MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock search change??  (Read 18391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

gyllens

« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2016, 12:08 »
+4
A couple of people here can not see any difference and thats explainable because its always been the same. Ports containing lots of travel, landscapes and sort of general content will not ever notice too much difference.

A change of algorithm will most certainly hit specialized portfolio ten times more. Thats where you find most of the high commercial content and probably most of the best sellers.

I do agree with that large Tech-firm Mullenengines or whatever they were called who sorted the Adobe before they became tangled up with FT. They stipulated that its always a very bad sign indeed when tweaking any search to the point where top sellers fall outside first 4-5 pages and since there is no undo or reverse button chances are they could be gone forever in a downslope.


« Reply #26 on: November 23, 2016, 12:53 »
+3
They're probably testing a regional algorithm test, like they also do. My new images are selling well, but I'm not sure if that's a good thing. They could be changing the algorithm to favor new images, which could hurt sales in the long run for everyone.

I've seen this kind of change on another site and it benefited more people, where newly uploaded images get higher rankings, but gets replaced by the next wave of newly upload images, and so on.

« Reply #27 on: November 23, 2016, 13:37 »
+2
What I see is at least that new images are selling again. An image uploaded today already has four sales. Haven't seen that in ages. And other images uploaded this week sell today as well.

How much that impacts total sales numbers is yet to be seen...

« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2016, 13:42 »
+1
An image uploaded today already has four sales.
... five...

« Reply #29 on: November 23, 2016, 15:16 »
+1
Something seem to have changed since monday. I have a small Travel port online since July. Up till now got about 8-10 Sales per week, and this week i'm over 20 in two days. Surprisingly, almost Sales come from images uploaded last week,  and most of them were resubmitted After a rejection

Sent from my Lenovo Z90a40 using Tapatalk


« Reply #30 on: November 23, 2016, 20:30 »
0
It's all very odd.... I've been around for about 5 or 6 years now. The last few months have been TERRIBLE with old and some REALLY old and forgotten stuff selling, nothing new, not my usual best sellers.
But whatever they have done has improved my situation. This month is not like how it was, but way better than it has been lately.
I think they just keep tinkering, or else servers keep having issues...
Sometimes you are on the 'up' side and sometimes on the 'down'.....but you never know when things might change again....

Reminds me of the Skinner Box experiments - quote from Wikipedia:
"Skinner's research discovered many fascinating examples of animal behavior. One of the most interesting, perhaps, was Skinner's work on superstition. Instead of giving a reward for a specific action and training a specific behavior, Skinner would take a hungry pigeon and place it in a box that would release a food pellet at random. The pigeons developed all kinds of complex behavioral responses such as bowing, scraping, dancing, and neck turns.[7]

What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random".

We are the pigeons but one day we will fly away....
 
Yep humans tend to try and impose a pattern on random events to make sense of the world.....you only have to look at the way people try to predict lottery results...

or sales patterns and the SS search?

« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2016, 02:16 »
0
A couple of people here can not see any difference and thats explainable because its always been the same. Ports containing lots of travel, landscapes and sort of general content will not ever notice too much difference.
That's a reasonable description of my portfolio. I've always reckoned that it's good to have a lot of generic stuff that isn't liable to suffer from going out of fashion or technological obsolesence, and also where there is less intense competition from others (who might be better photographers than me!).
It's also true that I've rarely noticed an impact when people complain about changes to the search.
However, I don't see why portfolios like mine should be immune from changes in, say, the weighting given to age in the search, or some randomising of the ranking, or unsold images getting a push. A landscape photo or a pic of a plate of food ages at the same speed as a "high commercial value" people-picture and there is no shortage of competition unless something is very specific and unusual (and those sell very slowly, anyway, and might do better elsewhere).

gyllens

« Reply #32 on: November 24, 2016, 02:36 »
+4
Search changes algorithms should be made mostly to promote new material saving buyers to see the same old pictures over and over again. To give files exposure and a chance of selling which should be a positive thing
Changes in micro-stock and especially by agencies like SS and even Adobe are made purely for one reason in the hope of increasing profits and in the case of SS trying to satisfy shareholders.
Thats a vast difference from a sort order change trying to benefit both agency and contributors.

Seems to be that the longer it goes the more SS is falling into the trap of the Getty way to never give their contributors an even and fair break.

« Reply #33 on: November 24, 2016, 02:44 »
0
Why would the agency change search engines OTHER than to maximize profit??? Promoting new work or disadvantaging certain contributors is merely a by product.

« Reply #34 on: November 24, 2016, 02:55 »
+1
ss now changes search every two weeks - its a little to much

gyllens

« Reply #35 on: November 24, 2016, 03:33 »
+2
Why would the agency change search engines OTHER than to maximize profit??? Promoting new work or disadvantaging certain contributors is merely a by product.

Maximize profit is not achieved by search-changes. Maximizing profits in any business from a market stall vendor up to a multi billion corp is done by creating a healthy environment around your "workers" and they will work better , harder and in a much more productive manner. Thats the formula in any business have always been and will always be.

Having said that micro-stock is probably one of the few business models that don't care since they have us, who constantly comes back for more and more punishment no matter what. I am sure that even if they lowered our commission to 0.5c we would still come back still uploading. ;D  well you know what I mean.

« Reply #36 on: November 24, 2016, 03:40 »
0
Why would the agency change search engines OTHER than to maximize profit??? Promoting new work or disadvantaging certain contributors is merely a by product.

Maximize profit is not achieved by search-changes. Maximizing profits in any business from a market stall vendor up to a multi billion corp is done by creating a healthy environment around your "workers" and they will work better , harder and in a much more productive manner. Thats the formula in any business have always been and will always be.

Having said that micro-stock is probably one of the few business models that don't care since they have us, who constantly comes back for more and more punishment no matter what. I am sure that even if they lowered our commission to 0.5c we would still come back still uploading. ;D  well you know what I mean.
if only that were true and we are suppliers not workers......but you are right in that they will only start to "care" about us if their supply starts to dry up.

« Reply #37 on: November 24, 2016, 03:46 »
+3
Thats a vast difference from a sort order change trying to benefit both agency and contributors.

Seems to be that the longer it goes the more SS is falling into the trap of the Getty way to never give their contributors an even and fair break.

To start with, how can a sort order change benefit the agency without benefitting contributors? Shutterstock don't have a pile of old rubbish that they own that they can push into top position in searches, the way another agency tried to do, do they? So changing the search is a zero-sum game - some contributors gain, some lose - but Shutterstock's slice remains the same size. Therefore the only reason for making changes will be to keep customers happy and ensure continued long-term success.
You have decided, for some reason, that the main reason to change the search results is to promote new material. What have you got against old material that happened to be unlucky and didn't get the quick initial sale or two that do a lot to bump a file up the search rankings? Don't new pictures start life near the top, anyway, without shuffling the search?
I suspect that search shuffles are designed to give buyers a chance to see some buried files that maybe didn't get the attention they deserve first time round. But when I do a search on "crete, greece" the first few pages have images (not mine, unfortunately) that are clearly superior for general tourism use than those on later pages, so I don't see how the pack can have had much of a shuffle. The pictures designers are likely to want are still on the early pages.
Just because you've done well in the past doesn't mean SS now has some sort of obligation to protect your income, regardless of the interests of others - whether contributors, designers or shareholders. Life ain't like that. We're all at the mercy of shifting search criteria and as long as changes are made with the best of intentions - and I've yet to see any sign of anything else - we've just got to accept it. If the shift makes it uneconomic to continue supplying images, then you have your own calculations to make.


« Reply #38 on: November 24, 2016, 03:55 »
+2
Thats a vast difference from a sort order change trying to benefit both agency and contributors.

Seems to be that the longer it goes the more SS is falling into the trap of the Getty way to never give their contributors an even and fair break.

To start with, how can a sort order change benefit the agency without benefitting contributors? Shutterstock don't have a pile of old rubbish that they own that they can push into top position in searches, the way another agency tried to do, do they? So changing the search is a zero-sum game - some contributors gain, some lose - but Shutterstock's slice remains the same size. Therefore the only reason for making changes will be to keep customers happy and ensure continued long-term success.
You have decided, for some reason, that the main reason to change the search results is to promote new material. What have you got against old material that happened to be unlucky and didn't get the quick initial sale or two that do a lot to bump a file up the search rankings? Don't new pictures start life near the top, anyway, without shuffling the search?
I suspect that search shuffles are designed to give buyers a chance to see some buried files that maybe didn't get the attention they deserve first time round. But when I do a search on "crete, greece" the first few pages have images (not mine, unfortunately) that are clearly superior for general tourism use than those on later pages, so I don't see how the pack can have had much of a shuffle. The pictures designers are likely to want are still on the early pages.
Just because you've done well in the past doesn't mean SS now has some sort of obligation to protect your income, regardless of the interests of others - whether contributors, designers or shareholders. Life ain't like that. We're all at the mercy of shifting search criteria and as long as changes are made with the best of intentions - and I've yet to see any sign of anything else - we've just got to accept it. If the shift makes it uneconomic to continue supplying images, then you have your own calculations to make.
I believe this was discussed a while back and SS stated they tested a new algorithm against the old and if sales went up they adopted the new. So not quite zero sum but it seems a totally rational explanation. Also one has to take into account that even Shutterstock can't force buyers to buy something they don't want which often seems to be forgotten.

« Reply #39 on: November 24, 2016, 04:27 »
0
I believe this was discussed a while back and SS stated they tested a new algorithm against the old and if sales went up they adopted the new. So not quite zero sum but it seems a totally rational explanation. Also one has to take into account that even Shutterstock can't force buyers to buy something they don't want which often seems to be forgotten.
I agree. I would say the immediate impact in the first week (while people complain) is zero-sum but the aim is to make buyers happy which has long-term benefits for the company and for contributors as a whole, though not for every individual contributor.
Certain agencies have tried to push buyers into taking inferior stuff but I suspect the medium term consequence is simply to see buyers migrating to sites where the search results seem to make better sense.

« Reply #40 on: November 24, 2016, 05:01 »
0
Here is an example about the "most popular" glitch i was talking before in this topic, searching for "vine facade", 1900 results, as you can see in the middle of the first page and at the end, it's displaying full uploaded batch, for sure it can't be the most popular and most of them are crappy .
It's even worst on the second page !
https://www.shutterstock.com/search/facade+vine?autocomplete_id=&language=en&search_source=&version=llv1&image_type=images&safe=true
« Last Edit: November 24, 2016, 05:04 by Smithore »

« Reply #41 on: November 24, 2016, 05:21 »
0
:(

Maybe we just have to join them. One photo through a dozen slightly different colour filters and submit them all with a title and keywords full of spam.....

:(((((((


gyllens

« Reply #42 on: November 24, 2016, 05:22 »
0
Without mentioning any names but there is in particular one agency that via sub-pckages this and that "forced" buyers for years to buy what they wanted them to buy. There was a mile long thread here at the MSG about that and we were all crying and complaining. People have short memories here perhaps we have got too used to it?

However I dont know if it worked or not?

So whats to say a sort-change will always render an increased profit? can the agencies see into the future? hardly so its done for profit or loss isnt it but my main concern isnt the actual earnings up or down but the fact that in the case of SS they are dreadful in promoting new content its given a day or so and if it doesnt sell its pushed way back.
There are other and private forums highlighting this problem much much more then here so its obviously a big problem and among some extremely big contributors and conglomerates.

Youre right of course debating this leads as usual to nowhere except some are doing good others not. The usual. On the whole however we should be more concerned about new content rather then a couple of days bad earnings.

« Reply #43 on: November 24, 2016, 08:48 »
0
Search changes algorithms should be made mostly to promote new material saving buyers to see the same old pictures over and over again. To give files exposure and a chance of selling which should be a positive thing
Changes in micro-stock and especially by agencies like SS and even Adobe are made purely for one reason in the hope of increasing profits and in the case of SS trying to satisfy shareholders.
Thats a vast difference from a sort order change trying to benefit both agency and contributors.

Seems to be that the longer it goes the more SS is falling into the trap of the Getty way to never give their contributors an even and fair break.

This is excellent analysis since it is festival season so SS is offering all new wave of images to buyers but strangely all sales are .25 cents
« Last Edit: November 24, 2016, 10:05 by stockyme »

« Reply #44 on: November 24, 2016, 09:04 »
+2
:(

Maybe we just have to join them. One photo through a dozen slightly different colour filters and submit them all with a title and keywords full of spam.....

:(((((((

My assumption has always been that uploading a horde of similars ends up with you competing for sales against yourself. Maybe you get one sale each on half-a-dozen similar pics and then the search gives a better placing to someone else who started off with a couple of sales on the one image they uploaded.
 
I must say, though, that in a search by age of file on Doha Skyline I was shocked to see a heap of near identical "bokeh" pictures of the skyline completely out of focus with all the lights on the buildings forming large round blobs against the smear of the buildings. Artistic, I suppose, but I could see absolutely nothing to distinguish between them all.
I'm also surprised to see they have been accepting simple "art" filters - such as oil-painting overlay textures - which must enormously reduce the chances of an image selling. But I suppose that bumps up the numbers on the site, which does seem to be a deliberate strategy.

« Reply #45 on: November 24, 2016, 10:03 »
0
Search changes algorithms should be made mostly to promote new material saving buyers to see the same old pictures over and over again. To give files exposure and a chance of selling which should be a positive thing
Changes in micro-stock and especially by agencies like SS and even Adobe are made purely for one reason in the hope of increasing profits and in the case of SS trying to satisfy shareholders.
Thats a vast difference from a sort order change trying to benefit both agency and contributors.

Seems to be that the longer it goes the more SS is falling into the trap of the Getty way to never give their contributors an even and fair break.

This is excellent analysis since it is festival season so SS is offering all new wave of images to buyers but strangle all sales are .25 cents
How do you know?.....actually it happens not be be true

gyllens

« Reply #46 on: November 24, 2016, 10:55 »
+1
Ever since the days of the celebrated Image-Bank in 75 the search believe it or not have been a computer orientated affair and internally as well. They have built up tons of experience and there is little doubt that this is one area where micro-stock can clearly learn something from the traditional agencies. Not Getty because their search is probably among the worlds worst taking into account who you are, collections and distributorsl.
Most of the traditional agencies housing RM content will give new images some two weeks exposure and not only in search but also bloggs, newsletters this and that. This will give buyers time to absorb new content and to actually look at it not just flicking through.

This new SS search is now being debated in a couple of private forums with dozens of fulltime stock-photographers and none is happy! why? well because its the usual rubbish and short term profit chasing the same old " we are sort of experimenting " lark and when you finally look at it youre hard pushed to find any new content at all.

besing close to X-mas shouldnt they at least be flaunting som X-mas stuff?

« Reply #47 on: November 24, 2016, 11:28 »
0
I had 9 sales so far today of my last batch submitted yesterday.
Before, for the last months, I usually didn't sold anything new.

« Reply #48 on: November 24, 2016, 12:11 »
+1
It's all very odd.... I've been around for about 5 or 6 years now. The last few months have been TERRIBLE with old and some REALLY old and forgotten stuff selling, nothing new, not my usual best sellers.
But whatever they have done has improved my situation. This month is not like how it was, but way better than it has been lately.
I think they just keep tinkering, or else servers keep having issues...
Sometimes you are on the 'up' side and sometimes on the 'down'.....but you never know when things might change again....

Reminds me of the Skinner Box experiments - quote from Wikipedia:
"Skinner's research discovered many fascinating examples of animal behavior. One of the most interesting, perhaps, was Skinner's work on superstition. Instead of giving a reward for a specific action and training a specific behavior, Skinner would take a hungry pigeon and place it in a box that would release a food pellet at random. The pigeons developed all kinds of complex behavioral responses such as bowing, scraping, dancing, and neck turns.[7]

What happened was the pigeon would receive the food pellet while it happened to be performing some action, and rather than attributing the food pellet reward to randomness, it would assume that the appearance of the food pellet had something to do with its behavior. So it started doing whatever that action was, over and over again, and sure enough, it was eventually rewarded with a food pellet again. Since the pigeon is increasing the amount of time spent performing a particular action, it is also increasing the number of times it is "rewarded" for that action, even though the reward is random".

We are the pigeons but one day we will fly away....
 

no , pigeons never fly away to anywhere. they're not made to think that way...
much like ss contributors, lol..

i am more like pavlov dog. as soon as i hit my monthly average, i drop down dead
and see zeros for days.
so, for me, i hope one day the bell will stop ringing...
and when i hit the monthly average, it will go past that
and i wont have to drop down dead to see zeros anymore ;)

« Reply #49 on: November 24, 2016, 13:16 »
+2
This new SS search is now being debated in a couple of private forums with dozens of fulltime stock-photographers and none is happy! why?

Could it be because when people gather together to have a moan about money none of them is happy?
By the way, what evidence is there that there is a new SS search and that people aren't just seeing a seasonal Thanksgiving week slowdown? Not many sales for me today, either, though I have just picked up a nice fat SOD.  That's one department where SS seems to be doing particularly well recently.

besing close to X-mas shouldnt they at least be flaunting som X-mas stuff?
Try typing "christmas" into the search (though the "best match" results have been disgracefully spammed). Apart from that, they should probably be flaunting Easter and Summer holiday stuff now. Christmas is just about over.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2016, 13:27 by BaldricksTrousers »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
4878 Views
Last post July 12, 2006, 03:55
by leaf
98 Replies
24384 Views
Last post May 25, 2008, 21:20
by cascoly
12 Replies
4585 Views
Last post March 03, 2009, 12:31
by Magnum
18 Replies
6307 Views
Last post April 18, 2012, 05:47
by fotografer
Did SS change the search again??

Started by Rinderart « 1 2 3  All » Shutterstock.com

67 Replies
12834 Views
Last post June 05, 2015, 17:29
by dpimborough

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle