FAA - The Largest Art Site in the World?

[XPTO]

I'm more concerned about the dishonesty re the 'sponsor this page and every visitor will see your image on the third line' (if they're dishonest in this, can we trust them?).

How do you know the sponsor page program is dishonest?

If someone gives me specifics keywords you've used to sponsor searches, I can make those searches and post print screens of my results to see if they are being dishonest or not.

But please consider the keywords you're giving me. Don't give the keyword "flower" for example because it's possible that a ton of other contributors are sponsoring it too, and as mentioned in the conditions the sponsored results will vary to show all the people that are sponsoring this term. So, there might be a chance that I don't get your image in this "lottery".

Also, don't give me keywords that only bring a few tenths of results because it's possible that your images come up on the third row simply because there are no sponsors and they filled the space.

So, if you have sponsored a term that gives a few hundred results of a subject not as popular as flower, or sea, or sunset post here and I'll post a print screen of the third row for you to see if it's a scam or not.

Or sponsor a random couple just for the test, since the results are immediate if the process is well done.

[ShadySue]

I'm more concerned about the dishonesty re the 'sponsor this page and every visitor will see your image on the third line' (if they're dishonest in this, can we trust them?).

How do you know the sponsor page program is dishonest?

We established it back here on page 8 of this thread, e.g.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/product-resale-forum/faa-the-largest-art-site-in-the-world/msg296050/#msg296050.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/product-resale-forum/faa-the-largest-art-site-in-the-world/msg296059/#msg296059

NB, I only refreshed 7 times, so I don't know whether that's '1 in 8 of visitors will see your image on the third line', or many more, and I was lucky to find one on the seventh refresh.

At very best, it's bait and switch.
The announcement page which pops up (rotating with the recent sales announcement page) whenever I log into the site proper and not my own personal subsite, and says very clearly "Each time someone visits one of your sponsored pages, your images will appear in the third row (in addition to wherever they would have normally appeared without your sponsorship).
There is NOTHING on that page about the third line being rotated.

However, it is true that when I clicked on the 'sponsor this page' link on a page of 'zebra' images, it says as 'additional information: 2"
There are only three featured positions available per page.   If multiple artists have posted links to the zebra art page, then the three featured positions will be randomly filled with images from those artists.   The images in the featured positions will change each time that the page is refreshed or visited by a new visitor.

So, definitely a 'bait and switch' from the vaunted announcement page.
Also the link under the second row of results says:
"Fine Art America Members
Sponsor this page, and your artwork will be shown in the next row, below."
Nothing about 'will be shown to 1 in {however many people sponsor this link}'.

Also, as that invitation to sponsor to receive preferred positioning appears on, for example, 'recently sold' and 'most recently added', clearly the placement is not according to the filter description and so is dishonest to visitors.

[gemmy12]

Does anyone (who synchronized his FAA gallery with Amazon) see traffic coming to FAA from Amazon ?

[XPTO]

At very best, it's bait and switch.
The announcement page which pops up (rotating with the recent sales announcement page) whenever I log into the site proper and not my own personal subsite, and says very clearly "Each time someone visits one of your sponsored pages, your images will appear in the third row (in addition to wherever they would have normally appeared without your sponsorship).
There is NOTHING on that page about the third line being rotated.

However, it is true that when I clicked on the 'sponsor this page' link on a page of 'zebra' images, it says as 'additional information: 2"
There are only three featured positions available per page.   If multiple artists have posted links to the zebra art page, then the three featured positions will be randomly filled with images from those artists.   The images in the featured positions will change each time that the page is refreshed or visited by a new visitor.

So, definitely a 'bait and switch' from the vaunted announcement page.
Also the link under the second row of results says:
"Fine Art America Members
Sponsor this page, and your artwork will be shown in the next row, below." Nothing about 'will be shown to 1 in however many people sponsor this link'.


Also, as that invitation to sponsor to receive preferred positioning appears on, for example, 'recently sold' and 'most recently added', clearly the placement is not according to the filter description and so is dishonest to visitors.

I just think that classifying it as dishonest is a bit strong.

It's possibly badly worded because, as even you quoted, the program is very clear for anyone that bothers to read the explanation! I never had any doubts how it worked!

Unless you want to have 10 "third" rows to accommodate all the sponsoring members I don't think it's either dishonest or "bait and switch".

As far as I'm concerned it works according to the explanation.

I've accessed the site under a proxy site so I'd mask my IP and with a browser that I haven't used to access it so there's no cookies to be used by FAA, and not only the search results are similar to those I see when I'm logged in, but when I clicked on my images those views were recorded in the stats as being from visitors from US cities, which are located several thousands of kilometers away from my real location.

So I don't know what's wrong.

[ShadySue]

I guess it depends where one falls in regarding bait and switch as 'sharp practice' or dishonesty.
I'm sure they're going to switch to actual pay for placement soon, else why call it 'sponsor'?

[XPTO]

I guess it depends where one falls in regarding bait and switch as 'sharp practice' or dishonesty.
I'm sure they're going to switch to actual pay for placement soon, else why call it 'sponsor'?

Well, when I look at the decisions taken by micros in the last few years it takes a lot more than bad wording to classify a company as dishonest... If I had to call FAA dishonest because of this I would need to invent a new vocabulary just to be able to insult the micro agencies... 

I also don't see any evidence of paying for placement in FAA since the sponsor program has been there for years if I'm not wrong. I think that you "pay" FAA for this benefit by advertising FAA with the links. It's how I understand it, at least.

[stockastic]

Maybe the keyword sponsoring thing just isn't working as intended.   Yesterday I noticed something else that didn't work.  I had looked at a couple of my photos from a mobile device and later, when I checked my 'views', I saw that my location wasn't reported correctly. (I'm in Minneapolis but it put me in California and Missouri, on subsequent hits).  This used to work because I can still see my previous views.

Like I said earlier, FAA is one guy plus a couple of support people.  As a former software developer, I'm absolutely staggered by what he's put together and by how well it works overall.  And by how much money it's pulling in!   There is absolutely no way that one guy can be running this business, making deals with Amazon etc, dealing with printing shops, shipping cloud storage, web hosting, 2 employees, 100,000+ contributors, and who knows what else - while at the same time implementing requests and changes on this big complicated site. 

My hat's off to this guy.  But we just can't expect much to change on the site, unless he wants to expand.  Changes, features and fixes will appear very slowly if at all, because he just can't afford to break anything.

[Poncke]

I just think that classifying it as dishonest is a bit strong.

It's possibly badly worded because, as even you quoted, the program is very clear for anyone that bothers to read the explanation! I never had any doubts how it worked!

Unless you want to have 10 "third" rows to accommodate all the sponsoring members I don't think it's either dishonest or "bait and switch".

As far as I'm concerned it works according to the explanation.

I've accessed the site under a proxy site so I'd mask my IP and with a browser that I haven't used to access it so there's no cookies to be used by FAA, and not only the search results are similar to those I see when I'm logged in, but when I clicked on my images those views were recorded in the stats as being from visitors from US cities, which are located several thousands of kilometers away from my real location.

So I don't know what's wrong.

Erm, I did the same thing, masking my IP and my results were significantly different.

I have also received several PMs on the matter and there is loads of fishy stuff going on on FAA with the search, best sellers get higher ranking but thats not advocated, shipping cost are 60% higher on average then on similar sites, and the sponsor pages are not doing what they are supposed to do.

[XPTO]

Erm, I did the same thing, masking my IP and my results were significantly different.

I have also received several PMs on the matter and there is loads of fishy stuff going on on FAA with the search, best sellers get higher ranking but thats not advocated, shipping cost are 60% higher on average then on similar sites, and the sponsor pages are not doing what they are supposed to do.

But the keywords you've sponsored were from a very popular nature like, Paris, New York, cat, dog, etc., or did you sponsor words that made only a few hundred images come up?

Because if you are sponsoring a very popular keyword the chances are that many other people have done it too and the available slots cannot show all members sponsoring. In this case each time a search is done the members shown will rotate.

From what I could test I couldn't see any problem with the sponsored pages and my images came in the third line. In many cases they were the only ones filling that line, in others I was sharing the line with others members and in a case or two I had to make a couple searches until I could see my images because of the rotation.

As for best sellers getting higher placements in the basic searches (when a filter hasn't been used) I cannot understand what's the surprise. I think it's something pretty logical.

I cannot pronounce about the shipping costs, but if the problem is the price being 60% more than other similar sites I can't see anything fishy there. Maybe a bad price policy, or a blind trust that buyers will buy anyway since they cannot find that image they want so much anywhere else...

I confess I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding the animosity towards FAA when most of the comments cannot point anything concrete that something "fishy" is happening.

But there seems to be a lot of misinterpretations.

For example, people are saying here that FAA is on autopilot. As another member mentioned, I too have written to support, not only to clear doubts but to make an important change in my account and in a few hours I received not only an answer but the requested change which could only be made by someone putting the hands in the database since I asked to have my account name changed which impacted the url of my account and of my artist website.

Sure, they are not the most advanced website out there or seem to be very open to suggestions, but saying they are fishy...

But I'm open to test some searches of sponsored pages and post the results form other people. Then we may be able to confirm if the sponsoring is fishy or not since I'm not logged in in your accounts and thus act as a normal buyer and see the real search results. I have all the interest in knowing it.

[ShadySue]

I don't do social media or blog so can't sponsor a page (I guess I could put a link page on my moribund domain personal website but I'm sure that's not what's wanted).

However, I'm willing to try out your searches and screendump and publish the results, if you want: but I'm just going out for c3 hours.

Hey, I'm not negative; I've just noticed a couple of possible 'issues'.

[ShadySue]

Hey, we were all wrong - they're going to sort the watermark thing!
Great for them, especially since it's an optional feature.

[ShadySue]

Earlier I posted that some searches were as badly spammed as at the micros, but I've had many searches where I can't see the offending keyword anywhere, and neither can FF's 'search' feature.

So I got one myself. One of my own photos taken in France turned up in a search (within my own port) for USA. Here's what I have:
Description
View of the Louvre museum in Paris with the river Seine in the foreground and Pont Royal.
Keywords:
louvre museum, architecture, paris, france, europe, french, museum, european, art gallery, river seine, seine, pont royal, bridge, mus�e du louvre

Anyone see why that would turn up in a search for 'USA'?

[Poncke]

They add a lot of keywords themselve I think.

Where can you see the watermark announcement?

I wish they did somehting about shipping cost.

[ShadySue]

They add a lot of keywords themselve I think.

Oh, sh*t. We're dooooooomed.
Are these added keywords invisible?
I just went to the file's homepage (not my 'edit' page) and a FF search turns up nothing for USA, so it's not even in the middle of a visible word.

Where can you see the watermark announcement?

It was emailled to me via the request forum.
Ouch, I went to retrieve it from my email trashcan, but for some reason, I seem to have purged it. I guess it is on the request thread that I posted on last week. There seemed to be several threads with the same request.

I wish they did somehting about shipping cost.

One day, maybe.

[Poncke]

Sue, I think its a problem with your word Museum.

THis is what FAA does to your keywords

louvre museum framed prints, architecture framed prints, paris framed prints, france framed prints, europe framed prints, french framed prints, museum framed prints, european framed prints, art gallery framed prints, river seine framed prints, seine framed prints, pont royal framed prints, bridge framed prints, musée du louvre framed prints, louvre museum greeting cards, architecture greeting cards, paris greeting cards, france greeting cards, europe greeting cards, french greeting cards, museum greeting cards, european greeting cards, art gallery greeting cards, river seine greeting cards, seine greeting cards, pont royal greeting cards, bridge greeting cards, musée du louvre greeting cards, louvre museum prints, architecture prints, paris prints, france prints, europe prints, french prints, museum prints, european prints, art gallery prints, river seine prints, seine prints, pont royal prints, bridge prints, musée du louvre prints, louvre museum posters, architecture posters, paris posters, france posters, europe posters, french posters, museum posters, european posters, art gallery posters, river seine posters, seine posters, pont royal posters, bridge posters, mus��e du louvre posters

[ShadySue]

Sue, I think its a problem with your word Museum.

THis is what FAA does to your keywords

louvre museum framed prints, architecture framed prints, paris framed prints, france framed prints, europe framed prints, french framed prints, museum framed prints, european framed prints, art gallery framed prints, river seine framed prints, seine framed prints, pont royal framed prints, bridge framed prints, musée du louvre framed prints, louvre museum greeting cards, architecture greeting cards, paris greeting cards, france greeting cards, europe greeting cards, french greeting cards, museum greeting cards, european greeting cards, art gallery greeting cards, river seine greeting cards, seine greeting cards, pont royal greeting cards, bridge greeting cards, musée du louvre greeting cards, louvre museum prints, architecture prints, paris prints, france prints, europe prints, french prints, museum prints, european prints, art gallery prints, river seine prints, seine prints, pont royal prints, bridge prints, musée du louvre prints, louvre museum posters, architecture posters, paris posters, france posters, europe posters, french posters, museum posters, european posters, art gallery posters, river seine posters, seine posters, pont royal posters, bridge posters, mus��e du louvre posters

Sh*t, thanks.
I thought it would be useful to have just the main subject in French as well as English, as a French person would naturally type the accent. Wonder why FF's 'find' didn't throw that up. Looks like they have a similar problem to iStock's editorial caption, which really messes up accents (and even apostrophes).
Wonder if this issue has been brought up with them. American English isn't the only language. H*ck, e-acute is in Latin 1, what's with these people?

[Poncke]

I dont know how the search works, its apparently an algorithm of 30 odd pieces of data. And their suggestion thread is only a carrot on a stick as they implement only what benefits FAA most (which is their right) but it does frustrate some people I think.

[ShadySue]

I dont know how the search works, its apparently an algorithm of 30 odd pieces of data. And their suggestion thread is only a carrot on a stick as they implement only what benefits FAA most (which is their right) but it does frustrate some people I think.

Certainly makes sense to prioritise on what will benefit their overall business.

I just tried a sitewide search on mus�e du louvre and it turns up 0 hits, so I guess I can take it out of my keywords, and tough on French potential customers, and those from the many other countries whose language has accented characters.

At the prices, I'm sure the US is their primary market.

[Poncke]

Here Sue, musee du louvre, that does work.

[ShadySue]

Here Sue, musee du louvre, that does work.

True, I'll put that in, but I bet a French person will automatically put in the accent and not think to take it out if they get no result.
Thanks for the suggestion, definitely can't do any harm! 

[Maui]

Did you mean Paris in Arkansas,  in Idaho, in Illinois, in Iowa, in Kentucky, in... ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_%28disambiguation%29

[stockastic]

I just tried finding some of my own images (while logged out) by searching keywords.   With some, I succeeded - by searching for several very specific keywords I knew where there.  With others, I failed, they didn't turn up at all and might as well not even be on the site because no one will ever see them.

So far I'd say the Unabomber, while hiding out in a cabin in the back country of Montana, probably got more visits than my photos are getting at FAA.

I don't expect to ever get a single sale through FAA.  I'm putting photos up there just in case, someday, I find  buyers for prints; at this point I don't know how that might happen, but who knows.  With 100,000+ contributors and who knows how many million images, I don't think one should expect sales through keyword searching.  It's just a fantasy.  But I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

[ShadySue]

I don't expect a lot of sales from there, and for sure, no-one in my aquaintance would pay that much for a photo print even before shipping was added. But it's using the time I'd normally be shooting/prepping/uploading to iS, so no problem. So far, I've been trawling my archives, but I intend to shoot more 'arty' stuff, down the line when I get myself into that frame of mind.
While trawling the archives I've found loads of old pics I can delete, so I'm freeing up space on my oldest HD, so all good. 

[stockastic]

Same with me - setting up at FAA has gotten me to finally pull together a lot of my good images from the past, organize them, brighten them a bit for printing, title and keyword.  Now if a better POD comes along, I'm ready; or I could even do a show or art sale.

You're right about the prices.  Yeeessh.  I could never send a friend to FAA for a print.

[trek]

They sell nice looking web sites for $30- a year.  It felt good to upload and organize galleries aesthetically... without consideration for what may get past a reviewer.  I couldn't stop at 25 images so I payed for an account.  Maybe it will break even someday.