Attention: These forums are no longer active. The iStock Contributor forums have moved to the Contributor Community site.

'Please can we have an Update on the Best Match - November 12

Displaying 81 to 100 of 189 matches.
mightyisland
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:14PM
Thanks, but it doesn't address the OP.
JKristoffersson
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:15PM

Posted By oldladybird:

Update on Views


Views are being calculated correctly but they are about a week behind.


There is definitely some work to be done. No estimate on the timing for that quite yet.


This just can't be right. Before the CC update I had at leat about 100 views a day and since that day there are one or two views a day (according to DeepMeta). The only time views are updated are when a file gets downloaded or someone puts it in a lightbox. A couple of files (three or four) have had their numbers of views corrected to what seems to be the correct amount. But I still get one or two views a day wich is nothing against what it was, even if the updates are one week behind.
I've even tried several times clicking on a file of mine with zero views when logged-out and from different computers and it still has zero views when my clicks should have been counted if things worked as they should.

(Edited on 2012-11-16 13:19:26 by JKristoffersson)
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:58PM

Firstly thanks for the posts oldladybird.


I don't normally keep track of views, but it seems to me that views are way more than a week behind, or if they are then they weren't being recorded correctly in the past. I seem to have a fair number of files from two months ago which are not showing any views, and files from the same period with one sale showing one view. I'd "normally" expect most files to have collected some views after two months plus, and files with sales probably to have more than one view. 
LeeAnnWhite
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:25PM
Posted By oldladybird:

Update on Views


Views are being calculated correctly but they are about a week behind.


There is definitely some work to be done. No estimate on the timing for that quite yet.


Well then it's even more depressing than I THOUGHT it was if views are being counted because I'm still not hardly getting any of those.  A week behind or not I'm still not getting any (views) (or sales).  


I still think that the view count & review/rating thing is somehow tied in to the whole BM search and sales...or the lack of....



(Edited on 2012-11-16 17:25:31 by LeeAnnWhite)

(Edited on 2012-11-16 17:27:58 by LeeAnnWhite)
ilbusca
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:05AM
Has this been fixed? I still have bad search results here.
RalphParish
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:59PM
Views ain't fixed and it's certainly not just one week behind. Except for files that have sold views have not changed since September!  

(Edited on 2012-11-17 12:59:45 by RalphParish)
Sadeugra
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:12PM
Posted By oldladybird:

Just to clarify, it is the Content Team that makes sure contributor issues are reported to the tech group.

I guess that explains why my posts were deleted.  A quick and kind message letting me know whom should I contact in such cases would have been appreciated.  
Sadeugra
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:59PM
Posted By ilbusca:
Has this been fixed? I still have bad search results here.

Same bad BM results here.

I've noticed that some keywords bring even worst results.
For example "Nobody" seems to be a very problematic keyword.

kid + dog ..... results were not so terrible. 
kid + nobody...... Terrible results. Lots and lots of files with 0 downloads.
Edited: I meant: dog + nobody...... Terrible results.  Lots and lots of files with 0 downloads

money + business ..... results were acceptable.
money + nobody...... Terrible results.  Lots and lots of files with 0 downloads.

(Edited on 2012-11-17 15:48:04 by Sadeugra)
gmutlu
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:11PM
Posted By Sadeugra:

Posted By ilbusca:
Has this been fixed? I still have bad search results here.


Same bad BM results here.

I've noticed that some keywords bring even worst results.
For example "Nobody" seems to be a very problematic keyword.

kid + dog ..... results were not so terrible. 
kid + nobody...... Terrible results. Lots and lots of files with 0 downloads.

money + business ..... results were acceptable.
money + nobody...... Terrible results.  Lots and lots of files with 0 downloads.

(Edited on 2012-11-17 15:01:49 by Sadeugra)

Nobody knows why.
ilbusca
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:13PM
well... kid + nobody obviously gives terrible results, since the kid himself is somebody...
Sadeugra
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:45PM
Posted By ilbusca:
well... kid + nobody obviously gives terrible results, since the kid himself is somebody...

Oops!.  I meant dog + nobody
princigalli
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:36AM
Posted By Sadeugra:

Posted By ilbusca:
well... kid + nobody obviously gives terrible results, since the kid himself is somebody...


Oops!.  I meant dog + nobody

Dogs are sentient beings too
ilbusca
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:32AM
Posted By oldladybird:

Update on Views
Views are being calculated correctly but they are about a week behind.

This can't be true, sorry. I have files with 2 downloads and in 4 lightboxes uploaded a month ago with 1 view... it can't be right. True that the file can be bought/added to LB from the search page but it seem very strange to me. Also I have too many files from September with 0 views... if what you say is true the situation is even worse than I expected!
fotoVoyager
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:27AM

Posted By oldladybird:
Update on Views
Views are being calculated correctly but they are about a week behind.


If this is true then the problem isn't an anti-exclusive BM mix, it's a complete lack of customers judging by the number of zero views on my month old files.
OktalStudio
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:33AM
Oldladybird said that it's an "Update on Views". I guess that means that since 16. Nov. views have been calculated correctly. At least I hope it means so.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:00AM
Posted By OktalStudio:
... I guess that means that since 16. Nov. views have been calculated correctly. At least I hope it means so.

They may have been calculated correctly but they are certainly not showing up in DeepMeta, so there is no evidence on the outside that anything has changed.
ilbusca
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:06AM
I am not talking about deepmeta, I look at the stats in the "my_upload" page.
mightyisland
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:11PM
Posted By fotoVoyager:


Posted By oldladybird:
Update on Views
Views are being calculated correctly but they are about a week behind.



If this is true then the problem isn't an anti-exclusive BM mix, it's a complete lack of customers judging by the number of zero views on my month old files.


This is a concern - some time ago we were told not to worry about view counts - it's not lack of views, it's the views not working.


Now we're told they are working and a week behind.


I still have bugger-all views too. 


So based on the confirmation that views are working, IS is now confirming that no-one is viewing my stuff. Is that correct IS?
friztin
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:27PM
:S
hatman12
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:02PM

"Views are being calculated correctly but they are about a week behind."


What madness is this?  A week behind?  Is iStock operating some sort of 486 database system where updates depend on someone copying and pasting on an occasional basis?  This is the modern age.  We have computers.  Computers operate in real time, not with a one week delay.  Database information display should be instantaneous.  That's the way computers and web sites work.


I'm not criticising you in any way OldLadyBird, because you are just the messenger.  But this really is complete madness.


Look: a customer clicks to view a picture.  The view count records a view and the database is updated.  Stats linked to the database automatically show the additional view.  It all happens in milliseconds.  That's the way things should work.  A customer buys a picture:  the sales database is updated, the stats are updated, the uploads page is updated, all in real time.  


Do you think when I place an order at Amazon I then have to wait a few days for someone to remember to press a button?  Of course not.  Does someone have to print out an order slip and go running off down the corridor to dispatch?  Ridiculous.  It just doesn't happen.


And yet here we are at iStock with systems that would look out of date in the Ark.  I appreciate that there were legacy systems from the old days, but these were meant to have been upgraded at F5.  Yet here we are two years later and nothing has changed.  It's as if the whole thing is being run on some old computers backed up by a couple of Nintendos in the corner, and every now and then someone has to remember to copy and paste stuff otherwise nothing works.  It looks and feels sloppy and amateurish.  This really shouldn't be the case.


Istock is meant to be the leading microstock photo agency in the world and rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue every year.  Why then does it continue to tolerate second rate systems that seem to crash every couple of days and present our important buying customers with constant Whoops! 503 messages? Systems that cannot operate in real time, and need people to press buttons 'when they remember to do so' otherwise nothing gets updated?  And instead of actually fixing things it puts out pathetic statements like 'views are running a week behind?' A week behind?  Can't you see how ridiculous that statement sounds?


Why doesn't istock just get everything fixed, stop making constant excuses, and actually deliver something they can be proud of?
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 81 to 100 of 189 matches.
Not a member?Join