Author Topic: Comments on LO photos - Trade 1/1 (Read 18765 times)

bryan_luckyoliver · « **Reply #25 on:** February 01, 2007, 20:39 »

tgt-
It's good to have a dialog about this...I even think it is ok to write your concerns on the LuckyOliver blog. Let me outline a few more thoughts on the subject.

1. We have a long term strategy that involves many different types of marketing activities- one that cannot be ignored is Google. The beast has to be fed. Comments are a great way to feed this monster. There are a number of technical reasons for our set-up (I won't bore you with all the details, but the site is built to benefit our contributors). While we can say 'write only positive comments', it's not really helpful to the community, nor would it build trust with our customers.

2. It might be odd, but a photo with a negative comment that gets 2 views a day from Google is more likely to be sold. You'll have to trust us on this. From the limited dataset we have, people still buy photos that are overexposed and crooked. Sometimes they just need THAT image.

3. Remember, Bouncers are helping filter photos before they go on the site. Giving photographers the option to further comment ties the community together. Yeah, I know how other stock sites are...but we're not like them, nor do we intend to be like them. Education is important- the web provides a great place to learn.

Amazon proved that you can still sell products that half of customers don't like- marketing with only positive feedback doesn't always work. Most buyers would prefer to know more about what they're buying. If you look at my comments 90% are positive. The other 10% I find a way to spin the negatives in a way that isn't 'the right way', but as an alternative.

4. Let me give you an example: Remember Leaf's photo of the chiwawa?
http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/79609/chiwawa

He gets 15-30 views on this photo from Google everyday with the word 'chiwawa'. I'm guessing if everyone commented on his photos, it would increase his ranking on Google. There are a number of factors for this...but it's a great example from this group.

5. People buy from people, not just a nameless database. Comments are a way for the character of the site to come alive. Customers will gravitate towards optimism, education and high quality. In the conversations I have with customers they typically comment on how they enjoy the openness of LuckyOliver. That's not created by me, it's all of you guys coming together to share your ideas and photos.

6. Here is more thoughts on the idea:
http://www.luckyoliver.com/blog/153/comment_coaching
http://www.luckyoliver.com/blog/126/More+on+Comments
http://www.luckyoliver.com/blog/144/hey_you_cant_say_that

While we're not always right, we're going to continue to support comments. Right now it's helping immensely- if it looks like it's a dud, we'll be the first to admit it. Thanks for everyone's participation...you guys are really fun to read.

Bryan

Void · « **Reply #26 on:** February 01, 2007, 22:28 »

To Bryan

"he gets 15-30 views on this photo from Google everyday with the word 'chiwawa'. I'm guessing if everyone commented on his photos, it would increase his ranking on Google. There are a number of factors for this...but it's a great example from this group."

being a website builder and having fairly decent knowledge on how search engines work, I don't see the sense or logic in your statement. how do comments on a picture, which chances are do not have the dog's breed written in it increase it's google rating {unles one is word spamming}. random words connected with "chiwawa" will do nothing to increase where it ends up on the search page. could you be more specific with your statement please?

The only info that comes up on Google on the example given is the metatags {taken from source info:<meta name="title" content="Chiwawa photo by tyler olson, LuckyOliver stock photo" />
<meta name="description" content="Stock photo: A white chihuahua posing for the camera" />}

The Google result :Chiwawa photo by tyler olson, LuckyOliver stock photo
Stock photo: A white chihuahua posing for the camera.

no comments seen there.....

Yes the search engines like text, but when I am searching for images on google i go right to the "images " section that comes up....silly me, maybe I should be looking at the words instead of the pictures....if I am looking for a stock photo, I go to the stock sites.....

I am still not a believer in the comments helping sales, but would like to be.

I also feel that it would be better for the photographers and the buyers to hear comments directly from designers and those that actually put these pictures to use.

Even if it is still small at this point, showing us the best sellers on the stats page will give all a good idea of what is actually selling.

the proof is in the pudding as they say.

Hope I wasn't out of line, hope no one was offended, now stop spending so much time typing words and go take more pictures....we are photographers and artists ain't we?
:-)

Quote from Michael Grecco: "How many photographers does it take to change a lightbulb? Fifty. One to change it an 49 to say how they would have done it differently."

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #27 on:** February 01, 2007, 22:38 »

Bryan.. and all. My comments above were not to be meant as negative criticism directed towards Lucky Oliver. A check of my uploading record to LO will testify to my feelings toward LO and my hope for their future success. LO is the first place I upload every new pic I shoot, first place! LO holds my largest portfolio (BigStock close behind).
When the comment option first came up on LO, I had mixed emotions. I had seen my wife go through a commenting fiasco on a site where she sold her photography. It went down in two directions. One group, making endless request via the site mail begging people to make comments on their work pro quid quo..... you give me 5 comments, I'll give you 5. More time was spent in emails than in shooting pix. The other group became vindictive, "You can get better pictures of such and such ...yada yada...elsewhere". Very negative and unflattering comments. Neither served any useful purpose, rather, they became damaging. My wife eventually pulled all her work and closed the account, as did others on the site.
I understood what LO is looking for in comments but I wondered, would all carnies?. As I said in my comment above, I was apprehensive about it. However, I made a decision at that time to support the LO effort. I wanted and still want to see this Lucky Oliver machine succeed. And I admit here to all what I did say on the blog back on November 5th .... quote from the LO blog

Considering the professional level in the photography of the other Carnies here...... .... I can only see their personal comments as a means to further improve my own work. I think it will be a positive addition to the site.

That was based on the hope that comments would be positive and also that they would be monitored by the powers that be at LO. And, that if they got out of hand, or inappropriate, they'd be censored. I supported it while at the same time being a bit skeptical of the outcome.
At this time, I am still leery about the public commenting and my final feelings are still held in reserve. However, I do actively comment on LO and I made the above quoted comment on the blog in support of your request and... in the hopes that those "professionals" would use the comment option in a proper manner. You personally have made comments on a couple of my pictures and they were flattering and helpful. But, that is you. You are a professional and you are well aware of 'model' business and people management practices. All of the comments made on my LO pictures are complimentary. But evidently some carnies are not as gentle or tactful. That's human nature.
As well, many do not desire to have comments attached to their pictures, pro or con, but particularly con. When I have made comments on my fellow carnies pix, I try to be encouraging and upbuilding. I will continue to comment on others pictures in a positive manner. However, I remain in my opinion that I do not see how a negative comment can be of value in the selling of the picture. I can understand how it may increase the views.... but not it's sales.

I have to bow to your superior knowledge of how the comments have affect on the internet and its workings. I know zip about the topic. You are the president and leader of this future mega-corp (hopefully). You have a very public record of success in the business world. You've proven yourself. I respect that. I, on the other hand, just teach business management to low and mid-managers [you know what they say about teachers]

. I accept what you're telling us on LO, as can be evidenced by my participation in the Lucky Oliver program and agenda. I'd love to see my LO sales as 84% of my volume, and I'm hanging in there.
I'm always open to learn something new. As it is, you'll just have to show me, in time, how those kinds of comments will help sales.

Hey, if it turns out to be true... I can eat my words... I can admit I'm wrong... I personally have a very thick skin. If negative comments will sell my pictures, ..... go fer it! If it'll sell a pic a couple dozen times a day, bring it on, rip it up!

However, most people, I believe, will not be so accepting.
I did not intend to offend anyone in my comments,especially Bryan and the LO folks. Just because I am only in 99.9% agreement with the LO philosophy, doesn't mean I don't want to be on the rocketship with Bryan and the gang when it takes off! Peace - tom

Bryan, I would like to personally mail you from the LO site about this.

bryan_luckyoliver · « **Reply #28 on:** February 02, 2007, 00:18 »

TGT-
I didn't really see what you wrote as negative! I'm an evangelist for everyone on LuckyOliver, so I want people to know why we support certain ideas and features. We can't please everyone, but we want photographers and illustrators to know why we make decisions.

It's not even reasonable to expect everything we do will be liked. We have many great relationships with members who don't always like everything about us. It's more important that we have a forum to discuss ideas. You win some, you lose some. We do listen

We appreciate your efforts!

Void-
Like you said, the proof is in the pudding. Building a company takes time. I admire the job Shutterstock has done in building a great site. It's taken them 4-5 years to build their company. I applaud them for their efforts, but we don't want to be another Shutterstock. We've been live for 8 months. The site is still not buyer focused, but we have made some huge strides in the last two months.

And yes, you have some parts correct about Google, but 'on page' content is only one part of how Google works. Google has over 100 variables they play with in determining the value of a web page. One of the largest factors is PageRank. Think of the web as a series of connected pages- Google tries to make sense of this mess through links.

I don't want to go into specifics of what we're doing, but I can assure you that Leaf's page didn't get higher simply because of the 'on-page' content-it has just as much to do with who and how many people linked to his page. I've been doing this for ten years, increased many businesses revenues online and have helped build ClickTracks, an award winning web analytics software.

We're not always right, but this is a good direction for LuckyOliver. Again, I appreciate the effort everyone has put into LuckyOliver. We had another record sales, download and traffic month. Thanks!

Pixart · « **Reply #29 on:** February 02, 2007, 00:53 »

I think I've commented at least once on everyone above.

I've had a great time kicking around in everyone's portfolios the past couple days. Seems like I know know you better. Berryspun - Iowa looks a lot like Saskatchewan/Manitoba (but I bet it's not -20 down there tonight though).

Thanks, everyone, for all the encouraging comments that have come my way.
-Lorraine

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #30 on:** February 02, 2007, 01:11 »

It's 1:06 am for me and I just finished hitting everyone here that posted a link. I echo Lorraine's comment in seeming to know you all better. I enjoyed all your work and could have commented on many of your pictures! We have some really great photogs in the family here!! -tom

berryspun · « **Reply #31 on:** February 02, 2007, 01:29 »

Lorraine, minus 20 Celsius or Fahrenheit ?

Currently where I live in Iowa:

Thursday Night, Feb 1
Low: 8 °F RealFeel®: -20 °F
Low: -14 °C RealFeel®: -29 °C
Mostly cloudy, breezy and cold

I agree too, I was also very happy to browse through such a diversity of great portfolios. Such a treat!

Thank you TGT, GeoPappas, Void, and Bryan, for your very detailed comments in this thread. Heartfelt and very instructive.

As a follow-up for the 2 pictures in question, I have added comments myself, just to clarify the choices I made for the lighting and the perspective of these 2 pictures.

leaf · « **Reply #32 on:** February 02, 2007, 09:01 »

I'm guessing pixart was meaning celcius, which would mean -4 F plus whatever the wind chill was.. (or realfeel for americans, if that is what you use). Currently in saskatchewan it is -22 C which is about -8 F

GeoPappas · « **Reply #33 on:** February 02, 2007, 09:22 »

Quote from: leaf on February 02, 2007, 09:01

whatever the wind chill was.. (or realfeel for americans, if that is what you use).

The U.S. uses wind chill also.

RealFeel is a temperature index that was trademarked by AccuWeather that is supposed to be more accurate. See the following for more info:

http://www.accuweather.com/iwxpage/adc/help/pr_realfeel_pr.htm

berryspun · « **Reply #34 on:** February 02, 2007, 10:06 »

You're right, wind chill is the accurate expression. I realize that there is a little ® after RealFeel, and yes I took the info from the AccuWeather site.

Back tho the topic of the thread, if anyone else would like to be added to the LO list for adding comments for fellow photographer's pictures (the ones you like, of course), here is the place to add your link.

madelaide · « **Reply #35 on:** February 02, 2007, 15:42 »

I'm here:
http://www.luckyoliver.com/portfolio/madelaide/newest/1

Regards,
Adelaide

digiology · « **Reply #36 on:** February 02, 2007, 17:19 »

Me too:
http://www.luckyoliver.com/portfolio/digiology/popular

Berryspun - Thanks for the well written descriptive comments.

w7lwi · « **Reply #37 on:** February 02, 2007, 20:12 »

One more.

http://www.luckyoliver.com/portfolio/Triassic/popular

pelmof · « **Reply #38 on:** February 03, 2007, 13:52 »

Hi, all. I'm playing--have commented on a few so far, and will continue. My link is here:
http://www.luckyoliver.com/portfolio/pelmof/popular/1

P__

madelaide · « **Reply #39 on:** February 03, 2007, 17:40 »

Hey folks, let's not exagerate in the number of comments. Someone may get angry at that...

Regards,
Adelaide

Pixart · « **Reply #40 on:** February 05, 2007, 19:30 »

This is a good example of what is WRONG with the comments feature. Look at the incoherent mean spirited crap this "Carnie" is posting. Seems to be focused on photos accepted today.

I removed the link since it's been taken care of.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #41 on:** February 05, 2007, 21:09 »

Pixart.... Are you talking about "dario"?? 'cause I just clicked on the link and there's nothing there... ?? Maybe Bryan or one of the others wiped it out? What happened? -tom

Void · « **Reply #42 on:** February 05, 2007, 21:15 »

there was a lot of them and they deserved to be deleted, you didnt miss anything tgt

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #43 on:** February 05, 2007, 22:58 »

Well, I'm just happy to hear that LO is on top of it. Put's one of my concerns to rest. -tom

Pixart · « **Reply #44 on:** February 06, 2007, 00:30 »

There - I successfully removed the link from my earlier post. Give the guy a second chance... (the three pix in is portfolio are actually pretty good). Judging by his incoherent ramblings he was likely drunk and will wake up blissfully unaware of what his evil alter ego was up to.

Everyone has a right to their opinion... but he had about 12 nasties in a row. It's reassuring that LO caught on right away and gave him a spanking.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #45 on:** February 06, 2007, 08:07 »

wasn't him..... t'was his evil twin.....

--tom

scubabartek · « **Reply #46 on:** February 20, 2007, 17:41 »

Here is a non-geek translation guys:

The fact that the page itself has comments has no bearing for Google. What helps is that every time a photographer comments on a picture, the link to that page with a photo is written onto another page. So if 10 of you comment on my picture, suddenly that page has 10 links linking to it, therefore increasing its page ranking.

So yup. Okay I'm in for some ratings too.

Quote from: bryan_luckyoliver on February 02, 2007, 00:18

And yes, you have some parts correct about Google, but 'on page' content is only one part of how Google works. Google has over 100 variables they play with in determining the value of a web page. One of the largest factors is PageRank. Think of the web as a series of connected pages- Google tries to make sense of this mess through links.

I don't want to go into specifics of what we're doing, but I can assure you that Leaf's page didn't get higher simply because of the 'on-page' content-it has just as much to do with who and how many people linked to his page. I've been doing this for ten years, increased many businesses revenues online and have helped build ClickTracks, an award winning web analytics software.

Void · « **Reply #47 on:** February 21, 2007, 11:28 »

Quote from: scubabartek on February 20, 2007, 17:41

Here is a non-geek translation guys:

The fact that the page itself has comments has no bearing for Google. What helps is that every time a photographer comments on a picture, the link to that page with a photo is written onto another page. So if 10 of you comment on my picture, suddenly that page has 10 links linking to it, therefore increasing its page ranking.

So yup. Okay I'm in for some ratings too.

Quote from: bryan_luckyoliver on February 02, 2007, 00:18
And yes, you have some parts correct about Google, but 'on page' content is only one part of how Google works. Google has over 100 variables they play with in determining the value of a web page. One of the largest factors is PageRank. Think of the web as a series of connected pages- Google tries to make sense of this mess through links.

I don't want to go into specifics of what we're doing, but I can assure you that Leaf's page didn't get higher simply because of the 'on-page' content-it has just as much to do with who and how many people linked to his page. I've been doing this for ten years, increased many businesses revenues online and have helped build ClickTracks, an award winning web analytics software.

if i remember correctly, internal links don't mean jack....if you have tons of pages on your site and links back and forth among them all, that doesnt do anything with rankings....

as far as i know the real links that matter are the external ones, like if the sites your pictures were on linked to your personal site, that would help raise the ranking of your personal site.....
i could be wrong....but then maybe not....

scubabartek · « **Reply #48 on:** February 21, 2007, 17:57 »

Quote from: Void on February 21, 2007, 11:28

if i remember correctly, internal links don't mean jack....if you have tons of pages on your site and links back and forth among them all, that doesnt do anything with rankings....

as far as i know the real links that matter are the external ones, like if the sites your pictures were on linked to your personal site, that would help raise the ranking of your personal site.....
i could be wrong....but then maybe not....

They don't count as heavily, but I was able to bump my site to a very high spot (#2 worldwide) for a very particular search phrase by linking to it from other pages (site content). True, nothing's better than having a link to it from elsewhere, but any links help. Then again Google and its mysterious algorithms keep many great minds at bay...

Void · « **Reply #49 on:** February 21, 2007, 19:06 »

for those interested in learning about google and other search engine optimization stuff....

http://www.seochat.com/c/b/Google-Optimization-Help/

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Comments on LO photos - Trade 1/1 (Read 18765 times)

bryan_luckyoliver

Void

a.k.a.-tom

bryan_luckyoliver

Pixart

a.k.a.-tom

berryspun

leaf

GeoPappas

berryspun

madelaide

digiology

w7lwi

pelmof

madelaide

Pixart

a.k.a.-tom

Void

a.k.a.-tom

Pixart

a.k.a.-tom

scubabartek

Void

scubabartek

Void

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors