BM Discussion - Video Addition

of 6Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 116 matches.
Lobo
This user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator
Posted Wed Mar 6, 2013 7:43AM
As we are well aware there are some issues plaguing the Video side of the Best Match I feel it's probably time we opened up a thread in the Video Forums.

I'll prepare some opening statements today and get them up here so we can get the discussion started, or more appropriately, on topic. Until such time please feel free to add your observations and insights. Please do your best to stay focused on Best Match. Don't bring a bunch of emotion in here and detract from the issues related to Best Match. Sales history doesn't need to be added here, so please refrain from posting about that in here.

Thanks.
jjneff
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 12,500 - 99,999 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio ArtistMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Wed Mar 6, 2013 8:48AM
From my searching I have found older NTSC/PAL files ranked to high, if you balance like you did on the photo side I think all would be a lot better. How as it balanced in 2012? looked good then so why not just duplicate the same now?
multifocus
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 12,500 - 99,999 Video downloadsMember has had a File Of The WeekPunctum Award Winner: Member has a file that has won a Punctum
Posted Wed Mar 6, 2013 9:30AM

BM discussion for video.... brilliant Lobo, thank you!


My main concern is the 'clumping' of NEW content.  New files are appearing as batches huddled together (commonly 5+ at a time) and too many of these clumps seperated by a few regular sellers.  The move to show new content on top pages is really encouraging but I wonder if there is a way to show our new material with a better variety.  I.e. a new file will appear every 20 older files without another new file from the same batch sitting next to it.


Also, perhaps page one (showing 200) should show a lot fewer NEW files.  Page two could show 20 new files. Page 3 could show 25 newer files and so on.


Not trying to teach the search engine team how to suck eggs, sorry


Again though, it is really so encouraging to be having these open discussions where we feel we have a say in how the site works.  Bravo!
AllLightFilmCLOSEDB
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 1,250 - 4,999 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Mar 6, 2013 9:39AM
May sound brutal, but to compete, iStock should only list files from Exclusive, so new marketing flash, "istock, all exclusive"! 
jjneff
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 12,500 - 99,999 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio ArtistMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Wed Mar 6, 2013 10:26AM
They could push exclusive files higher that is for sure but to cut all non-excusive down to the bottom is not a great idea. There are some very talented artist with good content that are non-exclusive we need that good content to stay competeive. I am more concerned with what the buyer see's the most. I agree with multifocus on the clumping aspect as well.  
voshadhi
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 1,250 - 4,999 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Mar 6, 2013 10:29AM
Thanks for thinking about this topic. Here are my ideas and some copy paste of my comments from the main forum BM search.
Too many files from the same shoot clogging together in the first pages(new or old). In some worst cases I have seen 49/50 files from the same contributor and the same shoot. I am not saying everyone should be able to see their files in the front search page but it should be a good representation what IS has to offer as a collection. First priority should be the buyer who is looking to by a video for their project. If I am buyer I don’t won’t see the same clips from the same shoot. And it’s more relevant to have a link to the shoot lightbox from the file if someone needs a different version.
Few general examples. Again these are not super rare or specific key words, just some general keywords the search result is irritating, and I am only focusing on the 50 results in the BM.

"House cleaning"
"woman in white"
"woman"  
"Chicago"
"office"
"Baby"
"Traffic"
"Food"
"chicken"
"shopping"
"school"
"Boston"
"weightlifting"
"spinning"
"earth"
"web browsing"
"Bible" search looks good
"fishing" search looks good
"sunrise"
"Photography"
"chili"
"Furniture"


I guess you get the picture

(Edited on 2013-03-06 10:32:06 by voshadhi)

(Edited on 2013-03-06 10:33:18 by voshadhi)
piola666
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Mar 6, 2013 1:56PM
as stated by jjneff, at the moment video BM seems characterized by newest files, mixed with really old bestseller (often ntsc/pal), thus not representing exactly best we offer. And we do!

And, as we said in the other BM thread several times, regarding video, old files could mean really old-equipment-limited quality videos.

Anyway, it's a pleasure to write in this thread regarding, specifically, video BM.
Thank you.
jdillontoole
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 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Mar 6, 2013 2:03PM
Posted By jjneff:
From my searching I have found older NTSC/PAL files ranked to high, if you balance like you did on the photo side I think all would be a lot better. How as it balanced in 2012? looked good then so why not just duplicate the same now?


I agree...but would say prior to mid-sept......


Also the clumping issue.....thanks for the thread
Maulsmasher
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Mar 6, 2013 2:13PM
I agree, any NTSC/PAL videos are probably dated and not the resolution I would think a lot folks are after. I would keep them in the back and let anyone searching for them filter to them
piola666
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Fri Mar 8, 2013 1:08AM
/
/I just read news from Searchfairy regarding general BM in the general discussion forum.

When we read news there, are these associated to both photos and videos?

Because I have to say that since mondey my video sales drop, almost completely. I hope in favour of someone else.
And instead the last weeks prior to that change had been good.
(I am sorry if I talk a bit about salses, but I guess it's a way we can monitor BM)


 


Edit:

after some "BM inspection" based on searches and not on sales,
I have to say that the problem is similar to photos: just NEW videos and old bestseller (some are reaaaaly old) are up, and not the good videos with a DWLDS/time high ratio, that should be the most valuable ones.

(Edited on 2013-03-08 02:04:13 by piola666)
Maulsmasher
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Fri Mar 8, 2013 7:13AM

I think there is an issue specifically related to video as older resolutions should be pulled back or phased out. Maybe anything older than 5 years and not availble in HD should be put in a bargin bin...


 


I think showing older resolution videos will turn most folks off...especially if they are high on the totem.

(Edited on 2013-03-08 07:13:48 by Maulsmasher)
Maulsmasher
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Fri Mar 8, 2013 3:23PM

Q


 


Question: Is there a staging or sandbox that iStock Developers test in before making these adjustments live? I'm pretty sure there is...which leads me to ask why not have a closed beta area for a select group of customers and contributors to test updates such as BM? Especially when BM seems to directly affect sales and customer experience.



Seems like it could be more productive and can offer insights that developers may not have taken into consideration, such as older NTSC/PAL videos being irrelevant today.
(Edited on 2013-03-08 15:23:32 by Maulsmasher)

(Edited on 2013-03-08 15:26:23 by Maulsmasher)
vision008
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 Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Flash downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Flash Artist
Posted Sat Mar 9, 2013 12:04PM
Will the developers be paying attention to this thread in order to open up a channel of dialog and hopefully resolve problems? If that is the case then i would be willing to help.
synthetick
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Sat Mar 9, 2013 1:25PM
A few suggestions from me in no particular order:

1. Currently files get a huge boost in their placement once they reach 10 downloads. I have seen this happen many times with my own files. For example, I have a waterfall video that was placed about 400th in a video-only search for "waterfall," until it reached its 10th download and rocketed up to the first row of the first page, and is currently at number 4. In my opinion files should move up incrementally with each download, not languish at the back until they get to 10 downloads. This is particularly relevant to video. A photo might not take long to get to 10 downloads, but a video could take several years.

2. Unlike some others, I don't have a problem with seeing the SD videos in the search results. Istock sells a lot of web size videos, and for that market a 4x3 aspect ratio can be just as useful as a 16x9 aspect ratio, and indeed may often fit better into a web page's design, or into a Powerpoint presentation.

3. We really could do with some sort of initial keyword weighting, provided by the contributor. Putting new files that have no keyword weighting high up in search results means that there can be a lot of irrelevancy. Possibly due to the broken Views counter it takes longer than it used to for keyword order to sort itself out.

4. Files from 2012 are still being punished by BM. Sometimes I wonder why I bothered uploading in 2012 at all! Perhaps this is to do with the broken Views counter during 2012. Please give 2012 files a little extra boost. I'm sure there are some great videos that are being missed by the buyers.

5. Others may not agree, but I thought the latest tweaks to BM were a bit harsh on Vettas. It is always a gamble putting videos into such a high-priced collection, and we need the extra exposure to make it work.

6. Regarding the comments above about Exclusive content, the level of exclusive content looks good to me at the moment. I am not seeing much non-exclusive content in the first couple of pages, which is as it should be IMO!
piola666
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Mar 9, 2013 1:50PM

synthetick, I liked your post and approach!

hope Staff will check it.

4. Files from 2012 are still being punished by BM. Sometimes I wonder why I bothered uploading in 2012 at all! Perhaps this is to do with the broken Views counter during 2012. Please give 2012 files a little extra boost. I'm sure there are some great videos that are being missed by the buyers.

almost 70% of my files are from 2012. So, if you (Synth) say a true thing, that could explain my slowdown (since 15th of Dec).

5. I agree, Vetta are top quality video, selection is hard, cost is high, but being excellence they should be pushed a bit more.


 


 


I add that I'm a hard-workin video contributor, as I said I have most of my video from 2012, and I have not a single video with more than 10 dwlds... so if things I read are true... I'm in deep trouble.

(Edited on 2013-03-11 02:10:16 by piola666)
Spencer_Whalen
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Mar 9, 2013 2:34PM
Posted By synthetick:

4. Files from 2012 are still being punished by BM. Sometimes I wonder why I bothered uploading in 2012 at all! Perhaps this is to do with the broken Views counter during 2012. Please give 2012 files a little extra boost. I'm sure there are some great videos that are being missed by the buyers.

5. Others may not agree, but I thought the latest tweaks to BM were a bit harsh on Vettas. It is always a gamble putting videos into such a high-priced collection, and we need the extra exposure to make it work.

I'm, noticing that my 2012 files are being severely punished. 90% of my portfolio is from 2012 and also all my video files have disappeared from Getty due to another bug. I'm now scratching my head thinking why did I bother working so hard last year? It's not paying me back if things stay like this!
Spencer_Whalen
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Mar 9, 2013 3:00PM
Posted By synthetick:

1. Currently files get a huge boost in their placement once they reach 10 downloads. I have seen this happen many times with my own files. For example, I have a waterfall video that was placed about 400th in a video-only search for "waterfall," until it reached its 10th download and rocketed up to the first row of the first page, and is currently at number 4. In my opinion files should move up incrementally with each download, not languish at the back until they get to 10 downloads. This is particularly relevant to video. A photo might not take long to get to 10 downloads, but a video could take several years.


Lobo/Search Fairy + whomever! Synthetick may have found the route of the 2012 issue with the above post. Looking at my own portfolio I have a very small % with 10+ downloads. They all sit high in my portfolio hierarchy. However video files with 5-9 downloads are nowhere to be seen. I think this is very important! This could be the route of the 2012 problem. Could this be looked into? Or better still is it being looked into?


Video file download counts will always be smaller than  the photo download count. The video BM should take account for this. For example 5 video downloads could be the equivalent to 100 photo downloads. The BM I would hope would have some code to push video files higher in the results due to this.
jdillontoole
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 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Mar 9, 2013 4:22PM

Interesting about the 2012 video comments.....I uploaded about 100 new videos in spring 2012 and they did and have done very little.
Maulsmasher
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Mar 9, 2013 5:04PM
Posted By Spencer_Whalen:

Posted By synthetick:

1. Currently files get a huge boost in their placement once they reach 10 downloads. I have seen this happen many times with my own files. For example, I have a waterfall video that was placed about 400th in a video-only search for "waterfall," until it reached its 10th download and rocketed up to the first row of the first page, and is currently at number 4. In my opinion files should move up incrementally with each download, not languish at the back until they get to 10 downloads. This is particularly relevant to video. A photo might not take long to get to 10 downloads, but a video could take several years.



Lobo/Search Fairy + whomever! Synthetick may have found the route of the 2012 issue with the above post. Looking at my own portfolio I have a very small % with 10+ downloads. They all sit high in my portfolio hierarchy. However video files with 5-9 downloads are nowhere to be seen. I think this is very important! This could be the route of the 2012 problem. Could this be looked into? Or better still is it being looked into?


Video file download counts will always be smaller than  the photo download count. The video BM should take account for this. For example 5 video downloads could be the equivalent to 100 photo downloads. The BM I would hope would have some code to push video files higher in the results due to this.

I agree, video needs to be handled differently from photos in that regard.
funky-data
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:51AM
Regarding 2012 files, my uploads from late 2012 (after august mostly) are lost somewhere in BM.
This thread has been locked.
of 6Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 116 matches.
Not a member?Join