Author Topic: Reshuffle on shutter ? (Read 14213 times)

Goofy · « **on:** January 30, 2014, 21:55 »

has anyone noticed a reshuffle on shutter? maybe I had too many beers and seeing things...

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #1 on:** January 31, 2014, 02:30 »

What kind of reshuffle?

Ron · « **Reply #2 on:** January 31, 2014, 05:33 »

Happens all the times, your popular images constantly change, but the changes make no sense. My most popular image in DLs and $$ is dropping and images only sold once or never are close or higher. Doesnt make sense. Nothing I can do about it, and Jan 2014 was BME, so I guess its all good.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 31, 2014, 07:20 »

They have an entirely new search result on mobile, at least. On my iPad I now see many more images, smaller and closer together, with continual scrolling and pages separated by a thin line. Looks more like google results. And things do seen reshuffled a bit. Plus, to switch from most popular (the default) you have to click on the small word "options" over to the top right.

Also, strongly vertical images are favored in the size they show up.

They must have been conducting a lot of behavioral research to make such a big change.

scottbraut · « **Reply #4 on:** January 31, 2014, 08:22 »

Hi all,

A quick note on how we do things: at any given time, we're running a number of tests. Those tests are typically targeted at a small percentage of the overall population. If a test wins (for example, if it drives more downloads and customers are more successful in finding what they're looking for), then it is released to the broader audience and the performance is monitored.

Tests can include changes to the user experience or the relevancy of search results. If you're seeing changes, it's possible that you're seeing a test that is targeted at a small audience, or that you're seeing the results of a test that won. These tests are thoughtfully conducted and changes are never rolled out broadly without careful analysis. For contributors, this might seem confusing in isolation, but it ultimately results in more successful customers, who then generate more downloads and more royalties.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Ron · « **Reply #5 on:** January 31, 2014, 08:30 »

Quote from: scottbraut on January 31, 2014, 08:22

Hi all,

A quick note on how we do things: at any given time, we're running a number of tests. Those tests are typically targeted at a small percentage of the overall population. If a test wins (for example, if it drives more downloads and customers are more successful in finding what they're looking for), then it is released to the broader audience and the performance is monitored.

Tests can include changes to the user experience or the relevancy of search results. If you're seeing changes, it's possible that you're seeing a test that is targeted at a small audience, or that you're seeing the results of a test that won. These tests are thoughtfully conducted and changes are never rolled out broadly without careful analysis. For contributors, this might seem confusing in isolation, but it ultimately results in more successful customers, who then generate more downloads and more royalties.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Scott, thank you.

Quick question, can you comment on why people see their personal most successful image drop in their portpolio popular sort and images that haven't sold or not sold nearly as much surpass the most successful image in ones portfolio.

Thanks again.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 31, 2014, 09:08 »

Quote from: scottbraut on January 31, 2014, 08:22

Hi all,

A quick note on how we do things: at any given time, we're running a number of tests. Those tests are typically targeted at a small percentage of the overall population. If a test wins (for example, if it drives more downloads and customers are more successful in finding what they're looking for), then it is released to the broader audience and the performance is monitored.

Tests can include changes to the user experience or the relevancy of search results. If you're seeing changes, it's possible that you're seeing a test that is targeted at a small audience, or that you're seeing the results of a test that won. These tests are thoughtfully conducted and changes are never rolled out broadly without careful analysis. For contributors, this might seem confusing in isolation, but it ultimately results in more successful customers, who then generate more downloads and more royalties.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Cool. I'm part of the test audience. That's a switch for me.

KimsCreativeHub · « **Reply #7 on:** January 31, 2014, 10:04 »

Interesting , thanks for the info Scott

My Very Best

KimsCreativeHub.com

Goofy · « **Reply #8 on:** January 31, 2014, 10:15 »

Thanks Scott!

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #10 on:** January 31, 2014, 11:30 »

Quote from: scottbraut on January 31, 2014, 10:39

Quote from: Ron on January 31, 2014, 08:30
Scott, thank you.

Quick question, can you comment on why people see their personal most successful image drop in their portpolio popular sort and images that haven't sold or not sold nearly as much surpass the most successful image in ones portfolio.

Thanks again.

Hi Ron,

It would be very difficult to answer something like this, because the algorithms are very complex; we run many different tests; and we see millions of searches. Anecdotal claims in the forums are very hard to track down - to understand what's going on, you would need to isolate all of the attributes of the image, the keyword that was searched, whether the image was in a test, etc...

As mentioned, the goal of all of this is to drive customer success, which ultimately delivers more downloads across the board and more royalties. It's easy (and understandable!) to worry about one image's specific search placement for a popular keyword search, but across all images and all searches, the net result is continuous improvement.

Best,

Scott

Nice to hear.

grey1 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 31, 2014, 13:05 »

Ha, ha! hilarious! whenever they announce a re-shuffle. Some will be poor, some will bust and some will get rich. What a joke to announce in a public forum. They should have known better.

heywoody · « **Reply #12 on:** January 31, 2014, 16:28 »

Make a real refreshing change from a site that rolls out half-baked idea after half-baked idea and does apply to the entire population.

disorderly · « **Reply #13 on:** January 31, 2014, 17:46 »

Quote from: heywoody on January 31, 2014, 16:28

Make a real refreshing change from a site that rolls out half-baked idea after half-baked idea and does apply to the entire population.

I agree. I like how judiciously Shutterstock management makes and rolls out decisions. It gives me confidence and makes me more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when something doesn't sound entirely to my benefit.

sdeva · « **Reply #14 on:** February 01, 2014, 00:26 »

Thanks for sharing Scott, appreciate it

Whatever's underway worked well for me on the last day of Jan.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #15 on:** February 04, 2014, 06:00 »

Quote

Tests can include changes to the user experience or the relevancy of search results. If you're seeing changes, it's possible that you're seeing a test that is targeted at a small audience, or that you're seeing the results of a test that won. These tests are thoughtfully conducted and changes are never rolled out broadly without careful analysis. For contributors, this might seem confusing in isolation, but it ultimately results in more successful customers, who then generate more downloads and more royalties.

As mentioned many times before, the "Popular" designation has nothing to do with popular.
If you want to play with search algorithms, you can add another option to the available sort orders, and call it "flavor of the day" or as "recommended by chief cook" but calling it popular is not only incorrect, it is a deception and outright lie.

As contributors, we are getting shafted when our bestselling images are hidden and as buyers, we are misled and have to wade through numerous pages just to find something decent.

Furthermore it is naive to assume that if a small test yields certain results, the same results would be obtained across other portfolios if the same change is rolled out to other contributors. Each portfolio is different, each buyer wants something else, and whatever worked today may not work tomorrow. Calling the popular (or most downloaded) order popular would make the system simpler, consistent, and more honest.

grey1 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 04, 2014, 06:14 »

Yes Les! but I would strongly advice the agencies to just have three search alternatives and these would be the most honest towards us and the buyers.

1. wishful thinking
2. Scullduggery
3. not a hope in hell.

Now with these alternatives most here will know in advance they end up with a coronary occlusion or at best on the dole.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #17 on:** February 04, 2014, 07:37 »

Quote

Now with these alternatives most here will know in advance they end up with a coronary occlusion or at best on the dole.

Well, while some posters are destined to one of those two alternatives, I'm sure the others will pick up these concepts as inspirations for new shooting ideas.

grey1 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 04, 2014, 10:25 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on February 04, 2014, 07:37

Quote
Now with these alternatives most here will know in advance they end up with a coronary occlusion or at best on the dole.

Well, while some posters are destined to one of those two alternatives, I'm sure the others will pick up these concepts as inspirations for new shooting ideas.

I agree but even concepts do not grow on trees nowadays.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #19 on:** February 04, 2014, 10:54 »

Quote

The issue is the "popular" search. Not who is who. Thats a TV program. Anyhow Les is right. The popular, is not even remotely close to files being popular and how do they asses popular anyway? by downloads or views?

The Popular as implemented now has nothing to do with views or downloads. Well, maybe a little bit if these are new files.
If they are old files even with thousands of downloads, SS tries to push them out of sight. Maybe they are well meaning, but totally misguided and dishonest with their buyers. The designation as popular is misleading and deceptive. And very sad that they can't even find a proper name for it.

I can understand they they are trying to force the new files to the surface, but that order should never be called popular.
Popular means most downloaded.

grey1 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 04, 2014, 11:04 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on February 04, 2014, 10:54

Quote
The issue is the "popular" search. Not who is who. Thats a TV program. Anyhow Les is right. The popular, is not even remotely close to files being popular and how do they asses popular anyway? by downloads or views?

The Popular as implemented now has nothing to do with views or downloads. Well, maybe a little bit if these are new files.
If they are old files even with thousands of downloads, SS tries to push them out of sight. Maybe they are well meaning, but totally misguided and dishonest with their buyers. The designation as popular is misleading and deceptive. And very sad that they can't even find a proper name for it.

I can understand they they are trying to force the new files to the surface, but that order should never be called popular.
Popular means most downloaded.

BTW, take no notice of some geeks above. They have been like that for years. Yes thats what I thought, popular means in terms of downloads but then this so called popular search is all wrong.
In most searches, no way the files with most downloads are promoted, its really more like just a random search and because of spamming, thats the worst one.
However there is a small but valuable trick to avoid all this and pretty much make sure that your new uploads are in fact getting a good exposure.

Ron · « **Reply #21 on:** February 04, 2014, 11:05 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on February 04, 2014, 10:54

Quote
The issue is the "popular" search. Not who is who. Thats a TV program. Anyhow Les is right. The popular, is not even remotely close to files being popular and how do they asses popular anyway? by downloads or views?

The Popular as implemented now has nothing to do with views or downloads. Well, maybe a little bit if these are new files.
If they are old files even with thousands of downloads, SS tries to push them out of sight. Maybe they are well meaning, but totally misguided and dishonest with their buyers. The designation as popular is misleading and deceptive. And very sad that they can't even find a proper name for it.

I can understand they they are trying to force the new files to the surface, but that order should never be called popular.
Popular means most downloaded.

I have to agree with that. I can see how they add views to that equation, but most popular shouldnt be based on how quickly a file gets their first downloads or whatever fancy algorithm they come up with. My ultimate best seller is no longer my ultimate best selling image. Its dying, and SS killed it. Scott said, tests that generate the most downloads are pushed live, meaning more royalties, but that in my opinion is a partial fallacy. Yes it means more royalties, overall, not in my pocket. Unfortunately my bottom line is not important to SS test results. The SS RPD is though.

All they need to do is rename the tab most popular to Currently Hot and add another tab called Downloads, next to the existing Relevant and New tabs and its all sorted.

grey1 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 04, 2014, 11:30 »

Quote from: Ron on February 04, 2014, 11:05

Quote from: LesPalenik on February 04, 2014, 10:54
Quote
The issue is the "popular" search. Not who is who. Thats a TV program. Anyhow Les is right. The popular, is not even remotely close to files being popular and how do they asses popular anyway? by downloads or views?

The Popular as implemented now has nothing to do with views or downloads. Well, maybe a little bit if these are new files.
If they are old files even with thousands of downloads, SS tries to push them out of sight. Maybe they are well meaning, but totally misguided and dishonest with their buyers. The designation as popular is misleading and deceptive. And very sad that they can't even find a proper name for it.

I can understand they they are trying to force the new files to the surface, but that order should never be called popular.
Popular means most downloaded.

I have to agree with that. I can see how they add views to that equation, but most popular shouldnt be based on how quickly a file gets their first downloads or whatever fancy algorithm they come up with. My ultimate best seller is no longer my ultimate best selling image. Its dying, and SS killed it. Scott said, tests that generate the most downloads are pushed live, meaning more royalties, but that in my opinion is a partial fallacy. Yes it means more royalties, overall, not in my pocket. Unfortunately my bottom line is not important to SS test results. The SS RPD is though.

All they need to do is rename the tab most popular to Currently Hot and add another tab called Downloads, next to the existing Relevant and New tabs and its all sorted.

Quite right. It used to be based on views. If new file hardly get any exposure no matter how good they are. Never gets a download. Then what? just fades away and thats why uploading right now is quite simply a waste of time.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 04, 2014, 11:34 »

Quote from: Ron on February 04, 2014, 11:05

Quote from: LesPalenik on February 04, 2014, 10:54
Quote
The issue is the "popular" search. Not who is who. Thats a TV program. Anyhow Les is right. The popular, is not even remotely close to files being popular and how do they asses popular anyway? by downloads or views?

The Popular as implemented now has nothing to do with views or downloads. Well, maybe a little bit if these are new files.
If they are old files even with thousands of downloads, SS tries to push them out of sight. Maybe they are well meaning, but totally misguided and dishonest with their buyers. The designation as popular is misleading and deceptive. And very sad that they can't even find a proper name for it.

I can understand they they are trying to force the new files to the surface, but that order should never be called popular.
Popular means most downloaded.

I have to agree with that. I can see how they add views to that equation, but most popular shouldnt be based on how quickly a file gets their first downloads or whatever fancy algorithm they come up with. My ultimate best seller is no longer my ultimate best selling image. Its dying, and SS killed it. Scott said, tests that generate the most downloads are pushed live, meaning more royalties, but that in my opinion is a partial fallacy. Yes it means more royalties, overall, not in my pocket. Unfortunately my bottom line is not important to SS test results. The SS RPD is though.

All they need to do is rename the tab most popular to Currently Hot and add another tab called Downloads, next to the existing Relevant and New tabs and its all sorted.

Well, now that I'm part of their test audience, I get to see their algorithm machinations in action. It's weird. On my laptop if I search a certain category where a couple of my images are on the rise, they appear near the top of the first page in results. On my iPad they appear on page 2 (which isn't really a second page any more, just a thin line separating it from "page 1").

Of course, I like the first algorithm better, but the folks with the "old" most popular files undoubtedly would prefer the second.

Shutterstock prefers whichever one brings them the most sales.

gbalex · « **Reply #24 on:** February 04, 2014, 11:47 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on February 04, 2014, 06:00

Quote
Tests can include changes to the user experience or the relevancy of search results. If you're seeing changes, it's possible that you're seeing a test that is targeted at a small audience, or that you're seeing the results of a test that won. These tests are thoughtfully conducted and changes are never rolled out broadly without careful analysis. For contributors, this might seem confusing in isolation, but it ultimately results in more successful customers, who then generate more downloads and more royalties.

As mentioned many times before, the "Popular" designation has nothing to do with popular.
If you want to play with search algorithms, you can add another option to the available sort orders, and call it "flavor of the day" or as "recommended by chief cook" but calling it popular is not only incorrect, it is a deception and outright lie.

As contributors, we are getting shafted when our bestselling images are hidden and as buyers, we are misled and have to wade through numerous pages just to find something decent.

Furthermore it is naive to assume that if a small test yields certain results, the same results would be obtained across other portfolios if the same change is rolled out to other contributors. Each portfolio is different, each buyer wants something else, and whatever worked today may not work tomorrow. Calling the popular (or most downloaded) order popular would make the system simpler, consistent, and more honest.

Well said, as a buyer on IS I found the content they served me infuriating and I left. Now we find shutterstock is playing the same games to increase revenue.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #25 on:** February 04, 2014, 11:51 »

Quote

Shutterstock prefers whichever one brings them the most sales.

A cynic would say - most sales at the lowest cost. That means pushing up images from newbies who are paid only 25 cents.

gbalex · « **Reply #26 on:** February 04, 2014, 11:58 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on February 04, 2014, 11:34

Quote from: Ron on February 04, 2014, 11:05
Quote from: LesPalenik on February 04, 2014, 10:54
Quote
The issue is the "popular" search. Not who is who. Thats a TV program. Anyhow Les is right. The popular, is not even remotely close to files being popular and how do they asses popular anyway? by downloads or views?

The Popular as implemented now has nothing to do with views or downloads. Well, maybe a little bit if these are new files.
If they are old files even with thousands of downloads, SS tries to push them out of sight. Maybe they are well meaning, but totally misguided and dishonest with their buyers. The designation as popular is misleading and deceptive. And very sad that they can't even find a proper name for it.

I can understand they they are trying to force the new files to the surface, but that order should never be called popular.
Popular means most downloaded.

I have to agree with that. I can see how they add views to that equation, but most popular shouldnt be based on how quickly a file gets their first downloads or whatever fancy algorithm they come up with. My ultimate best seller is no longer my ultimate best selling image. Its dying, and SS killed it. Scott said, tests that generate the most downloads are pushed live, meaning more royalties, but that in my opinion is a partial fallacy. Yes it means more royalties, overall, not in my pocket. Unfortunately my bottom line is not important to SS test results. The SS RPD is though.

All they need to do is rename the tab most popular to Currently Hot and add another tab called Downloads, next to the existing Relevant and New tabs and its all sorted.

Well, now that I'm part of their test audience, I get to see their algorithm machinations in action. It's weird. On my laptop if I search a certain category where a couple of my images are on the rise, they appear near the top of the first page in results. On my iPad they appear on page 2 (which isn't really a second page any more, just a thin line separating it from "page 1").

Of course, I like the first algorithm better, but the folks with the "old" most popular files undoubtedly would prefer the second.

Shutterstock prefers whichever one brings them the most sales.

I have found that my files drop from the first page in the matter of a day to locations so low you can not find them at all. I gave up searching after 30 -50 pages.

grey1 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 04, 2014, 12:02 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on February 04, 2014, 11:51

Quote
Shutterstock prefers whichever one brings them the most sales.

A cynic would say - most sales at the lowest cost. That means pushing up images from newbies who are paid only 25 cents.

Exactly! but no one even dares to speak about this. Its an infamnia to even think in these terms. Funny! as we speak I just noticed three ELs at SS and almost identical. Must be the same buyer.

Just wait a second now and you will see who is going to post. People resenting. Thats the way it is.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 04, 2014, 12:09 »

Quote from: grey1 on February 04, 2014, 12:02

Quote from: LesPalenik on February 04, 2014, 11:51
Quote
Shutterstock prefers whichever one brings them the most sales.

A cynic would say - most sales at the lowest cost. That means pushing up images from newbies who are paid only 25 cents.

Exactly! but no one even dares to speak about this. Its an infamnia to even think in these terms. Funny! as we speak I just noticed three ELs at SS and almost identical. Must be the same buyer.

yeah it was Jon, that is how important you are in the middle of +35k contributors

wordplanet · « **Reply #29 on:** February 04, 2014, 12:17 »

I think it's great that Scott has taken the time to drop in here and explain things to us.

As someone with a tiny portfolio who has some images that frequently show up on page one, I can't fault their efforts. February was my worst month last year and this year I even had multiple sales over Superbowl weekend, so I'm cautiously optimistic about the latest shuffle. I'm in the .33 tier so not a .25 newbie and I don't think they are favoring the .25 cent folks. I think they are tweaking things to license as many images as possible and of course this is focused on the site as a whole and not targeted to any one contributor's portfolio. Given SS's track record, I really can't imagine that their efforts would deliberately target long-time .38 contributors to harm the value of their portfolios.

Obviously there has to be a way to get new photos seen or they would never sell, and any advantage given to new photos is going to mean that new photos by the .25 and .38 cent crowds are going to get equal billing, so more established portfolios won't completely dominate the searches.

Ron · « **Reply #30 on:** February 04, 2014, 12:37 »

Quote from: wordplanet on February 04, 2014, 12:17

I think it's great that Scott has taken the time to drop in here and explain things to us.

No one denies that, but it leaves things open for discussion.

-----------------------------------

However I fully disagree with any comment about SS pushing 25 cent images. I refuse to believe that.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 04, 2014, 13:31 »

Quote from: wordplanet on February 04, 2014, 12:17

I think it's great that Scott has taken the time to drop in here and explain things to us.

As someone with a tiny portfolio who has some images that frequently show up on page one, I can't fault their efforts. February was my worst month last year and this year I even had multiple sales over Superbowl weekend, so I'm cautiously optimistic about the latest shuffle. I'm in the .33 tier so not a .25 newbie and I don't think they are favoring the .25 cent folks. I think they are tweaking things to license as many images as possible and of course this is focused on the site as a whole and not targeted to any one contributor's portfolio. Given SS's track record, I really can't imagine that their efforts would deliberately target long-time .38 contributors to harm the value of their portfolios.

Obviously there has to be a way to get new photos seen or they would never sell, and any advantage given to new photos is going to mean that new photos by the .25 and .38 cent crowds are going to get equal billing, so more established portfolios won't completely dominate the searches.

I would guess they continually test algorithms that bring them the most moolah.

I'm sure they favor 25¢ images over 38¢ images *unless* the 38¢ images are downloaded so much more often they simply bring in more money overall, despite the difference in profit per download.

They also have to factor in how often an image brings in EDs, ODDs, etc.

In advertising we test stuff all the time. If a product is more expensive and gets fewer sales, but in the end brings in more profit than when it's priced lower, clients will go with the higher price.

grey1 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 04, 2014, 13:50 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on February 04, 2014, 13:31

Quote from: wordplanet on February 04, 2014, 12:17
I think it's great that Scott has taken the time to drop in here and explain things to us.

As someone with a tiny portfolio who has some images that frequently show up on page one, I can't fault their efforts. February was my worst month last year and this year I even had multiple sales over Superbowl weekend, so I'm cautiously optimistic about the latest shuffle. I'm in the .33 tier so not a .25 newbie and I don't think they are favoring the .25 cent folks. I think they are tweaking things to license as many images as possible and of course this is focused on the site as a whole and not targeted to any one contributor's portfolio. Given SS's track record, I really can't imagine that their efforts would deliberately target long-time .38 contributors to harm the value of their portfolios.

Obviously there has to be a way to get new photos seen or they would never sell, and any advantage given to new photos is going to mean that new photos by the .25 and .38 cent crowds are going to get equal billing, so more established portfolios won't completely dominate the searches.

I would guess they continually test algorithms that bring them the most moolah.

I'm sure they favor 25¢ images over 38¢ images *unless* the 38¢ images are downloaded so much more often they simply bring in more money overall, despite the difference in profit per download.

They also have to factor in how often an image brings in EDs, ODDs, etc.

In advertising we test stuff all the time. If a product is more expensive and gets fewer sales, but in the end brings in more profit than when it's priced lower, clients will go with the higher price.

Of course they prefer 25c over 38c. Its obvious. Less commission payouts. Its business for * sake or else they would be down out stupid.
This happens all the time in business and is acceptable. Whats not acceptable is to make out its all down to some weird experiments and so on. Its also pretty strange all these "experiments" starts right after going public. Superb timing.

gbalex · « **Reply #33 on:** February 04, 2014, 13:56 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on February 04, 2014, 13:31

Quote from: wordplanet on February 04, 2014, 12:17
I think it's great that Scott has taken the time to drop in here and explain things to us.

As someone with a tiny portfolio who has some images that frequently show up on page one, I can't fault their efforts. February was my worst month last year and this year I even had multiple sales over Superbowl weekend, so I'm cautiously optimistic about the latest shuffle. I'm in the .33 tier so not a .25 newbie and I don't think they are favoring the .25 cent folks. I think they are tweaking things to license as many images as possible and of course this is focused on the site as a whole and not targeted to any one contributor's portfolio. Given SS's track record, I really can't imagine that their efforts would deliberately target long-time .38 contributors to harm the value of their portfolios.

Obviously there has to be a way to get new photos seen or they would never sell, and any advantage given to new photos is going to mean that new photos by the .25 and .38 cent crowds are going to get equal billing, so more established portfolios won't completely dominate the searches.

I would guess they continually test algorithms that bring them the most moolah.

I'm sure they favor 25¢ images over 38¢ images *unless* the 38¢ images are downloaded so much more often they simply bring in more money overall, despite the difference in profit per download.

They also have to factor in how often an image brings in EDs, ODDs, etc.

In advertising we test stuff all the time. If a product is more expensive and gets fewer sales, but in the end brings in more profit than when it's priced lower, clients will go with the higher price.

And here is the crux. How would a 38¢ image receive sales much more often than a 25¢ file? When in actual buyer search experience the 25¢ files and new lower cost files are favored in the search. My best selling images no longer show up in the search AT ALL. They have no way of competing for sales, nor will they ever be seen by buyers unless they visit the end 1/2 of my port sorted by most popular.

grey1 · « **Reply #34 on:** February 04, 2014, 14:15 »

Quote from: gbalex on February 04, 2014, 13:56

Quote from: Shelma1 on February 04, 2014, 13:31
Quote from: wordplanet on February 04, 2014, 12:17
I think it's great that Scott has taken the time to drop in here and explain things to us.

As someone with a tiny portfolio who has some images that frequently show up on page one, I can't fault their efforts. February was my worst month last year and this year I even had multiple sales over Superbowl weekend, so I'm cautiously optimistic about the latest shuffle. I'm in the .33 tier so not a .25 newbie and I don't think they are favoring the .25 cent folks. I think they are tweaking things to license as many images as possible and of course this is focused on the site as a whole and not targeted to any one contributor's portfolio. Given SS's track record, I really can't imagine that their efforts would deliberately target long-time .38 contributors to harm the value of their portfolios.

Obviously there has to be a way to get new photos seen or they would never sell, and any advantage given to new photos is going to mean that new photos by the .25 and .38 cent crowds are going to get equal billing, so more established portfolios won't completely dominate the searches.

I would guess they continually test algorithms that bring them the most moolah.

I'm sure they favor 25¢ images over 38¢ images *unless* the 38¢ images are downloaded so much more often they simply bring in more money overall, despite the difference in profit per download.

They also have to factor in how often an image brings in EDs, ODDs, etc.

In advertising we test stuff all the time. If a product is more expensive and gets fewer sales, but in the end brings in more profit than when it's priced lower, clients will go with the higher price.

And here is the crux. How would a 38¢ image receive sales much more often than a 25¢ file? When in actual buyer search experience the 25¢ files and new lower cost files are favored in the search. My best selling images no longer show up in the search AT ALL. They have no way of competing for sales, nor will they ever be seen by buyers unless they visit the end 1/2 of my port sorted by most popular.

To many people here SS have become an obsession, a religion that simply can not do anything wrong. Before the IS fiasco, SS was just a mere micro agency and nothing else. One could even say that IS, because of all their errors of judgements gave SS the opportunity to become what it is today. People have short memories and forget this.

So trying to ask or speculate for any logic here is a total waste of time. You will get all the woojayers giving you one minus after another. Theyre afraid you see.

Red Dove · « **Reply #35 on:** February 04, 2014, 14:18 »

^^ don't stop there. Let it all out.

grey1 · « **Reply #36 on:** February 04, 2014, 14:24 »

Quote from: Red Dove on February 04, 2014, 14:18

^^ don't stop there. Let it all out.

gbalex, is a good member and one of the few that dares to oppose. I find your comment somewhat naive. BTW, I made payout over there after 2 days so its no sour grapes. Just observations really.

Red Dove · « **Reply #37 on:** February 04, 2014, 14:40 »

Quote from: grey1 on February 04, 2014, 14:24

Quote from: Red Dove on February 04, 2014, 14:18
^^ don't stop there. Let it all out.

gbalex, is a good member and one of the few that dares to oppose. I find your comment somewhat naive. BTW, I made payout over there after 2 days so its no sour grapes. Just observations really.

My comment was addressed to you.

Never mind. My own fault for joining in. As usual when reading these threads I'm none the wiser. For example, Someone says SS is favoring 25c downloads then someone else pops up claiming new stuff isn't selling so why bother uploading. Which is it? Who has a handle on the truth? Where are the numbers?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #38 on:** February 04, 2014, 14:40 »

Quote from: gbalex on February 04, 2014, 13:56

And here is the crux. How would a 38¢ image receive sales much more often than a 25¢ file? When in actual buyer search experience the 25¢ files and new lower cost files are favored in the search. My best selling images no longer show up in the search AT ALL. They have no way of competing for sales, nor will they ever be seen by buyers unless they visit the end 1/2 of my port sorted by most popular.

They need to give all uploaded images an equal chance at first. If you look at "most recent" files, there's no favoritism yet. It simply goes by date uploaded. If a file starts selling, they probably track how many sales in a set period of time. But that's all guesswork on my part.

disorderly · « **Reply #39 on:** February 04, 2014, 15:17 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on February 04, 2014, 13:31

I'm sure they favor 25¢ images over 38¢ images *unless* the 38¢ images are downloaded so much more often they simply bring in more money overall, despite the difference in profit per download.

I'm just as sure (translation: not sure at all but with a strong belief based on the way SS runs its business) that they do no such thing. Penalizing suppliers who have made large numbers of sales over time would also penalize customers, since they'll have less opportunity to see and select content from experienced artists. I don't believe SS would sacrifice longer term service to their customers for a little short term financial benefit. Can't say the same for every agency, but I trust SS not to screw those of us who've been around a long time and made them so much money.

PhotoBomb · « **Reply #40 on:** February 04, 2014, 15:46 »

SS makes money selling Subscription Plans.
They make less money every time a file is downloaded.
To achieve their profit projections they need to have buyers download a mix of all three levels.
Therefore the search needs to be a mix.
How they decide that mix is their 'secret formula'.
We could conjecture on it forever and never come up with a complete understanding.
I choose not to spend a lot of time worrying about something I can't change.
I just shoot and upload trying to continually up-my-game -- so far it's working for me.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #41 on:** February 04, 2014, 17:32 »

The thing is that if I want to buy an image I'd like to know how popular it really is. Not only views, but real download numbers.
In some cases, I'd like to buy an image that hasn't been purchased and used many times before, in other cases I may be looking for a successful and proven image. Current SS "popular" order is useless for both of those cases.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Reshuffle on shutter ? (Read 14213 times)

Goofy

Beppe Grillo

Ron

Ron

Goofy

Ron

Ron

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors