dug up and selling too, quite a bit. I'm also selling editorial files somewhat regularly now. I have a huge portfolio, so swings seem to hit me less hard because I have a little bit of everything. however, where I lose out is niche stuff. I don't have much in the way of niche images that buyers associate with just me. for example, I know a Yuri file or a Sean Locke file by appearance for the most part. there are lots of contributors whose work has a very very distinct style. I haven't 'branded' my work with a consistent, very recognizable style, which I sometimes wish I had. Interestingly, I have very little Vetta or Agency, so you'd think the push for V/A in the sort would have hurt me, but it didn't.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 12:10 by SNP »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
5097 Views
Last post September 25, 2011, 00:44
by lagereek
18 Replies
7853 Views
Last post April 18, 2012, 05:47
by fotografer
73 Replies
20243 Views
Last post December 19, 2012, 08:09
by stocker2011
8 Replies
3048 Views
Last post February 24, 2018, 23:44
by namussi
4 Replies
635 Views
Last post January 31, 2024, 03:48
by hatman12

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors