Completely impossible comparison.

If there indeed are no duplicates, and the good images are deleted from the "bad" portfolio and uploaded to new portfolios they are all new and will be treated very differently by the search engine.

The only interesting result would be if only the bad images were deleted (not re-uploaded) and the overall revenue increased.

This is how you deal with this:

1. Never click on a link from an e-mail.
2. Log into your account as usual and see if the information from the e-mail is also presented there.
3. Act accordingly or not at all.

The galleries with "only the best" performed DOUBLE than the one containing the best and the rest, in proportion.

Uhm, so you're saying there were tons of DUPLICATE images uploaded? Otherwise, is it surprising that a portfolio of good images sells better than one with bad images? 

That is not publicly available information, but it's likely that Popular will show items that have sold well lately. Meaning a clip that has sold 10 times during the last 2 months will rank higher than a clip with 30 sales over 3 years.

I'm guessing here, but that's how I would do it. 

At Fotolia you can sort by sales.

Hi there, I actually like your grading on some shots, but you're committing the exact same mistake many make when transitioning to footage from something else -- people tend to forget that video is all about motion. I hovered over your thumbnails and can't tell the difference between a still and what's purportedly a motion item.

There's a taste for everything, of course, and you might end up selling some of those clips, but the only thing I can tell you is that, after 1.5 years doing stock footage, none of my bestsellers are 'static' shots.

Take care,

Filipe

A lot of truth in that (although my personal bestsellers are static lockdown shots with lots of movement IN THEM). A stabilizer/steadicam/slider is incredibly useful and lets you take static subjects without movement and give them life. Buyers like that.

Pond5 is usually only #3 for me when it comes to footage, but a clear #1 when it comes to music. It has A LOT to do with when you started.

People who have been with P5 for a while have a huge advantage in the search, if they sell clips that have many uses. Coming in now with subjects that sell really well won't break you out of being invisible because the library is simply so big, and authors with clips there for 5-10 years will always show up in search before you.

I am fortunate to be a top seller when it comes to audio as I've been doing it for a number of years, and that is a huge advantage over newer sellers. When it comes to footage, however, I am relatively invisible. I know I have usable clips because they sell elsewhere every day. But they just can't be found in the enormous ocean that is Pond5 (or the competition is just better).

Just try searching for your latest sale at VB for example with some relevant keywords. I'm sure you'll be able to find it quickly at VB, but probably not at P5.

I can't precisely answer your question but my point was that it's good to manually control the metadata for each site, even if it takes more time.

Proper and careful keywording is never a waste of time. It's the most important thing you can do if you want to maximize sales. It's more important than content.

Different agencies have different search engines that prioritize different things. I want to have full control over the metadata for each agency, and they're not identical. Yes, it takes more time, but my clips can also be found.

Maximizing exposure at VB, P5, Fotolia, SS and VH is not done in the same way.

---

Just as a side note, not really related to your issue, but I've seen so many clips with poor keywording that it's scary (like London clips without "England" anywhere to be seen in the keywords/description). Of course, it's good for me since the competition disappears, but still...

the photos from my travels is the main content I have - considering it a business is not what I want to do - after all I have a day-to-day job.

The beautiful thing is that you can travel tax free if you just get the ball rolling a little bit. Let's say a trip costs $5,000. You would have to earn $8-10 from an unrelated job/business before tax to pay for it, but only 5 from photos/footage if you can find a good way to work during your travels.

...by the way, your Instagram pictures are 1,000 times better and many of them could actually sell pretty well.

why would anyone buy your holiday photos? and if there is one category thats over saturated its travel

Well, travel pictures can sell VERY well, but of course, as you say, the category is incredibly oversaturated (18,000+ pictures of water buffalo, and if you've ever been to Venice, you know how many people visit and take pictures there every day).

Naturally, they have to be really good and done in the right way. The average beach or the average tree won't sell when faced against the competition. Also, try to include yourself in the images, do selfies when jumping off a cliff, or something POV style where you only see your hands paddling a kayak. That stuff sells. But not the average snapshot. You have to evoke emotion and invite the viewer into the image.

This is one of the best selling portfolios in the stock world: https://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/Maridav-97565/

and it's mostly travel/holiday stuff. But, includes people and is done in a way that you get a feeling you just want to go there and have an adventure yourself.

I would think more in terms of "travel lifestyle", than just "travel". Of course, if you find really nice landscapes in perfect light or great pictures of wildlife that sells too. But it has to be really good.

You have to plan and stage shots, create a world greater than reality unless it's something really special that would work as editorial.

Do a search for "sunset palm trees" and ask yourself why someone would buy YOUR picture...

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on March 08, 2017, 10:49

Quote from: memakephoto on March 08, 2017, 10:20

Google and Apple don't make the bulk of their revenue from selling apps, adsense or Youtube

Oh my, what is it you think the good people at Google do exactly?

Hint: Advertising. Yes, they definitely make the bulk of their revenue from ads (68% AdWods, 21% AdSense). That is their entire business model (and of course includes YouTube).

Google is not in the business of advertising. They are in the business of collecting information. They sell your personal information and they have a lot of it. Points for being so naive and condescending at the same time.

So, just to clarify what you're saying: Google DO NOT make the bulk of their revenue from AdSense and AdWords? If you say so.

Of course they collect the information just for fun, stories to tell their grandchildren. Not for advertising purposes.