BM Discussion: Updated Jan 25th

Displaying 1741 to 1760 of 2050 matches.
courtneyk
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:51PM
/
/
Posted By konradlew:
The


Posted By friztin:
^ I did this and the results are pretty much the same. Maybe 2-3 images from the first page have the sun in it, and the mayority are not panoramas, just horizotal shots (and some vertical!).

(Edited on 2013-01-29 10:36:34 by friztin)




Yes... and to be honest, I doubt that customers are playing with those "little question marks" sad

(Edited on 2013-01-29 12:10:12 by konradlew)


 


It should also be noted that around 70% of the images on the first page have 0 downloads.
konradlew
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 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:00PM

well, sometimes 90% of images have 0 dls... sad


 


EDIT:




I don't know if this is right thread, but I have just noticed something very new....


Now we have only shortened list of keywords and the link with an arrow to show it all. My concern is... How external search engines (like google images) will be finding our pictures? Kelvin/Lobo... do you know something about this?

(Edited on 2013-01-29 14:19:01 by konradlew)
DWithers
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:19PM
Posted By wdstock:

Posted By mikie11:


Posted By wdstock:



Posted By mikie11:
Because they even can't  properly make the basics. And you gonna load them with your second order...




Well I guess my point is that you can't separate these factors, they are all contributing to the net results.



Wrong point. First: you can separate these factors, second: you must separate them.


What I'm saying is that there are many parameters which make up the current BM and only a handful are being considered. An analogy would be a faucet with hot and cold "dials". If the hot is turned off, no matter how much you adjust the cold "dial", the water will never be hot.

I don't think that any factors are being considered correctly.  Try a photo search for businessman narrowed to one person.  Sorted by the ironically named Best Match  there are three high download and 197 zero  download files in the first 200.  
It is broken and there is no point fiddling with "dials and levers" until the fundamentals are fixed.
mikie11
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 1,250 - 4,999 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:38PM
Posted By wdstock:



Posted By mikie11:




Posted By wdstock:





Posted By mikie11:
Because they even can't  properly make the basics. And you gonna load them with your second order...






Well I guess my point is that you can't separate these factors, they are all contributing to the net results.





Wrong point. First: you can separate these factors, second: you must separate them.




What I'm saying is that there are many parameters which make up the current BM and only a handful are being considered. An analogy would be a faucet with hot and cold "dials". If the hot is turned off, no matter how much you adjust the cold "dial", the water will never be hot.



And what I'm saying is that it's bag analogy. What you propose is rather like adding sea salt, foam, aromatisers and all such stuff without having hot and cold water properly mixed. Every, no, like this: EVERY, no, even like this:EVERY technical or scientific task ALWAYS is being solved from basics to complex. NEVER VICE VERSA. They don't seem to understand it themselves, and by your advise you are only adding to their mind mess. Actually, I explained it all detailed and plainly couple of pages earlier, find and read it.

(Edited on 2013-01-29 14:43:40 by mikie11)

(Edited on 2013-01-29 14:46:45 by mikie11)
friztin
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:39PM


Yes... and to be honest, I doubt that customers are playing with those "little question marks" sad

(Edited on 2013-01-29 12:10:12 by konradlew)


Yep, that too.. I've been here for years and I didn't know exactly how to make those "?" work > never used them before (Thanks Sean!)
dchadwick
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:45PM

Sorry if this has been raised before (and perhaps someone can point me in the right direction) but I uploaded several files that were accepted weeks ago and do not show up in a search AT ALL. Even when multiple, specific, matching keywords are used, the files simply aren't visible. Obviously, they are not selling. This has been brought to my attention by a client asking if I have any images (they knew I'd been to the area in question recently) and I directed them to iStock. I look a bit silly as a result.


Thanks
NicolasMcComber
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:49PM

I gotta speak up. I'm stuck in middle-age hell (my port is from 2008-2012) and my sales have dropped a dramatic 70% since Friday. I can't believe that according to what I read here, the situation will stay like this with only slight progress that we might not even see for weeks. I'm sorry, but there was nothing subtle about the change in December, and I thought it was clear that it was temporary. To see that now it stays and is built upon is the most discouraging thing yet for new (er) artists like me. Of course I realize not everyone can be happy, but such a steep drop is not a normal BM flux. If the future belongs to old best sellers, ingested content and brand new files that sink in 3 weeks whether or not they sell, I don't see at all where the motivation will be to invest and shoot new material. It makes no sense.

There. Venting over. Now I can go back to piling up photographs on my hard drive that I don't dare upload in this climate. Great fun to be an exclusive here so far this year. Sigh.
cmannphoto
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:02PM
I like a good laugh as much as the next person, but I am NOT laughing when I look at My Uploads page.
alanphillips
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:03PM
Posted By mikie11:

You are wrong. Fairy tales about extreme complexity of BM are only needed to justify incompetence and laziness of iStock team. Basicaly any such search engine consists of two main steps:

1. Selecting files according to requested keywords.

2. Ranging selected files according several weighed parameters.

Step #2 is no more than simple elementary school arithmetics equation.  Kind of

 CW1*(dls/mo)+CW2*(dls/view)+CW3*(1/file age)+CW4*(total dls/total files)+ whatever else you want, where CW1...CW4 are weight coefficients.



Wow, nice and simple, that's what we need. Wonder why nobody thought of that before? All they need to do is work out the optimal weightings for the various factors, shouldn't be to hard. Then optimize the optimal weightings in the various combinations. You refer to four different coefficients. I am sure you can work out the number of combinations of these four factors. Hang on, there are various different weights for each factor/coefficient, that makes things a bit more complicated. Let's make it a simple 10 different levels for each weighting for the four different coefficients. Wow, that's getting a bit complicated. Tell me, no tell us, Mickie11, how many combinations are we now talking about? Given the number of different factors, coefficients? and combinations the most efficient way to resolve the best solution would probably be to use a heuristic approach, a heuristic search if you like, for the optimal values for each factor. And as you know, computationally that takes time.

Its obvious that things are happening, BM is changing. Give it time to evolve.
Vaara
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:36PM
/
/My new file's BM position (for the most likely two keyword combination) after approving... Day 1: 5th, Day 2: 7th, Day 3: 14th, Day 4: 323rd. Somewhere between days 3 and 4 the file got it's first view. I guess nowadays the very first view has to lead to purchase, if the file is to survive. Or maybe the BM scientists just pulled some lever that says "Move 1 week old files back 300"biggrin Actually, it's not funny at all.

EDIT: Ok, it was indeed some kind of glitch. Day 4: 19th. But I still think the speed of dropping is really fast. Especially because many people are holding back uploading. So the top should fill slower with newer content than normally. What happens if a new file gets a download after few views? I think it should stop dropping for a while or even crawl back up a few positions. If file age always wins BM until the file has a few hundred downloads, iStock will never generate new good selling files and the collection starts to die.

(Edited on 2013-01-30 01:27:58 by Vaara)
mikie11
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 1,250 - 4,999 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:02AM
Posted By InkkStudios:
mike11, sounds like you do this for a living and maybe iStock should use you as a consultant smile

No, for living I'm making video.)) I'm just engeneer by my first specialty, and though I don't wright scripts, this basic approach is obvious for any guy with technical education. Save for iStock guys, of couse.)) And I'm afraid they don't need no consultants. They are succesfully killing iStock for almost half a year, and now quite close to their destination.))
mikie11
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 1,250 - 4,999 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:43AM




Posted By alanphillips:

Posted By mikie11:

You are wrong. Fairy tales about extreme complexity of BM are only needed to justify incompetence and laziness of iStock team. Basicaly any such search engine consists of two main steps:

1. Selecting files according to requested keywords.

2. Ranging selected files according several weighed parameters.

Step #2 is no more than simple elementary school arithmetics equation.  Kind of

 CW1*(dls/mo)+CW2*(dls/view)+CW3*(1/file age)+CW4*(total dls/total files)+ whatever else you want, where CW1...CW4 are weight coefficients.




Wow, nice and simple, that's what we need. Wonder why nobody thought of that before? All they need to do is work out the optimal weightings for the various factors, shouldn't be to hard. Then optimize the optimal weightings in the various combinations. You refer to four different coefficients. I am sure you can work out the number of combinations of these four factors. Hang on, there are various different weights for each factor/coefficient, that makes things a bit more complicated. Let's make it a simple 10 different levels for each weighting for the four different coefficients. Wow, that's getting a bit complicated. Tell me, no tell us, Mickie11, how many combinations are we now talking about? Given the number of different factors, coefficients? and combinations the most efficient way to resolve the best solution would probably be to use a heuristic approach, a heuristic search if you like, for the optimal values for each factor. And as you know, computationally that takes time.

Its obvious that things are happening, BM is changing. Give it time to evolve.


Yeah it's changing. Four months. Each time for worse.


And, Alan, mind that I wrote this equation for about a minute. To change coefficients will take about another minute. OK, it's just an example of basic approach, let's assume that real equation takes a day or two. To test the result offline takes, well, let it be another day or two. OK, some tuning needed. Let it be a week. Or two. Now tell me, no tell us, Alan, what are they doing for four months? And why every change makes the things only worse? Just don't tell me about great number of combinations, only a crazy man will try them all cosequently. As we come to numeric values, the approximate meaning of each coefficient will be quite obvious. Only fine tuning will be left.


The point is that for four months they can't even make the basics. Seems they just don't understand what they are doing at all.
Starkblast
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:57AM

Yeah it's changing. Four months. Each time for worse. And, Alan, mind that I wrote this equation for about a minute. To change coefficients will take about another minute. OK, it's just an example of basic approach, let's assume that real equation takes a day or two. To test the result offline takes, well, let it be another day or two. OK, some tuning needed. Let it be a week. Or two. Now tell me, no tell us, Alan, what are they doing for four months? And why every change makes the things only worse? Just don't tell me about great number of combinations, only a crazy man will try them all cosequently. As we come to numeric values, the approximate meaning of each coefficient will be quite obvious. Only fine tuning will be left.



The point is that for four months they can't even make the basics. Seems they just don't understand what they are doing at all.

The problem, very likely, is that any change in BM affects iStock's/Getty's business results directly and thus needs to be accounted for through many management layers, which takes forever again and again. Let's not put the blame on just the small team of wizards and tweakers that work their ass off, I guess..
Lobo
Posted Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:06AM
I think, Starkblast has the right of it. I'm going to steal from a conversation I was having with someone this morning on all the wonderful points Mikie111 has been making.

"In terms of a general explanation of how such as thing as the BM would work, it seems reasonable - and how I think most of us would guess it would work, but that's just like someone giving you a general description of a car - doesn't explain how well your car will go - or perform"

So in short, you probably have a good handle on the basics, Mikie111 but you don't have all the information. No offence to you, as I appreciate you taking the time to come in here to inform the contributor base.

Thanks.
mikie11
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 1,250 - 4,999 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:59AM
What offence may be, Lobo? I'm not trying to be tech messiah or something. And of course I don't have all information. Actually I have no information at all, as all, or at least most of us. And that's why I have to make various suggestions. But two things are known for sure: we are all losing a lot of money, and iStock is going down. OK, let's assume the tech team is brilliant and all those management layers, witch Starkblast spoke of, brake down the process. But then the question of top management competence arises. The result, that's what matters, But result of  iStock four months work is disastrous. And whatever whoever may say, such result cannot be due to only objective circumstances.


 

(Edited on 2013-01-30 06:00:27 by mikie11)
Lobo
Posted Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:45AM
You are correct, the results are what matters. So as we continue to get to a place that has some semblance of what we actually need our search to be doing we will continue to plug away with it.

Thanks for all your input.
sodafish
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 Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:02AM
Yes, but what I still don't get is why the search isn't doing wat it should do. It's the heart of this site and it is taking months now. Forgive me if I'm frustrated, but I depend completely on this site and so on the search, and while I still sell a bit, the BM is broke. No offence Lobo, you still function just fine.
Lobo
Posted Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:07AM

Posted By sodafish:
Yes, but what I still don't get is why the search isn't doing wat it should do. It's the heart of this site and it is taking months now. Forgive me if I'm frustrated, but I depend completely on this site and so on the search, and while I still sell a bit, the BM is broke. No offence Lobo, you still function just fine.

I can assure you we have all hands on deck. This is clearly a concern we all share.
wdstock
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 Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:13AM
^ I recognize that the most important thing is to move forward here, but what is the official word on how the BM became "broken"?
Lobo
Posted Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:18AM

Posted By wdstock:
^ I recognize that the most important thing is to move forward here, but what is the official word on how the BM became "broken"?

What would that accomplish?
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1741 to 1760 of 2050 matches.
Not a member?Join