pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Did SS change the search again??  (Read 10162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 29, 2015, 17:24 »
0
For a search claiming to be about relevance all the images on the first page (out of 100,000 images with that keyword) should have a latte as the focus. 
How could that be done without a human looking at every image and rating all the keywords for relative relevance, given that AFAIK there isn't a keyword ranking system when uploading to SS (correct me if I'm wrong).
Keyword ranking when files are bought.  Popular = best selling image with that keyword  Relevant = best selling image for that keyword,  for example.  To put it another way popular ranks images, relevant ranks each keyword.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2015, 17:27 by tickstock »


ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: May 29, 2015, 17:45 »
0
For a search claiming to be about relevance all the images on the first page (out of 100,000 images with that keyword) should have a latte as the focus. 
How could that be done without a human looking at every image and rating all the keywords for relative relevance, given that AFAIK there isn't a keyword ranking system when uploading to SS (correct me if I'm wrong).
Keyword ranking when files are bought.  Popular = best selling image with that keyword  Relevant = best selling image for that keyword,  for example.  To put it another way popular ranks images, relevant ranks each keyword.
Right.
So on SS, a new file in a high supply area can't get into a good position in 'relevant' until it has been bought several times by buyers sorting on 'new' or 'undiscovered', no matter how relevant it really is?

« Reply #27 on: May 29, 2015, 17:55 »
0
For a search claiming to be about relevance all the images on the first page (out of 100,000 images with that keyword) should have a latte as the focus. 
How could that be done without a human looking at every image and rating all the keywords for relative relevance, given that AFAIK there isn't a keyword ranking system when uploading to SS (correct me if I'm wrong).
Keyword ranking when files are bought.  Popular = best selling image with that keyword  Relevant = best selling image for that keyword,  for example.  To put it another way popular ranks images, relevant ranks each keyword.
Right.
So on SS, a new file in a high supply area can't get into a good position in 'relevant' until it has been bought several times by buyers sorting on 'new' or 'undiscovered', no matter how relevant it really is?
I'm not sure what you're arguing here.  Are you saying they should manually go through 50 million files and rank each keyword or each file and then try to do it again every time a new file is uploaded?   Buyers should determine which files are popular and which keywords are relevant, files with no sales shouldn't be high in those searches.  I doubt many people would be happy with an inspector ranking their files.

ShadySue

« Reply #28 on: May 29, 2015, 18:10 »
0
For a search claiming to be about relevance all the images on the first page (out of 100,000 images with that keyword) should have a latte as the focus. 
How could that be done without a human looking at every image and rating all the keywords for relative relevance, given that AFAIK there isn't a keyword ranking system when uploading to SS (correct me if I'm wrong).
Keyword ranking when files are bought.  Popular = best selling image with that keyword  Relevant = best selling image for that keyword,  for example.  To put it another way popular ranks images, relevant ranks each keyword.
Right.
So on SS, a new file in a high supply area can't get into a good position in 'relevant' until it has been bought several times by buyers sorting on 'new' or 'undiscovered', no matter how relevant it really is?
I'm not sure what you're arguing here.  Are you saying they should manually go through 50 million files and rank each keyword or each file and then try to do it again every time a new file is uploaded?   Buyers should determine which files are popular and which keywords are relevant, files with no sales shouldn't be high in those searches.  I doubt many people would be happy with an inspector ranking their files.
I'm not arguing.
I'm trying to understand how the system there works.
I'm now sure there must be different searches for different people. I'd say well over half of the latte coffee, following the link above, have latte coffee as the main part of the image, and a good proportion of the rest are very relevant, with some being less relevant and a very few not relevant. So it seems that Teddy, you and I are seeing different results. Though I guess it's also possible that we see the same results but have different views on what a relevant search on that term would be.

dpimborough

« Reply #29 on: May 30, 2015, 03:07 »
0
Well this is what Teddy sees on the first page it's pretty well two thirds some russian bride and her beau mooning at each other

This has been gobbling up the relevant search for months now.

It's not just the only search I've done a number where relevant is just packed out with a single photogs work

« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2015, 03:21 »
0
Well this is what Teddy sees on the first page it's pretty well two thirds some russian bride and her beau mooning at each other

This is not the selection of images I saw when I clicked the link you provided. What I saw was all shots of latte.

dpimborough

« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2015, 03:31 »
0
Well this is what Teddy sees on the first page it's pretty well two thirds some russian bride and her beau mooning at each other

This is not the selection of images I saw when I clicked the link you provided. What I saw was all shots of latte.

How odd  ???

Perhaps in my part of the world SS relevant search thinks this is what I need to see when looking for that perfect coffee shot  ;D

« Reply #32 on: May 30, 2015, 05:26 »
+2
Well this is what Teddy sees on the first page it's pretty well two thirds some russian bride and her beau mooning at each other

This is not the selection of images I saw when I clicked the link you provided. What I saw was all shots of latte.

Yeah, if you click just on link, me to was seeing all coffee. But if you change "popular" into "relevant", I see the same thing as Teddy.

ShadySue

« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2015, 05:57 »
+2
What I see is totally different.
But when I checked just now, I noticed your link took me to the popular search. I have no idea how that happened.
When I changed to 'relevant', I got a huge wodge of questionable (to be polite) images, as on Teddy's screenshot above.
Don't know why the link changed to popular!
Probably even more evidence that SS is on that slippery slope. We've seen all this before elsewhere.
Added: Dumc beat me to it!
« Last Edit: May 30, 2015, 06:03 by ShadySue »


Rinderart

« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2015, 14:14 »
-3
The search is about where the searcher is... Period.

« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2015, 14:58 »
0
Maybe my dumb or too much catnip

This should go to relevant :D

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?people_number=&media_type2=images&search_cat=&searchterm=latte+coffee&people_ethnicity=&searchtermx=&color=&media_type=images&photographer_name=&search_source=&lang=en&language=en&version=llv1&autocomplete_id=14329306984897595000&people_gender=&people_age=&safesearch=1&prev_sort_method=popular&sort_method=relevance2&page=1


Yep, now I see what you were seeing. Several bride-and-groom pairs pigging out on lattes and wedding cake. Yum.

There are even duplicate versions in black and white. Yum-yum-yum.

All I can say is I hope those images find buyers in other countries, 'cause they ain't likely to sell much in the US. (Especially the batch in the middle of the page.)
« Last Edit: May 30, 2015, 15:10 by marthamarks »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #37 on: May 30, 2015, 23:01 »
+6
Only if you are over simplistic and can't see past your own nose.

I could list 50 more conditional factors and probably be missing some. Location (ip address), time of day, previous searches, ad cookies, color preferences in previous views, purchases, keyword searches, where you came from, last viewed file, titles, categories, actual relevance of keywords between the same images, last ten files viewed, most sales per keyword divided by number of keywords, flat number of purchases per keyword, think of something.

But it's not just "where period".

The search is about where the searcher is... Period.

ShadySue

« Reply #38 on: May 31, 2015, 06:20 »
0
The search is about where the searcher is... Period.
Well, Martha and I seem to be seeing the same as Teddy on that latte coffee search; she's in the US and I'm in the UK, not sure about the Cat. These 'bridal' images have no cultural resonance here, and from what Martha said, not in the US either. So any supposed geographic relevance isn't working.
Also clearly any claim that 'relevant' is based on sales on a given keyword is pretty unlikely based on that search.
But what do I know? Maybe photos of brides and grooms on their own in a shabby sixties-style cafe drinking latte through straws etc is absolutely trending right now. In the UK and US.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2015, 06:58 by ShadySue »

OM

« Reply #39 on: May 31, 2015, 08:20 »
0
In Firefox Private Browsing, 'Latte coffee' +'relevant' also gives me that same selection as Teddy showed. Which is the same selection approximately if I go via 'normal' channels. In EU.

« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2015, 08:56 »
+2
Maybe photos of brides and grooms on their own in a shabby sixties-style cafe drinking latte through straws etc is absolutely trending right now. In the UK and US.

Yep, Sue, right now all the spring-wedding magazines in the US are featuring newlyweds posed in plastic-tablecloth/heavy-drapes settings drinking lattes through straws. LOL!!!!!!!

ShadySue

« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2015, 09:04 »
+1
Maybe photos of brides and grooms on their own in a shabby sixties-style cafe drinking latte through straws etc is absolutely trending right now. In the UK and US.

Yep, Sue, right now all the spring-wedding magazines in the US are featuring newlyweds posed in plastic-tablecloth/heavy-drapes settings drinking lattes through straws. LOL!!!!!!!
As the good plan is to be ahead of the market, maybe these will be all over the autumn/winter bridal scene.  8)


« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2015, 10:05 »
0
As the good plan is to be ahead of the market, maybe these will be all over the autumn/winter bridal scene.  8)

Fer sure.  ;)  I'll keep my eyes open for those pics.

dpimborough

« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2015, 12:42 »
+1
The search is about where the searcher is... Period.

Hum a friend in NYC sees the same thing as me and I'm  on the other side of the world  miles away

« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2015, 14:51 »
+6
I believe SS changed their ''search engine'' 5 monts ago in my case when earnings started to fall drastically  :(

Semmick Photo

« Reply #45 on: May 31, 2015, 15:05 »
0
Do you think they change the search for each portfolio individually?  What you guys are experiencing is rotation. Just so that everyone gets in front of buyers.

« Reply #46 on: May 31, 2015, 16:01 »
+1
I think, what you're recognizing are the constant ups and downs as always. Nothing unusual.

Rinderart

« Reply #47 on: May 31, 2015, 16:49 »
-4
Taking in account different browsers.

ShadySue

« Reply #48 on: May 31, 2015, 17:31 »
+2
Taking in account different browsers.

Hmmm.
Firefox:


IE:


Chrome is marginally different:

The rest of that page is almost identical in each browser.
NB, I don't have an account there, so not 'logged in'. There are probably cookies in FF, but not before  right now in IE or Chrome, and I had no history at either of these, and arrived via cut and pasting the URI.

As Tickstock mentioned above, 'Popular', which seems to be the default, is actually much more 'Relevant' on that search.

OT: Sorry, can't compare any more. Got to get back to monitoring and sorting, as best I can, the mess they've made on the backend of FAA recently.


ShadySue

« Reply #49 on: June 01, 2015, 03:53 »
+1
I think, what you're recognizing are the constant ups and downs as always. Nothing unusual.
Do they constantly 'boost to the extreme' one particular contributor at a time like in the example in this thread (and presumably sink them later)?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
3866 Views
Last post July 12, 2006, 03:55
by leaf
98 Replies
19279 Views
Last post May 25, 2008, 21:20
by cascoly
18 Replies
4910 Views
Last post April 18, 2012, 05:47
by fotografer
43 Replies
8023 Views
Last post December 12, 2014, 02:17
by Ariene
Shutterstock search change??

Started by gyllens « 1 2 3 4 5 » Shutterstock.com

115 Replies
13716 Views
Last post December 14, 2016, 12:41
by Dumc

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results