MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why is the Shutterstock ranking not 100 anymore??  (Read 12307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 03, 2012, 15:21 »
0
I'll tell you.

Because previously I had it set that whatever was at the top of the poll would set the standard at 100 and the rest of the results would be something relative to that.  If iStock was at 50 that meant that people were reporting their income at iStock was 50% of what they were making on Shutterstock.

That all worked fine except for one thing.  We never knew if Shutterstock was going up or down, just what the other sites were doing in relation to Shutterstock (or whoever was at the top).

Now I've set the top value at an arbitrary constant amount so that Shutterstock isn't at 100.  The ratio's would still apply.. if Shutterstock is at 90 and iStock is at 45 then people are on average earning 2x more on Shutterstock but we can also see if Shutterstock is going up or down over time.  This is a bit easier to visualize on the graph.

So what does the poll tell us?
Everyone is obviously going to see different performance from different sites but when averaged out, the polls give a nice pointer to the direction sites are headed, and over time we can see some interesting changes.


« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2012, 17:13 »
+2
I'll tell you.

Are u asking a question in the forum and answering it yourself? Yes he is. Ok thanks.  :P

Nice job Tyler.

traveler1116

« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2012, 17:19 »
0
Got it.  Any chance that exclusives will have a place on the rankings?

« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2012, 02:01 »
0
Got it.  Any chance that exclusives will have a place on the rankings?

Yeah, i should figure out how to include them.  I have them sifted off in the results but haven't displayed their results anywhere

I'll tell you.

Are u asking a question in the forum and answering it yourself? Yes he is. Ok thanks.  :P

Nice job Tyler.

Haha.. Are you trying to be funny now?  yes I think so

« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2012, 02:09 »
0
Great idea, leaf, that indeed gives a good idea on how SS is performing.

« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2012, 00:15 »
0
Got it.  Any chance that exclusives will have a place on the rankings?

Yeah, i should figure out how to include them.  I have them sifted off in the results but haven't displayed their results anywhere


Why not compare total incomes from photo sales for exclusives to non-exclusives. It may mean creating a separate question or two, and having higher maximums than in the current poll, but isn't that what everyone is really interested in?

RacePhoto

« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2012, 00:52 »
0
Why not use real dollars not imaginary numbers based on an imaginary standard?

« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2012, 01:22 »
0
Why not use real dollars not imaginary numbers based on an imaginary standard?


because then people would think that the actual dollar amount means something.  The actual dollar amount doesn't mean anything because people have to round their answers down quite a bit, you can't answer as high as you want (if you make $5000 on a site for example), and there aren't enough people answering to make a dollar amount statistically significant.    The only thing we can really know from the results is where sites lay in relation to each other and how they rank in relation to previous months and a ranking from 0-100 works quite well for this.

« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2012, 01:25 »
0
Got it.  Any chance that exclusives will have a place on the rankings?

Yeah, i should figure out how to include them.  I have them sifted off in the results but haven't displayed their results anywhere


Why not compare total incomes from photo sales for exclusives to non-exclusives. It may mean creating a separate question or two, and having higher maximums than in the current poll, but isn't that what everyone is really interested in?

I don't think there are enough answers to get a good result for a comparison like that.  I do sort exclusive vs non-exclusive answers though and will display the exclusive answers sometime soon.  As soon as I figure the best way to do it. 

RacePhoto

« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2012, 09:19 »
0
OK fair enough. Can you post somewhere the index number you use, and then I can still see the rough dollar numbers by calculations on my own.

What does 100 mean? $100, $1000, $10?

It's easy to see that SS is double IS for the Indys, and FT is 30%, DT 22% of that lead value, nice round numbers. But maybe the index number in dollars would be of value?

Yes making it so SS moves up and down, makes sense. Hey can you do something like the Dow Jones and show the whole market total going up and down? We'd finally know what month is really best and which are the worst.  :D


Why not use real dollars not imaginary numbers based on an imaginary standard?


because then people would think that the actual dollar amount means something.  The actual dollar amount doesn't mean anything because people have to round their answers down quite a bit, you can't answer as high as you want (if you make $5000 on a site for example), and there aren't enough people answering to make a dollar amount statistically significant.    The only thing we can really know from the results is where sites lay in relation to each other and how they rank in relation to previous months and a ranking from 0-100 works quite well for this.

« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2012, 14:53 »
0
OK fair enough. Can you post somewhere the index number you use, and then I can still see the rough dollar numbers by calculations on my own.

What does 100 mean? $100, $1000, $10?

It's easy to see that SS is double IS for the Indys, and FT is 30%, DT 22% of that lead value, nice round numbers. But maybe the index number in dollars would be of value?

Yes making it so SS moves up and down, makes sense. Hey can you do something like the Dow Jones and show the whole market total going up and down? We'd finally know what month is really best and which are the worst.  :D


Why not use real dollars not imaginary numbers based on an imaginary standard?


because then people would think that the actual dollar amount means something.  The actual dollar amount doesn't mean anything because people have to round their answers down quite a bit, you can't answer as high as you want (if you make $5000 on a site for example), and there aren't enough people answering to make a dollar amount statistically significant.    The only thing we can really know from the results is where sites lay in relation to each other and how they rank in relation to previous months and a ranking from 0-100 works quite well for this.

Yeah, the magical number is 500 for whatever that's worth... so the average photographer on MSG is saying he is making just under $500 on SS
A Dow Jones type overall market rise fall would be useful I agree.  I'll think about how to make it work.

KB

« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2012, 16:07 »
0
Got it.  Any chance that exclusives will have a place on the rankings?

Yeah, i should figure out how to include them.  I have them sifted off in the results but haven't displayed their results anywhere


Why not compare total incomes from photo sales for exclusives to non-exclusives. It may mean creating a separate question or two, and having higher maximums than in the current poll, but isn't that what everyone is really interested in?

I don't think there are enough answers to get a good result for a comparison like that.  I do sort exclusive vs non-exclusive answers though and will display the exclusive answers sometime soon.  As soon as I figure the best way to do it.
To do that, it might help to have an additional entry for non-exclusives of total earned microstock photo income. The average answer of that would be as close to a direct comparison with exclusives as I can think of.


« Reply #13 on: September 06, 2012, 16:52 »
0
I don't know if this has been suggested before (or if this the right thread to suggest it), but I think it would be interesting to have a general poll entry called "Self" or "Direct" or something like that - i.e. for people who run a self-operated web store and sell their own work directly.

Yeah, I should add that in there for next month.  That would be an interesting stat and an easy addition

« Reply #14 on: September 06, 2012, 18:00 »
0
Isn't it better and easier to calculate the relative ratio with percentages...?

stan

    This user is banned.
« Reply #15 on: September 06, 2012, 18:05 »
0
Yeah, the magical number is 500 for whatever that's worth... so the average photographer on MSG is saying he is making just under $500 on SS
A Dow Jones type overall market rise fall would be useful I agree.  I'll think about how to make it work.

So an average tog at MSG is really noticeably above average. Makes sense, since most people posting here are really into it and also better informed than those not participating in any MS forums.

« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2012, 06:43 »
0
Isn't it better and easier to calculate the relative ratio with percentages...?

percentage of what?

« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2012, 03:25 »
0
Isn't it better and easier to calculate the relative ratio with percentages...?

percentage of what?

Of whole sum of earnings...
I sum up my total earnings of all agencies... (SS+IS+ DT+ etc.)
Then I divide amount of every agency with complete microstock earnings (example: SS earnings / total earings=0.32, which means that SS is 32% of my total monthly earnings)...

So, sum of all percentages should be 100%

Then you can track two relative movements every month for each agency (percentage part of each agency and monthly changes (also in %))...

So, you can find average earnings for each agency (with constant votes) from polls and then make the same thing..
If you want absolute values, you have to show us average earnings in $ for each agency after polls voting...
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 03:32 by borg »

« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2012, 06:23 »
0
Isn't it better and easier to calculate the relative ratio with percentages...?

percentage of what?

Of whole sum of earnings...
I sum up my total earnings of all agencies... (SS+IS+ DT+ etc.)
Then I divide amount of every agency with complete microstock earnings (example: SS earnings / total earings=0.32, which means that SS is 32% of my total monthly earnings)...

So, sum of all percentages should be 100%

Then you can track two relative movements every month for each agency (percentage part of each agency and monthly changes (also in %))...

So, you can find average earnings for each agency (with constant votes) from polls and then make the same thing..
If you want absolute values, you have to show us average earnings in $ for each agency after polls voting...


That is an interesting thought but I don't think it would be as accurate as it sounds.
Lots of new photographers can't get into Shutterstock for example.  For them, they are earning say 50% on iStock, 30 on Dreamstime and 20% of Fotolia (just for arguments sake)  They will put in their numbers but put in nothing for Shutterstock.  Shutterstock will have a lower overall percentage 'market share' even though the photographers who do submit there are earning a respectively large part of their income there.
I feel the way the polls work now show what happens when you actually have images on site X.  There are problems with every strategy.  I guess either way the results or order would probably be quite similar, the numbers would just be slightly different.

« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2012, 16:56 »
0
Yes, but that could be problem only if pools votes are in percentages...
But, if you leave voting in dollars, small amounts of new contributors can not make irrelevant results, also they are "in" even now...
Now we have same comparison, but it is not related with whole sum of dollars, it is related with the strongest agency (SS)...

« Last Edit: September 09, 2012, 08:47 by borg »

RacePhoto

« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2012, 09:59 »
0

Yeah, the magical number is 500 for whatever that's worth... so the average photographer on MSG is saying he is making just under $500 on SS
A Dow Jones type overall market rise fall would be useful I agree.  I'll think about how to make it work.

I'm impressed (as always) by the group here and the returns they get for their investment and hard work. Here I thought it was $100 all these months. WOW!

So IS is about $250 which is also very good. And down there (over there, down there) BS @ 8 is $40 a month. Cool and thanks for the magic number.

« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2012, 15:19 »
0
Leaf,

I understand why you made the change and find the new way of looking data very helpful, but found the old way, (top company at 100) to be much easier to comprehend because the base was 100 so the math was simple enough I could do it in my head.   

Would it be possible for you to give us a toggle so we could switch between the two views? 

« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2012, 15:20 »
0
Leaf,

I understand why you made the change and find the new way of looking data very helpful, but found the old way, (top company at 100) to be much easier to comprehend because the base was 100 so the math was simple enough I could do it in my head.   

Would it be possible for you to give us a toggle so we could switch between the two views? 

that might create more confusion that it would solve but perhaps a mouse over with a % would be a solution?

« Reply #23 on: September 11, 2012, 19:53 »
0
Leaf,

I understand why you made the change and find the new way of looking data very helpful, but found the old way, (top company at 100) to be much easier to comprehend because the base was 100 so the math was simple enough I could do it in my head.   

Would it be possible for you to give us a toggle so we could switch between the two views? 

that might create more confusion that it would solve but perhaps a mouse over with a % would be a solution?

I think a mouseover would work just fine.  Great idea!

« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2012, 10:15 »
0
I don't know if you've given any thought to this, but as I answered the poll for this month, it occurred to me that I couldn't be very accurate with some of the lower earning sites because of the way we're instructed to answer.

It says you must select the number where you have at least that amount, not the number closest to the amount you earned.

As an example, in September on PhotoDune I earned just shy of the $50 payout. I had to answer $20 as that was the next lower choice, but I was within $4 of $50, so really answering $50 would have given a much better picture of where PD stood. I answered $20 for BigStock too - they were about $30 for the month. So for the poll, the two sites look equivalent, but they really aren't (although if BigStock continues to be un-dead, things may turn around in a month or two!)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
4875 Views
Last post May 05, 2009, 09:14
by NitorPhoto
3 Replies
4398 Views
Last post June 21, 2010, 16:05
by luissantos84
15 Replies
5053 Views
Last post August 24, 2012, 12:11
by sam100
4 Replies
3161 Views
Last post February 08, 2013, 20:28
by OM
9 Replies
3919 Views
Last post February 25, 2017, 01:34
by Zalee

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle