As we all know Stockxpert changed the search engine. What I found out, is that the popularity of the images is measured by how many views you get on your image.

What gives you that idea?

When I first got into photography (over 25 years ago), I bought UV/skylight filters to protect all of my lenses.  But over the years, I have removed the filters from my lenses and the (filters) now sit in a box unused (for quite a while).  While there is some truth in the fact that a filter will protect your lens (from a scratch), that is a risk that you will need to weigh.  I have never dropped a lens or camera, nor have I ever scratched a lens, so I seem to be pretty careful with my equipment.  If someone is clumsy, it might be more worth it for them.

If I were to order a new lens today, I would forego purchasing a filter to protect it.  The only filter that I find useful at this time (with digital cameras) is a polarizer.  Every other filter can be replicated by image editing software (Photoshop, PaintShop, etc.).

But as the saying goes, this is just my opinion.  Your mileage may vary.

We're proud and excited to announce that Dpreview has been acquired by the worlds leading online retailer, Amazon.com. Started as hobby site in 1998, dpreview.com has grown to be the number one destination for anyone interested in digital cameras and digital photography. Each month dpreview.com has seven million unique visitors (over 22 million sessions) who read over 120 million pages. "We've worked very hard over the last eight years to deliver consistently high quality content to our readers", founder Phil Askey said. "It will be fantastic to be able to expand and build on that without compromising our quality or independence. With the support and resources of Amazon we can achieve this."

For more details:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0705/07051402amazonacquiresdpreview.asp

I'm not sure how this will affect the site, if at all.

I think that Fotolio has a 10,000 image ceiling on any search which gives misleading results in your searches...

If that is true, then that means that a large % of the images in their database will never be found by a buyer.  For example, if there are 400,000 flower images in their database and only 10,000 are shown, then that means that 390,000 images will never be found (at least with that keyword).

...plus they have a weighed keywords so for popular searches if a keyword isn't listed in the top 7 it won't be listed, I started obscure and then tried to widen the net.

And if this is true, then why would they have us include more than 7 keywords???

Flames are received by a specific image for total DLs.  The first level (orange flame) is 100 DLs, the second level (red flame) is 500 DLs, and the third level (blue flame) is 1000 DLs.

You can see the flame definitions here (click on the Site Features tab):

http://www.istockphoto.com/icons.php

Default search on Shutterstock is by newest first, not most popular.

That is incorrect.  Default search on SS is by Most Popular.  It was changed last summer.

As I stated, I had an issue where I couldn't login.

The login page would display and I would enter my login/password, but then the login page would redisplay.

I tried this over and over to no avail.

I then cleared the cookies from my browser and that fixed the issue.

All is well now.

Quote from: GeoPappas on May 02, 2007, 06:30

Quote from: hatman12 on May 02, 2007, 05:09

After all, why would we just stop with still imagery and video?

I wonder what that is supposed to refer to?  Are they going to get into music???

My guess would be selling prints. Instead of just the digital image.

They already sell prints thru an alliance.  It doesn't seem to generate much sales from what I understand.

Thanks for the update.

For those of you that are interested, you can find the original text at:

http://internet.seekingalpha.com/article/34168

Here is another quote:

"Revenue for the quarter was $213 million, representing growth of 5.8% or 1.6% on a currency-neutral basis compared to the first quarter of 2006. We were pleased with the sequential growth over the fourth quarter of last year.

The growth in revenue in the first quarter came from strong results in entertainment and news, excellent growth in services, and that includes Media Manager, photo assignments, and Image Net, and particularly strong momentum at iStockphoto."

How are you seeing which images went into there?  From the email they sent, or is there a quick way on the site to check?

I got an email a wee while back about 5 images that probably deserved to go in there, but now I don't know which ones they were, and I didn't keep the email...

Go to http://www.istockphoto.com/my_uploads.php, and then choose "Active Dollar Images" from the pulldown menu.

Maybe it's just the inexperienced me, but if an image hasn't sold once in one year I can only conclude that the commercial value of that image is zero. Waiting two years to reach this may be overly optimistic and conservative.

The main reasons that most people don't like one year is:

- Seasonal images.  If you upload something in early December for Christmas, then it only gets a part of the season for sales.

- Changes to search engine algorithms.  As you are aware, search engine results change all the time.  What might not show up at the top of the search this month, might show up on the first page next month.

Both formulas are the same.  They are comparing the second month to the first month.

It seems you are getting mixed up with your analysis of the formulas.

In the analysis of the first formula you are applying the % to the first #
(+50% of 10 is indeed 15)

In the analysis of the second formula you are doing the opposite: you are applying the % to the second #
(if we take +33% of 20, why come we don't get 30??)

You should be applying the % to the same #.  So if you take -33% from 30 (the first #) you will indeed get 20.

I hope I didn't confuse you even more.