 Posted Fri Jan 18 8:03AM | Posted By Lobo:
Posted By cmannphoto:
Since the the Sept "upgrade" we have lost Ratings and Views.
So my question is, are "Ratings" and 'Views" part of that "data" that the search falls back on?
If so, could that explain the difference in the search results since the beginning of Sept?
Ratings has never held much weight from what I can recall. I will see if I can confirm that. The same goes for views.
I had asked this over a month ago when the thread was started by Lobo and have not seen an answer as of yet.
TPTB should take a closer look at this issue, because it was working before September. |
Posted Fri Jan 18 8:27PM |
It's unbelievable how bad the results still look. Referring to konradlew's post... Most of the images doesn't even have much of green color in them. I agree with others, "Agency dial" is not the most important thing. Agency images dominate only a few searches but multiple keyword searches are dominated by new irrelevant images. Somehow BM in it's current state can't process keyword relevancy data for keyword combinations and instead fills results with new irrelevant content. This is huge problem because it pushes buyers to sites with better results. How a company of the size and resources of iStock/Getty allows this to go on for months is beyond me. Except the common conspiracy theory that this is done to get rid of exclusives... But one would think it would be simpler to just state that exclusivity program will end than lose all the buyers in this way. They are really expensive to get back.
Once in a while I check results for two word seach sea surface because I recently added an image for which those would be obvious search keywords. My image has BM position around 1000, even when it already has one download (11 views) and is relevant to the search. Images of fireworks, city harbours, maps, sunsets, lighthouses, bikini women, birds and coral reefs are before my image, most of them with zero DL's and views. Yes, admit they have some stretched connection to sea and some kind of surface in the picture, but this is certainly not what average customer hopes to see for that search.
Why doesn't iStock think this is a problem?
|
Posted Fri Jan 18 9:09PM |
I searched for "green meadow" and while I did get bunch of "green meadow" images in the first set of pages, almost 90% of them were from 2009-2006 era, and the third image on the first page was from 2003!!!
How pathetic is that!???
|
Posted Sat Jan 19 3:45AM | Please change the weight of "Number of downloads" in the Best Match algorithm to favour new content, please. |
Posted Sat Jan 19 2:46PM | i just uploaded one image after one month to check the situation. before i had average+30 images/week for whole year. some weeks with full slots used. for me, on rare downloads i have since december bm change, old images are stil dominating. for me cut is about +50% i believe. i aded more than 1600 images in 2012. and deleted few hundreds of older images with low downloads that will never get an dl as well.
(Edited on 2013-01-19 14:48:58 by Drbouz)
(Edited on 2013-01-19 14:49:32 by Drbouz)
*on last 600 images and clips i have less than 100 downloads, starting from half of july. i had no more moral strength to look further  . i am literally starving. and calculating escape routes/options.
(Edited on 2013-01-19 15:02:34 by Drbouz)
|
Posted Sun Jan 20 4:52AM | I just take the news, and from what I understand, I see that all this is still not repaired |
Posted Sun Jan 20 10:38AM |
Dear Staff,
is expected, as stated above, the BM shake (or fix) planned tomorrow? (and delayed of a week)
Please, give it a high priority because the situation for many contributors is terrible.
|
Posted Mon Jan 21 2:45AM | iStock, any plans to sell anything today, or even this week? |
Posted Mon Jan 21 2:45AM | Please change the weight of "Number of downloads" in the Best Match algorithm to favour new content, please. Quickly. |
Posted Mon Jan 21 4:00AM | Come on, at least say something. |
Posted Mon Jan 21 4:24AM | it's 04:00 AM in Calgary... |
Posted Mon Jan 21 5:01AM |
Posted By ilbusca:
Come on, at least say something.
Posted By Starkblast:
it's 04:00 AM in Calgary...
What he said.  |
Posted Mon Jan 21 5:26AM | What! No night shift? |
Posted Mon Jan 21 9:35AM | come on iStock. you have buried my new works from 2009 forward. you've killed my new files. the sales I am getting are files I forgot I even had, and the thousands and thousands of new files that sell far better are lost. awesome, thanks. |
Posted Mon Jan 21 9:40AM | Actually, I'm seeing a pretty decent spread of years in my downloads for the past few days, much more than before.
Maybe they have twiddled with the settings already? |
Posted Mon Jan 21 9:46AM | Nothing has changed
(Edited on 2013-01-21 09:47:13 by Juanmonino)
|
Posted Mon Jan 21 9:49AM |
No Change as I see it , same order since Christmas
|
Posted Mon Jan 21 9:52AM | the BM results in my portfolio look like they did in 2009, with the exception of Vettas and Agencies at the top. not one new file for pages and pages and pages and pages and pages.......and so on. absolutely brutal |
Posted Mon Jan 21 10:01AM | Posted By stacey_newman:
the BM results in my portfolio look like they did in 2009, with the exception of Vettas and Agencies at the top. not one new file for pages and pages and pages and pages and pages.......and so on. absolutely brutal
Ditto |
Posted Mon Jan 21 10:09AM |
But why are we/they reinventing the wheel? Is this really that hard to go back to BM from April/May/June/July(choose one)? I hope that someone saved somewhere the postion of those "BM Dials"... ?
|
Cart