Best Match Discussion - March 7

Displaying 301 to 320 of 443 matches.
LeeAnnWhite
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:31AM

I would love to see an update from the Great Search Fairy to the OP on this thread.  I had precisely 1 week since this thread was opened where I saw sales occur almost daily and I almost got excited.  But now it's as if my portfolio was turned off as I have not had any sales since the 20th.  So I'm curious if there have there been any further turns on the knobs & dials since this thread was started? 


(PS) I know this thread isn't about the view counts but since others have mentioned it I sure wish they'd fix the view counting to work as it used to because this total lack of views is completely demoralizing.  I keep feeling it has to be related to the BM somehow.  But as it's functioning right now it makes me feel invisible... 
MichaelUtech
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35AM

Here is another point for the discussion of the positioning of new files:


Average_Age


Please note that this graph is based on my portfolio only (5100 files) and not all files of iStock. The graph shows the average age of files that are downloaded from my portfolio. I guess you can clearly see the slight tendency from 03-2012 to 12-2012 - Obviously the continuous aging of the portfolio also increases the average age of downloads, but since new files constantly (should) replace old files this has a rather small effect.


Now look what happened in December... Suddenly the average jumps from 1.7 to 2.7 years! And it has not recovered since. I started in March 2007 so there are only a couple of files at all from that year. In fact more than half my portfolio is from 2011-13 and yet more than half the downloads are on files from before 2011 while nearly none are from 2013.


I mean I appreciate that I do not have to upload anything to keep my sales steady... but still that cannot be the goal here, can it?
eyewave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:46AM
Posted By MichaelUtech:

Here is another point for the discussion of the positioning of new files:


Average_Age


Please note that this graph is based on my portfolio only (5100 files) and not all files of iStock. The graph shows the average age of files that are downloaded from my portfolio. I guess you can clearly see the slight tendency from 03-2012 to 12-2012 - Obviously the continuous aging of the portfolio also increases the average age of downloads, but since new files constantly (should) replace old files this has a rather small effect.


Now look what happened in December... Suddenly the average jumps from 1.7 to 2.7 years! And it has not recovered since. I started in March 2007 so there are only a couple of files at all from that year. In fact more than half my portfolio is from 2011-13 and yet more than half the downloads are on files from before 2011 while nearly none are from 2013.


I mean I appreciate that I do not have to upload anything to keep my sales steady... but still that cannot be the goal here, can it?

Exactly what I notice with my sales (<4,000 files). Files from 2008 to 2010 are doing quite well atm, newer files got unnoticed by the buyers at the beginning of this year (while sales overall haven't recovered much from their low level since Sept 2012). Problem is, the older the files are, the smaller the file sizes usually are, so customers have less of a  chance to see XXL and larger files in their search results.
markos86
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:32PM
I'm sorry to see that new files are perishing in BM, I do not know why Istock allows it, and why the drastic decline in royalty from month to month
fstop123
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveRecognizing those who reach the 100,000 download mark
Posted Mon Apr 1, 2013 10:17AM

I am seeing the same trend here.   Mostly older files are selling.  Even today, only one sale that was NOT a 2006 or 2007 file.   Older files are from a camera two generations ago and certainly not our better work.   Large is the largest size offered on many older images and certainly do not represent our best work. 


One can only hope that buyers learn to Sort by Age. 


Edited to add the Sort by Age.

(Edited on 2013-04-01 10:18:33 by fstop123)
ilbusca
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 downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio ArtistMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer Spotlight
Posted Mon Apr 1, 2013 10:25AM
After a very long analysis I've found that a big problem is given by the "10 downloads barrier". Please remove it from the algorithm to have more reasonable results.
Juanmonino
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusiveAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Mon Apr 1, 2013 12:03PM
AS long as when new files get downloads but they fall as the other new files with no downloads, problems will persist, sales will keep falling, and customers will finally get bored with same o, same o
On top of that,serious photographers will refrain themselves from uploading fresh new good materials since they know it will fall in BM way back to be forgotten for good
This issues must be addressed asap
borchee
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Apr 1, 2013 12:35PM
Posted By ilbusca:
After a very long analysis I've found that a big problem is given by the "10 downloads barrier". Please remove it from the algorithm to have more reasonable results.

Exactly!



Posted By Juanmonino:
AS long as when new files get downloads but they fall as the other new files with no downloads, problems will persist, sales will keep falling, and customers will finally get bored with same o, same o
On top of that,serious photographers will refrain themselves from uploading fresh new good materials since they know it will fall in BM way back to be forgotten for good
This issues must be addressed asap

It's like talking to the wall. Because... "That's what buyers like!"
CaseyHillPhoto
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Apr 1, 2013 5:10PM
Since downloads seem to be a big part of the BM algorithm (and a big part of the problem at the moment) is there a way we can apply a sliding scale to the value of downloads? For example, recent downloads have a higher BM value than downloads from 2006. Suppose a new file has three downloads in a month--those downloads should be a higher indication of BM value than a similar file that has ten downloads three years ago.
fototrav
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Apr 1, 2013 7:49PM
My earliest upload is in 2009. No wonder I am not selling anything.



Posted By fstop123:

I am seeing the same trend here.   Mostly older files are selling.  Even today, only one sale that was NOT a 2006 or 2007 file.   Older files are from a camera two generations ago and certainly not our better work.   Large is the largest size offered on many older images and certainly do not represent our best work. 


One can only hope that buyers learn to Sort by Age. 


Edited to add the Sort by Age.

(Edited on 2013-04-01 10:18:33 by fstop123)
mlwinphotoCLOSED
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Mon Apr 1, 2013 7:55PM
Posted By fototrav:
My earliest upload is in 2009. No wonder I am not selling anything.




Posted By fstop123:

I am seeing the same trend here.   Mostly older files are selling.  Even today, only one sale that was NOT a 2006 or 2007 file.   Older files are from a camera two generations ago and certainly not our better work.   Large is the largest size offered on many older images and certainly do not represent our best work. 


One can only hope that buyers learn to Sort by Age. 


Edited to add the Sort by Age.

(Edited on 2013-04-01 10:18:33 by fstop123)


Ditto, on both counts.
laughingmango
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 Tue Apr 2, 2013 12:14AM

could this be a clue why no newer files are found...


i just searched "batu ferringhi" and only two files show up. my image File #22349083 has the same keyword. it is found when i search "penang island" and the keyword is on the file when i look at all the keywords. when i click on the keyword found within the file, it again only shows two images. 


please fix this problem, my files since around september 2012 are completely lost - including this one.
Leontura
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Flash downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio ArtistMember has had a File Of The WeekAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Tue Apr 2, 2013 2:39AM
Posted By casenbina:
Since downloads seem to be a big part of the BM algorithm (and a big part of the problem at the moment) is there a way we can apply a sliding scale to the value of downloads? For example, recent downloads have a higher BM value than downloads from 2006. Suppose a new file has three downloads in a month--those downloads should be a higher indication of BM value than a similar file that has ten downloads three years ago.

That's pretty much what they've been doing- they try to "balance" the number of files from each year. Wouldnt it be better to ignore total downloads and just focus on downloads in the last few months or so? What way it doesn't matter how old a file is.
mlwinphotoCLOSED
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Tue Apr 2, 2013 8:41AM
Posted By mlwinphoto:
Are TPTB generally satisfied with the current BM in how it is working for buyers?  Simple question.  If so, then I would assume we can expect it to remain this way with just minor adjustments.  Cuz this one isn't working for me and I need to make plans for some changes either in the way I work or where I work if this is what I can expect for the forseeable future.


I have a small port and don't expect anything other than steady growth in my performance that is in proportion to my participation.  I'm seeing just the opposite for the last few months and it all began with the BM changes back in December so naturally I'm looking to the BM as the reason.

(Edited on 2013-03-25 20:10:20 by mlwinphoto)

Can we get an answer to this question? 
CaseyHillPhoto
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Apr 2, 2013 11:40AM
/
/
Posted By Leontura:

Posted By casenbina:
Since downloads seem to be a big part of the BM algorithm (and a big part of the problem at the moment) is there a way we can apply a sliding scale to the value of downloads? For example, recent downloads have a higher BM value than downloads from 2006. Suppose a new file has three downloads in a month--those downloads should be a higher indication of BM value than a similar file that has ten downloads three years ago.


That's pretty much what they've been doing- they try to "balance" the number of files from each year. Wouldnt it be better to ignore total downloads and just focus on downloads in the last few months or so? What way it doesn't matter how old a file is.

I don't mean applying value based on the age of the image, I mean value the age of the download. I think recent downloads should be more valued than downloads that happened several years ago when figuring downloads BM value.
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 Apr 2, 2013 9:54PM
Any chance of a BM update form Search Fairy?
Leontura
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Flash downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio ArtistMember has had a File Of The WeekAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Tue Apr 2, 2013 11:06PM
Posted By casenbina:

Posted By Leontura:

Posted By casenbina:
Since downloads seem to be a big part of the BM algorithm (and a big part of the problem at the moment) is there a way we can apply a sliding scale to the value of downloads? For example, recent downloads have a higher BM value than downloads from 2006. Suppose a new file has three downloads in a month--those downloads should be a higher indication of BM value than a similar file that has ten downloads three years ago.

That's pretty much what they've been doing- they try to "balance" the number of files from each year. Wouldnt it be better to ignore total downloads and just focus on downloads in the last few months or so? What way it doesn't matter how old a file is.

I don't mean applying value based on the age of the image, I mean value the age of the download. I think recent downloads should be more valued than downloads that happened several years ago when figuring downloads BM value.


It'd be a lot easier just to ignore every download older than 1 year. The amount the market/competition/buyers/BM etc has changed over the years makes me wonder what a download in 2006 tells us.


If the search only looks at a one year time frame, decent files could actually return from the dead.
AtomA
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorMember has had a File Of The Week.
Posted Wed Apr 3, 2013 7:37AM
/
/
(Posted By Leontura:



Posted By casenbina:




Posted By Leontura:




Posted By casenbina:
Since downloads seem to be a big part of the BM algorithm (and a big part of the problem at the moment) is there a way we can apply a sliding scale to the value of downloads? For example, recent downloads have a higher BM value than downloads from 2006. Suppose a new file has three downloads in a month--those downloads should be a higher indication of BM value than a similar file that has ten downloads three years ago.




That's pretty much what they've been doing- they try to "balance" the number of files from each year. Wouldnt it be better to ignore total downloads and just focus on downloads in the last few months or so? What way it doesn't matter how old a file is.




I don't mean applying value based on the age of the image, I mean value the age of the download. I think recent downloads should be more valued than downloads that happened several years ago when figuring downloads BM value.





It'd be a lot easier just to ignore every download older than 1 year. The amount the market/competition/buyers/BM etc has changed over the years makes me wonder what a download in 2006 tells us.


If the search only looks at a one year time frame, decent files could actually return from the dead.






THIS is exactly what i was saying earlier - it seems they have fixed the download disconnect and now that same fix has become the problem. 

The BM should (something along the lines of) position files based on their last 2 or 3 months performance first, then Refer to last 6 months, then the last year - obviously this would need to work within whatever assigned space the search team has for the different categories, price bands and new files.

eg- 4 downloads in last 2 months above file with 3. If both had 4 downloads then refer to past 6 months downloads and so forth..


If the BM was working properly and followed (somewhat) the above rules then i think we should see much less old, no longer performing crap that seems to dominate directly after the top sellers (about 10 to 20% of the way in) of any given search.

All time performance means nothing anymore (the old BM knew this much better). Due to increased prices and similarly reduced customers, you're going to get very skewed results. What exactly does a download from 2003-11 tell BM about current customer trends and preferences anyway?? 

This is a problem for customers (stale searches and well placed old crap) as much as it is for exclusive contributors (no point uploading) but the only thing it will effect ultimately is IStock.

On the views issue - i really do not know what some contributors obsession with this is all about. What can views tell the BM? That a file keeps getting looked at but is rejected on closer inspection or that a file keeps getting looked at and may possibly be bought? They can work both ways, are largely irrelevent and surely could be manipulated by contributors.

It would be nice to have a reason to upload again. 6 MONTHS of broken BM, 2 months of semi broken BM and a declining customer base tells me not to waste my time and work on other things. A fully working BM might be the platform on which IS can start reversing these sad trends...

...Then we can start complaining about the RC system which seems to reward failure instead of performance.

(Edited on 2013-04-03 07:40:47 by AtomA)
Juanmonino
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusiveAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Wed Apr 3, 2013 7:51AM
At this point it makes no sense to upload more images.
Box5
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Apr 3, 2013 8:08AM
Posted By Juanmonino:
At this point it makes no sense to upload more images.


Yep. I have 7 images that I uploaded on March 10. Between them they display 1 view. All of them feature local content that was mentioned in the latest creative brief. If they aren't being viewed, what does that say about site traffic? If the views aren't being counted, what does that mean for BM?


The average upload date of my last 20 downloads is May 2009.


Worst of all, we can't even get management to acknowledge that there is a problem.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 301 to 320 of 443 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)