Views update

First pagePrevious pageof 7Next page
Displaying 41 to 60 of 132 matches.
abzee
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 5, 2013 3:58AM
Posted By Whiteway: 

I can't think of any argument for this sort of behaviour, when it comes to registering views. Views from outside are just as important as views from members who are logged in.



I can think of one point which could justify such a methodolgy.


IF views per sale is one of the variable metrics employed by the BM algorithm, which it probably is based on my experience , surely it is better that the views which are recorded are those from potential buyers, ie those who are logged in. 

I've certainly suspected that pimp threads, blog links / facebook posts / tweets etc. to other contributors, friends and relations etc. can only result in hurting that files metric by inflating 'no intention to purchase' views. I you can target only buyers in your promotional posts that's different.

Changing methodology, if this is what has happened, would affect some files differently from others in a historic perspective.

I really never have been hung up on views per se, sales are most important metric by far and the sales threads speak for themselves.

(Edited on 2013-01-05 04:00:35 by abzee)
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Jan 5, 2013 4:37AM
^ My answer to that would be, don't use such a metric in BM.

If such a metric is used, then I suppose it was used before September, when all views counted. And I don't see any arguments in the forums that say there has been a sudden improvement in BM. Quite the contrary.

All views are a measure of interest. Currently, contributors are not uploading - because they are not seeing evidence that their work is being viewed.
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 Sat Jan 5, 2013 4:42AM

Posted By Whiteway:
Currently, contributors are not uploading - because they are not seeing evidence that their work is being viewed.


Hmm, you like 'facts' when you declare them, but dish out suppositions with the same certainty.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Jan 5, 2013 5:19AM
^ And you apparently like to stir it just for the sake of it. Fair enough, you have plenty of company.

Read the forums and you will find the evidence.
bunhill
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 5, 2013 5:20AM

Posted By abzee:

I can think of one point which could justify such a methodolgy.


I can think of another or connected potential issue: writing to the database (ie recording views) has the potential to slow down the site. The fewer unnecessary writes, the better.
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 Sat Jan 5, 2013 5:44AM

Posted By Whiteway:
^ And you apparently like to stir it just for the sake of it. Fair enough, you have plenty of company.

Read the forums and you will find the evidence.


So it's informed discussion when you're leading it, and 'stirring ' otherwise?

You make unfounded claims to superior knowledge to everyone else including those who actually talk to the people who have the information and jump on anyone who dares to question your version of interpreting the keyhole through which we view the data.

I've been watching my figures for years and years and I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the drop in views is concurrent with the dearth of buyers and sales. Someone from iStock has admitted as much and yet you refuse to credit that information with any value.
Gannet77
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 5, 2013 7:35AM

Posted By Whiteway: 

I can't think of any argument for this sort of behaviour, when it comes to registering views. Views from outside are just as important as views from members who are logged in.



I don't think so.


I have a file which has many thousands of views, and no downloads at all, at least, not until recently.  Why?  Most likely because there is a link to it from another website where it is used (a website I created) and I suspect the many "views" were most likely just spiders and other web crawling bots, and if that is so, then there really is no reason why such hits should be counted.


I'm with abzee here - if views are a significant part of the BM (although we have been told this is not so) then it's better to just count those from registered users.  The trouble is, if it IS part of the BM, then the change in how it is calculated will have an effect on new files as compared to old ones, likely skewing the BM towards older files, though we don't know enough about it to be sure how that will pan out.  I fear, however, that the BM wizards in Calgary don't know either, which is worrying...
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 5, 2013 7:35AM
This is obviously an emotive issue for some and, while we understand the passion with which people express their opinions, we'd greatly appreciate it if people could perhaps be a little more accommodating of those that may not chime with their own. Oldladybird has explained that she is trying to get to the bottom of the reported views discrepancies and I'm sure we all look forward to hearing what info can gleaned from tech people at HQ.

No need to knock lumps off each other in the meantime.


Thanks.
GavinD
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 5, 2013 8:02AM
There was something odd about views up to Sept. If you tweeted about a new file ( and for example it had zero views) then as soon as you toggled into iStock you would see it had six views or so. I believe that it's impossible that they would be real views.
fstop123
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Jan 5, 2013 9:50AM

At one time newest uploads were featured on the front page and you could easily watch what was new and view and rate.  Not so easy to do now.


Also, we had a steady stream of newest images from our 'friends' that we could view and rate.


Now we cannot see the newest images from 'friends' so readily and we cannot rate.  Thus, lots of lost views.


Just an observation.
graemenicholson
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 6, 2013 12:36AM
I have a file that is in 1 Lightbox but has 0 views (it was not a Vetta submission). How is this possible as one has to be signed in to add an image to a Lightbox?
alanphillips
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 8, 2013 3:18PM
Any news on this? Obviously not.
cbarnesphotography
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 8, 2013 3:57PM

Posted By alanphillips:
Any news on this? Obviously not.

Very astute commentary, Richard.
Xerith
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Jan 9, 2013 10:28PM

I don't understand, I thought it should be easy to check whether views are working or not? My views for this photo haven't updated for months so I don't think it would suddenly move.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-20386273-baby-shoes-on-tiny-feet.php


Just try clicking on my photo and see if it would increase the view counter and there we have our answer since all of you should already be registered users. If it increases from the current 75, means that the views counter is working... if not then means it is not working. What is there for iStock to study about? Hmmm
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:16AM
Posted By Xerith:
I don't understand, I thought it should be easy to check whether views are working or not? My views for this photo haven't updated for months so I don't think it would suddenly move.

Views are working as long as the 'viewer' is logged in. This is why images appearing in the PTOTW will usually show some views - because they are looked at by contributors who are logged in, and click through from the forum.

Views by buyers who don't log in, or by potential buyers who arrive via an Internet search, do not (currently) have those views recorded. This seems to explain the discrepancy between views as they appear now, and views as they appeared before September.

Other than that, most of your 'views' (as recorded by DeepMeta) are likely to be for images newly accepted or rejected. Or sold.
Xerith
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:46AM

Noted.


Yes, to confirm, the view counter is now at 82 so I guess like Whiteway said, it is working but probably only for registered users.


Sorry I forgot, did buyers all have to login before viewing photos in the past? Because I can't imagine why the counter used to move (albeit slowly) in the past but now it has completely stopped... unless of course no one can find my photos anymore. Although my photos are nothing special, but at least people looked at it in the past...
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:08AM
Posted By Xerith:

... did buyers all have to login before viewing photos in the past

You have to login to make a purchase, but you do not have to log in to search for images and view them.
Knaupe
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:02AM
Well, the view counter seems to work, but far from correct.


Yesterday and today I went to 2 images in the list Latest Uploads, one on page 1, one on page 5, both with Zero views.


Within 1 Hours I opened image one 12 to 15 times (lost track on exact number). Now 24 Hrs later, it shows 7 views.


The images from today I again opened within 1 hour exactly 6 times (10 Min intervalls). Now, 5 Hrs later, it shows 3 views.


Of course I was logged in.


So there still seems to be a bug. Or the asssumption from Oldladybird, that views update every 30 Min. is quite off. Will check the images tomorrow again, but somebody els might view and impact my stats. Will see

Edit: these 2 where NOT my images, just random

 

(Edited on 2013-01-10 07:03:59 by Knaupe)
gmutlu
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 downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:21AM

At the beginning you said the views are recorded but not displayed. Ok, then, you said views are recorded but displayed in one week delay. Now you say only views from logged in customers count as a view...
BirgerNiss
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:03AM
Hi all,
Virtually no one has been looking at my images since september last year, so I was pretty much certain that the view stats didn't work. I then made a very simple experiment, namely creating a new user who started viewing my images. Signing in again as my old self, the view stats had been immediately updated - lo and behold
Three possible explanations come to mind:
1. Before september you didn't need to be a registered user for the views to count
2. My images are exceedingly uninteresting
3. The number of visitors to IS has dropped drastically
This thread has been locked.
First pagePrevious pageof 7Next page
Displaying 41 to 60 of 132 matches.
Not a member?Join