Views update

Thank you for the update. I'm sorry though. I just don't buy it. Prior to September 2012, I was getting at least double digit views on all new images uploaded. Since September I am lucky to have gotten 12 views on one image uploaded on 10/3/12. For such a precipitous decline in views, iStock would have had to have been flooded with a massive number of new accounts/portfolios.

There is something still very, very wrong here.

(Edited on 2013-01-21 12:31:49 by cbarnesphotography)

One factor we're not taking into account is the dismantling of the ratings system and the ability to view new work from your CN.

Could be that those non-buyer views were artificially inflating the numbers.

/
/^^ Agreed, I track views using deep meta. In July (low season) I was averaging 470 views a day, then in November (high season) I am averaging 58 views a day across my portfolio (I was getting 677 a day in Nov 11).  So either istock has declined that much(!) or something did change. 


I still really think this has had an effect on the BM too. Even if views only have a small impact on the BM.  If one of the perameters that make up the BM (in this case views) change by the magnitude of 10 times then it will cause errors.  How else can two files be compared?  A file uploaded in July/August has 100 views and a file uploaded in September has 5.  Then there is the question of all the odd new data piling on top of the old established data.


ETA an extra ^

(Edited on 2013-01-21 13:17:45 by lostinbids)

I have a file with a download and zero views. Is it possible?

A while back I had a file with 3 DLs and 1 view, now it has 5 views and no more DLs

Sure. Do a search, find a file you like on the search results page and add it to a lightbox, then when you've finished searching just click the buy lightbox button ( I forget the exact wording) but basically there's no need to visit a file close up page, which is the only thing that registers a view. Also sales show up in almost real time but view counts do not, so you may find a registered view a bit later if you check it again.

(Edited on 2013-01-22 14:02:37 by kelvinjay)

Or if you are logged out and pay in cash.

Ahh, I get it now, thanks. Thought it was another glitch.

In fact, total number of views for new files from September 2012 is very close to zero. Sales also decreased hard in current month.

i have a rating on a file but no rating system


 

Just curious - any update on this?

Is that really the intended behavior? If views are used in BM search which I have been led to believe, then not keeping an accurate track of all views would seem to me to be an issue. 

^ As I understand, the whole issue with views is on a list of things to do at iStock, but not very near the top.

We have people looking into the views issue. As far as priorities go, it's up there. The fact that we haven't released a definitive statement on why views are now lower than before is another matter. Views from logged in customers are being counted, as they should be. I will continue to try and get an account and explanation of the drop posted by HQ though.

Okay thanks. 

Any word?


 

Most certainly. We removed the Contributor ability to inflate views with the changes in September. I'm not trying to say that ALL contributors were involved in a convoluted conspiracy to influence Best Match results, but there was clear evidence that it was occurring in some instances.

@ALL:
The same would apply to Ratings. If you were previously scratching your head on how a marginal file was getting a high volume of 5 ratings it might be that you aren't able to see the beauty in the marginal, or maybe there was something else at play.

I'll be frank, we don't want to accommodate any gaming of the system. We want an entirely legitimate search for our clients, which is also why Keyword relevancy plays such an important role in Best Match.

So, first nothing has changed in the way that views are recorded, and now it's all a devilish plan?

Myself, I'd rather views were no part of Best Match, and that we could still access the useful information about the number of views our images actually get. What we see at the moment is of no use, and is also demotivating.

Shame.

What are you saying exactly? What is the devilish plan? Please feel free to elaborate as it's something I would like to clarify so that there isn't any confusion.

The probelm, as I see it, is we are getting conflicting information. Back in January Oldladybird said,


"From the information I received, they have not made any changes to views in years."


Now you are saying that changes were made back in September. Thus the confusion.

I read Roger's comment of the "develish plan" as a reference to your "...convoluted conspiracy to influence Best Match results"