Author Topic: Reshuffle on shutter ? (Read 14195 times)

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 14195 times)

LesPalenik

gbalex

grey1

luissantos84

wordplanet

Ron

Shelma1

grey1

gbalex

grey1

Red Dove

grey1

Red Dove

Shelma1

disorderly

PhotoBomb

LesPalenik

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors