pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: SS change the photo search algorithm?  (Read 7681 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2014, 03:52 »
-3
Pete if you spent less time discounting and marginalizing what folks post and more time actually reading what they write you would have fewer questions and better understanding of the challenges some people have been facing.

The bug forum @ shutterstock would be a good place to start. The various bug patterns are longstanding and frequent.


Uncle Pete

« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2014, 11:03 »
-1
Ah good point, don't answer the question and sink to personal attacks. That's appropriate? Oh I forgot, I'm writing to someone who's anonymous and hides behind some fake ID here. Credibility vacuum.

Here's the question. What Does This Mean?

"Upload one single image and then watch where that image number shows up in the new image page for its most important keywords. "

What are most important keywords on the new image page? Maybe an example or a link would be helpful?



Pete if you spent less time discounting and marginalizing what folks post and more time actually reading what they write you would have fewer questions and better understanding of the challenges some people have been facing.

The bug forum @ shutterstock would be a good place to start. The various bug patterns are longstanding and frequent.

« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2014, 01:51 »
-3
Ah good point, don't answer the question and sink to personal attacks. That's appropriate? Oh I forgot, I'm writing to someone who's anonymous and hides behind some fake ID here. Credibility vacuum.

Here's the question. What Does This Mean?

"Upload one single image and then watch where that image number shows up in the new image page for its most important keywords. "

What are most important keywords on the new image page? Maybe an example or a link would be helpful?



Pete if you spent less time discounting and marginalizing what folks post and more time actually reading what they write you would have fewer questions and better understanding of the challenges some people have been facing.

The bug forum @ shutterstock would be a good place to start. The various bug patterns are longstanding and frequent.

Pete my experience with you here is that you do not ask questions so that you can understand our point of view. You ask them so that you can invalidate our viewpoints.  Therefore I have found it fruitless to spend time answering your passive aggressive challenges hidden in the forum of friendly questions.

As I recall the last time I answered one of your query's you seriously questioned my intelligence. I would hardly call that friendly banter.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2014, 01:54 by gbalex »

« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2014, 09:23 »
+7
In some retail circles they call it "shaking the snow globe" - rotating the stock so that everything has a chance of being monetized. Suppliers generally insist on it and will pay a premium to get it done - we as suppliers don't have that influence.

Some lose out. Some win. And it will never stop happening. In general though, customers will keep buying what they like which is why there are other factors, usually a superior or very similar product appearing on the shelves in droves, when best sellers sales start to decline. So, you keep inventing new and different product or you wait patiently until the snow globe gets a shake.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2014, 12:50 »
+2
Ah so you can't tell me what "new image page for its most important keywords. " is because you didn't like a different post? Sounds like you just can't answer. Maybe someone else will tell me how to search the new image page for most important keywords for a single image.

Yes Red Dove, I think that's a good part of it. No one is turned off, just that someone else is turned up.

In some retail circles they call it "shaking the snow globe" - rotating the stock so that everything has a chance of being monetized. Suppliers generally insist on it and will pay a premium to get it done - we as suppliers don't have that influence.

Some lose out. Some win. And it will never stop happening. In general though, customers will keep buying what they like which is why there are other factors, usually a superior or very similar product appearing on the shelves in droves, when best sellers sales start to decline. So, you keep inventing new and different product or you wait patiently until the snow globe gets a shake.

Ah good point, don't answer the question and sink to personal attacks. That's appropriate? Oh I forgot, I'm writing to someone who's anonymous and hides behind some fake ID here. Credibility vacuum.

Here's the question. What Does This Mean?

"Upload one single image and then watch where that image number shows up in the new image page for its most important keywords. "

What are most important keywords on the new image page? Maybe an example or a link would be helpful?



Pete if you spent less time discounting and marginalizing what folks post and more time actually reading what they write you would have fewer questions and better understanding of the challenges some people have been facing.

The bug forum @ shutterstock would be a good place to start. The various bug patterns are longstanding and frequent.

Pete my experience with you here is that you do not ask questions so that you can understand our point of view. You ask them so that you can invalidate our viewpoints.  Therefore I have found it fruitless to spend time answering your passive aggressive challenges hidden in the forum of friendly questions.

As I recall the last time I answered one of your query's you seriously questioned my intelligence. I would hardly call that friendly banter.

« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2014, 12:56 »
-2
Pete give up, you will not be successful into goading me into pointless discussion.

You will have find egocentric entertainment at someone else's expense. 

Uncle Pete

« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2014, 13:06 »
0
Thanks for spouting words that mean nothing and then blaming me because you can't answer some gibberish about most important keywords. It wasn't a trick question was it?

And the part about I should read the bug reports I did post that the images not appearing was a three year old bug and the search appearing to have changed was a two year old subject. But you chose to attack me?

I know you are challenged, because unlike us peasants and low life, we didn't lose our place on the first page of searches like you elite and wonderful people. That's kind of arrogant to say to everyone here, wasn't it? You lost your unfair advantage and you are bitter. Just admit it and move on.

 
Pete if you spent less time discounting and marginalizing what folks post and more time actually reading what they write you would have fewer questions and better understanding of the challenges some people have been facing.

The bug forum @ shutterstock would be a good place to start. The various bug patterns are longstanding and frequent.

Pete give up, you will not be successful into goading me into pointless discussion.

You will have find egocentric entertainment at someone else's expense.

« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2014, 19:54 »
-3
Thanks for spouting words that mean nothing and then blaming me because you can't answer some gibberish about most important keywords. It wasn't a trick question was it?

And the part about I should read the bug reports I did post that the images not appearing was a three year old bug and the search appearing to have changed was a two year old subject. But you chose to attack me?

I know you are challenged, because unlike us peasants and low life, we didn't lose our place on the first page of searches like you elite and wonderful people. That's kind of arrogant to say to everyone here, wasn't it? You lost your unfair advantage and you are bitter. Just admit it and move on.

 
Pete if you spent less time discounting and marginalizing what folks post and more time actually reading what they write you would have fewer questions and better understanding of the challenges some people have been facing.

The bug forum @ shutterstock would be a good place to start. The various bug patterns are longstanding and frequent.

Pete give up, you will not be successful into goading me into pointless discussion.

You will have find egocentric entertainment at someone else's expense.

To be clear I could easily discuss my comment in lieu of the "straw man arguments" you consistetly thow up as a way of avoiding civilized and rational discussion. I would be more than happy to discuss the comment with anyone who is resonable and sincere.  I can offer a valid method to either rule out or verify shutterstocks claims of "first in first out reviews"

However I refuse to discuss any topic with someone who conducts himself in the way you have in previous theads, not to mention this thread.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2014, 12:10 »
+1
You're right I'll give up trying to understand this false and specious claim attacking SS.

As for SS claim of first in first out reviews, it is easy to see that shutterstocks claim is patently false by making a dozen upload tests. Upload one single image and then watch where that image number shows up in the new image page for its most important keywords.

« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2014, 17:44 »
-2
A rational, fair minded, critical thinker would be willing to verify that the information deceminated via shutterstock representatives is indeed factual before they repeatedly parrot or pass that same information on to their fellows. 

It would be exceedingly easy to accurately prove or disprove shutterstock's claim that they perform "first in first out reviews by participating in a structured contributor test which has been carefully designed to offer accurate information.

A contributor lacking critical thinking skills as well a fair minded integrity, would be unwilling to perform due diligence to determine or verify whether the information that has been provided by shutterstock is factual; before they pass that unconfirmed information on to a large number of contributors.

I will leave it to you to determine by your actions, in which camp you ultimately reside.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2014, 19:13 »
+3
I agree and look forward to the results and data from such a test.

A rational, fair minded, critical thinker would be willing to verify that the information deceminated via shutterstock representatives is indeed factual before they repeatedly parrot or pass that same information on to their fellows. 

It would be exceedingly easy to accurately prove or disprove shutterstock's claim that they perform "first in first out reviews by participating in a structured contributor test which has been carefully designed to offer accurate information.

A contributor lacking critical thinking skills as well a fair minded integrity, would be unwilling to perform due diligence to determine or verify whether the information that has been provided by shutterstock is factual; before they pass that unconfirmed information on to a large number of contributors.

I will leave it to you to determine by your actions, in which camp you ultimately reside.

Rinderart

« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2014, 10:59 »
0
Just singing the good old Microstock Blues,
T-Bone Walker knew it was coming, a long time ago....

They call it stormy Monday,
Tuesday's just as bad,
Wednesday's worse,
Thursday, oh so sad.

Yes, the eagle flies on Friday, and Saturday I go out to play
Sunday I go to church, I get down on my knees and pray


my sales disappeared today on SS, yesterday was low, today is worse, sales should be high at least to 17-18 december,  i fall on august levels this week, excpet tuesday was only normal.

Bobby Bland.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2014, 12:10 »
+1
"Call It Stormy Monday (But Tuesday Is Just as Bad)" - is a song written and recorded by American blues electric guitar pioneer T-Bone Walker

Or did you mean later pop version? In which case, I'll post my version on Youtube and you can add my name?  :)

ps almost... No One disagrees that the algorithm changed sometime in 2012. That's where this started.

Sometimes people have different opinions of how it changed and what the effects are. One person suggested that a rolling implementation may have been used to start with older accounts and move to newer.

Some say that lower level artists get better search placement, because the company makes more.

Any of these are very possible, but except for the fact that there has been a change, most of the theories have no evidence to back them up.

The "popular" is closer to a little bit of random new images, mixed with latest sales and best sellers. Even if I only look at my own, day to day and I know exactly what images have the most money,m most DLs, are latest DL and newest, there's no sense to it, at all.

 I suggest that people try to avoid thinking we can understand or explain, the meaning of the search, because it changes by location, by user (previous search cookies), and by any number of other factors. It always did, but the big change in 2012 was extensive.

You might be more successful figuring out why some Monarch Butterflies migrate 4000 miles and others never leave where they live. Or how they moved the giant moai statues, or maybe proof of the question... is there intelligent life in outer space.

We don't know and without a way to examine and record large collections of data, we aren't going to have anything but rumors and guesses.



Just singing the good old Microstock Blues,
T-Bone Walker knew it was coming, a long time ago....

They call it stormy Monday,
Tuesday's just as bad,
Wednesday's worse,
Thursday, oh so sad.

Yes, the eagle flies on Friday, and Saturday I go out to play
Sunday I go to church, I get down on my knees and pray


my sales disappeared today on SS, yesterday was low, today is worse, sales should be high at least to 17-18 december,  i fall on august levels this week, excpet tuesday was only normal.

Bobby Bland.

« Reply #38 on: December 08, 2014, 12:18 »
-2
I agree and look forward to the results and data from such a test.

A rational, fair minded, critical thinker would be willing to verify that the information deceminated via shutterstock representatives is indeed factual before they repeatedly parrot or pass that same information on to their fellows. 

It would be exceedingly easy to accurately prove or disprove shutterstock's claim that they perform "first in first out reviews by participating in a structured contributor test which has been carefully designed to offer accurate information.

A contributor lacking critical thinking skills as well a fair minded integrity, would be unwilling to perform due diligence to determine or verify whether the information that has been provided by shutterstock is factual; before they pass that unconfirmed information on to a large number of contributors.

I will leave it to you to determine by your actions, in which camp you ultimately reside.

So do I, it would be interesting to see verified information for once, instead of inane parroting of shutterstock PR.

And since you are the once representing shutterstocks claim of "first in first out reviews" as factual information and you have also publicily stated that your intelligence is superior to my own and a few others here.

It will be interesting to see if you have the rectitude to design, roll out and invite participation in a test that will offer repetable accurate results.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #39 on: December 08, 2014, 12:32 »
+2
I know we agree much more than we disagree, except for some minor details, most of the time. Here's why YOU are responsible for the testing, not me: You are making the claim. (name calling and misplaced characterizations, do nothing for your position  by the way, please stop)

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning."

The ball is in your court, you are making the claim.

I agree and look forward to the results and data from such a test.

A rational, fair minded, critical thinker would be willing to verify that the information deceminated via shutterstock representatives is indeed factual before they repeatedly parrot or pass that same information on to their fellows. 

It would be exceedingly easy to accurately prove or disprove shutterstock's claim that they perform "first in first out reviews by participating in a structured contributor test which has been carefully designed to offer accurate information.

A contributor lacking critical thinking skills as well a fair minded integrity, would be unwilling to perform due diligence to determine or verify whether the information that has been provided by shutterstock is factual; before they pass that unconfirmed information on to a large number of contributors.

I will leave it to you to determine by your actions, in which camp you ultimately reside.

So do I, it would be interesting to see verified information for once, instead of inane parroting of shutterstock PR.

And since you are the once representing shutterstocks claim of "first in first out reviews" as factual information and you have also publicily stated that your intelligence is superior to my own and a few others here.

It will be interesting to see if you have the rectitude to design, roll out and invite participation in a test that will offer repetable accurate results.

Rinderart

« Reply #40 on: December 11, 2014, 21:08 »
+3
We all have old images sell every now and then. But the last 3 days Im selling Nothing But 9 year old Images. I mean Nothing But. Nothing Newer. I hate it. My newer work Just falls faster and has no chance.thats a pretty screwy algorithm search if ya ask me. 

« Reply #41 on: December 11, 2014, 23:42 »
+4
We all have old images sell every now and then. But the last 3 days Im selling Nothing But 9 year old Images. I mean Nothing But. Nothing Newer. I hate it. My newer work Just falls faster and has no chance.thats a pretty screwy algorithm search if ya ask me.

I'm selling a good amount of new uploaded images at SS lately. 


« Reply #42 on: December 11, 2014, 23:44 »
+5
We all have old images sell every now and then. But the last 3 days Im selling Nothing But 9 year old Images. I mean Nothing But. Nothing Newer. I hate it. My newer work Just falls faster and has no chance.thats a pretty screwy algorithm search if ya ask me.
It seems that new images need to mature a bit and then they start to sell. Its like my sales of new images always trails a few weeks, to months, and then they start selling.

« Reply #43 on: December 12, 2014, 02:17 »
+4
I'm selling new images, uploaded few days ago but yes, if they stay here for a long while, about a month, they sell much better.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1947 Views
Last post July 10, 2007, 17:08
by sharply_done
10 Replies
2440 Views
Last post August 12, 2013, 06:21
by ajt
145 Replies
22033 Views
Last post July 14, 2017, 09:53
by niktol
71 Replies
12640 Views
Last post February 04, 2018, 10:45
by YadaYadaYada
7 Replies
3064 Views
Last post January 22, 2018, 10:33
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results