Author Topic: Uploaded limits raised to 999 (Read 47684 times)

qwerty · « **Reply #225 on:** May 01, 2013, 03:21 »

999 = 142 per day
= 6 per hour

Even with their stupid slow upload system you would be able to max out the limit if you didn't need any sleep.

I'd expect an influx from the mythical Indie factories

gillian vann · « **Reply #226 on:** May 01, 2013, 04:22 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 01, 2013, 01:41

The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.

just did a test: my anzac day stuff is on the first page. what's more of a concern is that my specialised ayurvedic spa treatment images don't show up when I input the actual description. "basti" returns 0 images. I may have to change all the descriptions to "ayurveda massage" or something more general. pity.

do designers use Best Match? Any designers care to comment?

ShadySue · « **Reply #227 on:** May 01, 2013, 04:45 »

Quote from: gillian on May 01, 2013, 04:22

Quote from: ShadySue on May 01, 2013, 01:41
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
just did a test: my anzac day stuff is on the first page. what's more of a concern is that my specialised ayurvedic spa treatment images don't show up when I input the actual description. "basti" returns 0 images. I may have to change all the descriptions to "ayurveda massage" or something more general. pity.

Descriptions aren't searchable, only keywords within iStock's search, and I believe titles are searchable in Google.

Your Anzac Day searches are down c10% of the total hits on that search, which is the same as mine, so it depends on size of search.

You don't have basti in the keywords for image #23930928, so that's why it wouldn't show up in a search (it's in the title, which isn't searchable inside iS).

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #228 on:** May 01, 2013, 04:51 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 01, 2013, 04:45

Quote from: gillian on May 01, 2013, 04:22
Quote from: ShadySue on May 01, 2013, 01:41
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
just did a test: my anzac day stuff is on the first page. what's more of a concern is that my specialised ayurvedic spa treatment images don't show up when I input the actual description. "basti" returns 0 images. I may have to change all the descriptions to "ayurveda massage" or something more general. pity.
Descriptions aren't searchable, only keywords within iStock's search, and I believe titles are searchable in Google.

Your Anzac Day searches are down c10% of the total hits on that search, which is the same as mine, so it depends on size of search.

You don't have basti in the keywords for image #23930928, so that's why it wouldn't show up in a search (it's in the title, which isn't searchable inside iS).

IS only searches keywords on their own site? Why do I add title description and catagory.

gillian vann · « **Reply #229 on:** May 01, 2013, 04:53 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 01, 2013, 04:45

Quote from: gillian on May 01, 2013, 04:22
Quote from: ShadySue on May 01, 2013, 01:41
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
just did a test: my anzac day stuff is on the first page. what's more of a concern is that my specialised ayurvedic spa treatment images don't show up when I input the actual description. "basti" returns 0 images. I may have to change all the descriptions to "ayurveda massage" or something more general. pity.
Descriptions aren't searchable, only keywords within iStock's search, and I believe titles are searchable in Google.

Your Anzac Day searches are down c10% of the total hits on that search, which is the same as mine, so it depends on size of search.

You don't have basti in the keywords for image #23930928, so that's why it wouldn't show up in a search (it's in the title, which isn't searchable inside iS).

hmm, wonder why that is. I'll go and have a look. I'll have the only images on iS with that as a keyword. sshh. not that there's a huge market for these images, but they are niche. question: if the word isn't in the CV is it searchable?
thanks for that! if you're bored you can look over the rest of my port and suggest tweaks

ShadySue · « **Reply #230 on:** May 01, 2013, 05:04 »

Quote from: gillian on May 01, 2013, 04:53

question: if the word isn't in the CV is it searchable?

Yes, but it won't be translated into the 'community languages', which won't matter in cases like basti or place names, but could matter in other cases.
Also if it's a keyword phrase which isn't in the CV like eg "buzzing hornets", it not only wouldn't be translated, but a searcher would need to know to search for it in quotes, or it would be separated into two words in the search, buzzing and hornets.

Oh, maybe you did have basti in the keywords, but I just couldn't see them.
For weeks now there's been some issue whereby totally wrong images come up in a search, but even when I go in to wiki them, the keyword isn't showing, and I'm wondering if that's non-CV keywords You can let me know if you did have 'basti' in your keywords, though that wouldn't explain why it didn't show up in a search.

Time: not right now, sorry. I discovered that a lot of my previously-working banner/lightbox inks now don't work. Spend an hour yesterday totally redoing Scotland and another hour this morning redoing architecture, and I have some other lightbox links still to sort. H*ll, why can't they leave what's working alone?

gillian vann · « **Reply #231 on:** May 01, 2013, 05:18 »

no it wasn't there. might be cos I use the optimize function in DeepMeta which drops out lots of keywords. i've added it in and it shows up.

ShadySue · « **Reply #232 on:** May 01, 2013, 05:22 »

Quote from: gillian on May 01, 2013, 05:18

I use the optimize function in DeepMeta which drops out lots of keywords.

I don't use DM for keywording/uploading. It has far too many quirks.
However it's really useful for changing lightbox links.

tickstock · « **Reply #233 on:** May 01, 2013, 06:54 »

lisafx · « **Reply #234 on:** May 01, 2013, 11:00 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 01, 2013, 06:54

Quote from: ShadySue on May 01, 2013, 01:41
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
That sounds like a good placement for new files in the Best Match, top 10%. Your files have no sales so they shouldn't be put at the top of the search for their "main keyword", how would the main keyword differ from any other keyword before an image gets sales?

That makes sense, but consider that if an image slides off the first few pages within a matter of days they are less likely to ever get any sales.

ShadySue · « **Reply #235 on:** May 01, 2013, 11:35 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 01, 2013, 11:00

Quote from: tickstock on May 01, 2013, 06:54
Quote from: ShadySue on May 01, 2013, 01:41
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
That sounds like a good placement for new files in the Best Match, top 10%. Your files have no sales so they shouldn't be put at the top of the search for their "main keyword", how would the main keyword differ from any other keyword before an image gets sales?

That makes sense, but consider that if an image slides off the first few pages within a matter of days they are less likely to ever get any sales.

Quite.
I'm hoping not to have to deactivate the latest lot for that reason.

ShadySue · « **Reply #236 on:** May 01, 2013, 14:40 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 01, 2013, 11:35

Quote from: lisafx on May 01, 2013, 11:00
Quote from: tickstock on May 01, 2013, 06:54
Quote from: ShadySue on May 01, 2013, 01:41
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
That sounds like a good placement for new files in the Best Match, top 10%. Your files have no sales so they shouldn't be put at the top of the search for their "main keyword", how would the main keyword differ from any other keyword before an image gets sales?

That makes sense, but consider that if an image slides off the first few pages within a matter of days they are less likely to ever get any sales.
Quite.
I'm hoping not to have to deactivate the latest lot for that reason.

My 'check' files are down about another 5% today. No wonder the files I've uploaded this year (and haven't deactivated) are hardly even getting views!

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #237 on:** May 01, 2013, 17:59 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 01, 2013, 14:40

Quote from: ShadySue on May 01, 2013, 11:35
Quote from: lisafx on May 01, 2013, 11:00
Quote from: tickstock on May 01, 2013, 06:54
Quote from: ShadySue on May 01, 2013, 01:41
The best match is still punishing new files. Two files which went into my port overnight Mon/Tues are already down at 57/58 for their main keyword, out of 'only' 535 in the search.
Some from last week are already below 200 for their geographical location.
So all a bit pointless.
That sounds like a good placement for new files in the Best Match, top 10%. Your files have no sales so they shouldn't be put at the top of the search for their "main keyword", how would the main keyword differ from any other keyword before an image gets sales?

That makes sense, but consider that if an image slides off the first few pages within a matter of days they are less likely to ever get any sales.
Quite.
I'm hoping not to have to deactivate the latest lot for that reason.
My 'check' files are down about another 5% today. No wonder the files I've uploaded this year (and haven't deactivated) are hardly even getting views!

Views are only recorded for those who are logged in at the time. Those not logged in can still view your images but it is not recorded. It's been this way for several months. Apparently not many log in anymore cuz I've been getting very few views for a long time.
There's been discussion that the number of views also influences best match placement. If that's true new files which are not getting many recorded views due to the way they are now being recorded are competing with older files which have a ton of views accumulated during the previous method of recording them...if that makes sense.
My new files have really been taking a hit since the first of the year. I've lost all confidence that iStock will do anything about it. Seems like a waste of time to upload. That, and many other things including promising new opportunities, have convinced me to trash the crown....24 days to go.

dingles · « **Reply #238 on:** May 01, 2013, 21:38 »

IS actually has stated that only logged in views are counted and that is the intended behavior. They first said it was done this way to keep contributors from view padding foe best match and then later said views have only a small influence on best match. Either way I think all views should count and view padding wouldn't make sense if they use a view vs download ratio...that way low views and high downloads would be weighted heavier than tons of views and low downloads. Anyway views are currently useless as they now stand as they now offer very little for us to gauge anything

Silken Photography · « **Reply #239 on:** May 02, 2013, 00:15 »

The views story keeps changing. Originally it was an unexpected display bug after their big upgrade in September - the numbers were recording correctly in their database but not showing in contributors' views. Then it was logged in viewers only were counted, but still a bug. Now it's a feature and deliberate.

I don't tend to cynicism but this doesn't foster any trust.

ShadySue · « **Reply #240 on:** May 02, 2013, 05:56 »

It's hard to know what percentage is malice vs incompetence.

Whatever, the fact that new files sink fast and constantly in the best match not only implies there's no point in uploading unless you have found some new and unique subjects (which buyers want) but also add fuel to what's really behind the raising of the upload limits. I don't think it's just 'to increase the collection', but they always do something worse than any of my conspiracy theories/wild imaginings.
Already we know that "We don't foresee any significant increase in queue wait times" was 'inaccurate' (for indy uploads) - at the very least, they should change their clairvoyant.

dingles · « **Reply #241 on:** May 02, 2013, 09:23 »

Quote from: Silken Photography on May 02, 2013, 00:15

The views story keeps changing. Originally it was an unexpected display bug after their big upgrade in September - the numbers were recording correctly in their database but not showing in contributors' views. Then it was logged in viewers only were counted, but still a bug. Now it's a feature and deliberate.

I don't tend to cynicism but this doesn't foster any trust.

Yeah, they have back tracked a lot then eventually just said it was the intended behavior.

ShadySue · « **Reply #242 on:** May 02, 2013, 09:46 »

"It's not a bug, it's a feature"

ShadySue · « **Reply #243 on:** May 03, 2013, 07:21 »

Here's another observation.
New files seem to fall around 5% per day.
I've been tracking some of my recent uploads and while I see them falling, I don't see that the files now above me (some in single figures) have had sales since I uploaded, though obviously their historic sales are higher.
Still super fast exclusive inspections - but it's moot if the files disappear within a few days.
[Queue: 196870]

tickstock · « **Reply #244 on:** May 03, 2013, 08:38 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #245 on:** May 03, 2013, 08:55 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 03, 2013, 08:38

Quote from: ShadySue on May 03, 2013, 07:21
Here's another observation.
New files seem to fall around 5% per day.
I've been tracking some of my recent uploads and while I see them falling, I don't see that the files now above me (some in single figures) have had sales since I uploaded, though obviously their historic sales are higher.
Still super fast exclusive inspections - but it's moot if the files disappear within a few days.
[Queue: 196870]
It doesn't seem to me to like a new file should be at the top of the Best Match search for 50 different keyword searches (for each different keyword in the new file). And if they do give a new file a chance how long should it stay in the front of the search? Pretty soon the front of the search is just like sorting by age with nothing to do with relevance. Good proven best sellers should be at the front of the best match, new files should have to get sales to move up.

YMMV, and probaby you're getting loads of sales on day 1, but if files are falling below position 200 (in large searches) after a day or two, and continuing downwards on a daily basis, even if the other files around them aren't selling in the same timescale, (bearing in mind that old files have probably been lightboxed months ago) they have very little chance. (1)
In fact, between Sept and Jan, files were demoted even further on their first download, and I see people reporting the same still happening on the best match discussion on iS.
(1) That said, who knows. Overnight (BST) I had three sales, from different buyers of different subjects, from 2008, all of low-selling files, one of which (with only 3 previous dls) is in a hugely-supplied/sold area; so who knows what the best match did yesterday!

tickstock · « **Reply #246 on:** May 03, 2013, 09:20 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #247 on:** May 08, 2013, 17:42 »

I guess they're doing that old thing whereby the factories they have deals with can get their files in without their keywords being looked at. There's a bunch of Agency Polar Bears apparently uploaded yesterday and searchable already. Not making any comment about the photos, but they have multiple locations including Central Europe and Chateaueuf-sur-Loire, Western Europe, France ... all well known Polar Bear locations (sarcasm alert) as well as Manitoba, Canada etc. Also 'rearing up' and 'animals hunting' with 'resting' of a bear lying in the snow.
I really, really despair.

gillian vann · « **Reply #248 on:** May 08, 2013, 17:55 »

you can report wrong keywords, can't you?

ShadySue · « **Reply #249 on:** May 08, 2013, 18:15 »

Quote from: gillian on May 08, 2013, 17:55

you can report wrong keywords, can't you?

These seem to go in as 'needs review', meaning the keywords aren't being checked at ingestion. Files I wikied well over two years ago are still unchanged, some lightboxes I submitted for batch wiki, as was asked for by Team Keywords haven't been looked at from as far back as March 2010, and a small sample of older ingested 'needs review' agency files haven't been changed in over a year, so ...

How can they ever hope to improve best match if they allow this?
Why are these people so appallingly bad at keywording anyway?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Uploaded limits raised to 999 (Read 47684 times)

qwerty

gillian vann

ShadySue

YadaYadaYada

gillian vann

ShadySue

gillian vann

ShadySue

tickstock

lisafx

ShadySue

ShadySue

mlwinphoto

dingles

Silken Photography

ShadySue

dingles

ShadySue

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

gillian vann

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors