Author Topic: Search Algorithms: How Do They Work? (Read 17926 times)

Pickerell · « **on:** October 19, 2016, 10:15 »

Microstock sites used to surface new images for weeks or months after they were uploaded. Now, photographers are saying that this no longer seems to be happening. It would be nice if photographers had more information a better understanding about how the search algorithms work.

I have no secret information and have not been let into the confidence of any of the stock agencies. The agencies argue that information about how their algorithms work is proprietary. If they were to reveal their “secret sauce” it would give their competitors an advantage.

Nevertheless, here’s what I think is happening.

We know that the search return order (SRO) includes some combination of new images, and images that have been previously downloaded by customers. Exactly what percentage we don’t know, but for the sake of this discussion lets assume 50/50.

We believe that most customers will not look at more than 500 thumbnails resulting from any search before changing the search parameters.
 Shutterstock is uploading more than 100,000 new images a week. Some agencies are uploading a lot less, but still some pretty huge numbers.

It seems reasonable to assume that of that at least 500 (1/200th) of any 100,000 images would have the same or very similar keywords. There may be some with very unusual keywords, but they tend to be of subjects that are seldom requested by customers.

In any given day there are 1,440 minutes. If a new image is uploaded every 10 seconds, then 8,640 images could be uploaded in 24 hours.

So

Assume that one of your images is uploaded at 8:00am EST on a Monday morning. A new image with the same keywords is uploaded at 8:00:10; another at 8:00:20; another at 8:00:30 and so on throughout the day. By 8:01 your image is sixth in line of the newest images. By 9:00am your image is 360th in line of the newest images added to the collection.

But, remember, the average customer is looking at less than 500 images in a search return and half of those are images that have been downloaded previously. So whenever a customer does a search the last 250 newest images uploaded have a chance of being seen. By 9:00am on that Monday morning the image uploaded at 8:00am has little chance of ever being seen again.

If during that hour a customer, saw the image, liked it and downloaded it then the image moves into the “downloaded” category and has the potential of a longer useful life. But, if that customer happened to sleep in that morning, and not get started searching until 9:00am; tough luck for the photographer.

Now, of course, not every image uploaded in that hour will have the same keywords. Different images will have lots of different keyword. So it may be several hours, even a day or so, before there have been 250 newer images with most of the same keywords as the image uploaded at 8:00am Monday. But, think about the most popular subject matter and how many images with similar keywords must be uploaded on a regular basis.

Suppose, also, that you submit 10 images from the same shoot, all with the same keywords. Those images will be uploaded every 10 seconds one after another. All will have the same very short useful life. If a customer sees one of them and downloads it that image moves into the “used” category. But within a very short period of time the other 9 get buried so deeply in the search return order that it is unlikely they will ever be seen again.

If you do have 10 similar images, it probably makes more sense to upload one every day, or every week rather than uploading them all at once. It that way you have a better chance that 10 different people will see them than if they are uploaded all at once. However, I don’t think the agencies approve of submissions in that manner.

What happens to images uploaded on Saturday and Sunday when very few customers are actually searching the site. If the same volume of images is being uploaded on a Saturday as a Monday, there is much less chance that a customer will be reviewing images on Saturday than on Monday. Thus, there is much less chance that any Saturday image will move into the “used” category. By Monday, none of the Saturday images will still be “new” and there is a big likelihood that almost all of them will now be so deep in the SRO that they will never be seen.

There may be no solution to this problem, but we can be sure that as more and more images are added it will get worse.

spike · « **Reply #1 on:** October 19, 2016, 10:58 »

I agree with the general idea. How our new images will do is more dependent on luck now, rather than skill or some other factor. It didn't use to be that way, but because of the influx and spammers, that's the point we're at right now.

I rarely upload "similarly tagged" images in the same batch, but rather mix and match. Some images from the shoot get picked up, some don't. And which images get picked up has nothing to do with how nice the image is, and everything to do with luck.

Good thing I figured that our like 3 years ago.

obj owl · « **Reply #2 on:** October 19, 2016, 11:41 »

Too simple by half, Shutterstock constantly test their algorithms to increase profitability and adjust them accordingly. So if the top earners consistently sell new images as you might think they would the algorithm would put them up above low earners who never sell new images. Or alternatively, as has been speculated, images by new contributors may rise to the top as they cost Shutterstock less. Just two scenarios among the many that would have been tested and may or may not have been implemented. The algorithms will go through many iterations to make sure there is no detrimental effect on the bottom line so within a short time would be quite complex Hence the many conspiracy theories and speculation why some contributors would appear to slip through the net if that is the case? Trying to work it out would be akin to an alchemist trying to turn lead into gold but a lot more profitable

My keyboard seems to have stopped putting in comas and full stops so if it don't make sense it could be for one of two reasons

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #3 on:** October 19, 2016, 11:56 »

Quote from: Pickerell on October 19, 2016, 10:15

Microstock sites

First of all, I can say that each and every one of the agencies have DIFFERENT search systems. If you tag a certain way to optimize search visibility on one site, this does not mean it is optimized for another. You have to research them all. This is why CSV tagging or automated tags are a BAD idea if you want optimize sales. Of course, you have to consider the extra time doing SEO for each site and if it's worth it. The answer: It usually is.

Quote from: Pickerell on October 19, 2016, 10:15

 Shutterstock is uploading more than 100,000 new images a week.... a new image is uploaded every 10 seconds, then 8,640 images could be uploaded in 24 hours.

Images are uploaded much more often than that on Shutterstock.

Quote from: Pickerell on October 19, 2016, 10:15

If you do have 10 similar images, it probably makes more sense to upload one every day, or every week rather than uploading them all at once. It that way you have a better chance that 10 different people will see them than if they are uploaded all at once. However, I don’t think the agencies approve of submissions in that manner.

Why not? Of course they do. Just space them apart enough. No reviewer goes through every author's entire portfolio before each review...

What are you trying to say?

I'll give you the answers:

• All agencies have different search systems.

• They all give results depending on sales, title, keywords, description, upload date, sales/day active in one way or another. Some don't even look at descriptions, some need both "dog " and "dogs" in the keywords while others don't even allow it, some look at exact phrase matches while others only look at single words, some look at how many purchases were made for specific keyword searches (advanced relevancy). Etc. etc.

• Naturally, the more images that are accepted, the less chance you will have of selling anything.

obj owl · « **Reply #4 on:** October 19, 2016, 12:03 »

Two links that might interest you, assuming you didn't do a google search first.

http://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000006579?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/shutterstock-unveils-better-faster-stronger-search-discovery-technology

Rebooted got my keyboard back.

gyllens · « **Reply #5 on:** October 19, 2016, 13:04 »

Quote from: obj owl on October 19, 2016, 11:41

Too simple by half, Shutterstock constantly test their algorithms to increase profitability and adjust them accordingly. So if the top earners consistently sell new images as you might think they would the algorithm would put them up above low earners who never sell new images. Or alternatively, as has been speculated, images by new contributors may rise to the top as they cost Shutterstock less. Just two scenarios among the many that would have been tested and may or may not have been implemented. The algorithms will go through many iterations to make sure there is no detrimental effect on the bottom line so within a short time would be quite complex Hence the many conspiracy theories and speculation why some contributors would appear to slip through the net if that is the case? Trying to work it out would be akin to an alchemist trying to turn lead into gold but a lot more profitable

My keyboard seems to have stopped putting in comas and full stops so if it don't make sense it could be for one of two reasons

Good post!! its a well known fact and the old FT admitted that once turned Emerald or gold you were automatically pushed down in search to give preference to new contributors who demand less in royalty.
I dont know if they are still doing this after merging with Adobe?

Some year back files of higher commercial value was automatically given exposure on the first couple of pages but with the incredible magnitude of new uploads I guess its an impossible task. Well frankly sometimes I dont think the agencies themselves have got a clue about the algorithm as long as they keep selling any old files.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #6 on:** October 20, 2016, 02:59 »

Quote from: gyllens on October 19, 2016, 13:04

Quote from: obj owl on October 19, 2016, 11:41
Too simple by half, Shutterstock constantly test their algorithms to increase profitability and adjust them accordingly. So if the top earners consistently sell new images as you might think they would the algorithm would put them up above low earners who never sell new images. Or alternatively, as has been speculated, images by new contributors may rise to the top as they cost Shutterstock less. Just two scenarios among the many that would have been tested and may or may not have been implemented. The algorithms will go through many iterations to make sure there is no detrimental effect on the bottom line so within a short time would be quite complex Hence the many conspiracy theories and speculation why some contributors would appear to slip through the net if that is the case? Trying to work it out would be akin to an alchemist trying to turn lead into gold but a lot more profitable

My keyboard seems to have stopped putting in comas and full stops so if it don't make sense it could be for one of two reasons

Good post!! its a well known fact and the old FT admitted that once turned Emerald or gold you were automatically pushed down in search to give preference to new contributors who demand less in royalty.
I dont know if they are still doing this after merging with Adobe?

Some year back files of higher commercial value was automatically given exposure on the first couple of pages but with the incredible magnitude of new uploads I guess its an impossible task. Well frankly sometimes I dont think the agencies themselves have got a clue about the algorithm as long as they keep selling any old files.

When did they admit this? I heard a lot of people saying it but never noticed it when I turned emerald and never knew FL confirmed it.

gyllens · « **Reply #7 on:** October 20, 2016, 03:49 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 20, 2016, 02:59

Quote from: gyllens on October 19, 2016, 13:04
Quote from: obj owl on October 19, 2016, 11:41
Too simple by half, Shutterstock constantly test their algorithms to increase profitability and adjust them accordingly. So if the top earners consistently sell new images as you might think they would the algorithm would put them up above low earners who never sell new images. Or alternatively, as has been speculated, images by new contributors may rise to the top as they cost Shutterstock less. Just two scenarios among the many that would have been tested and may or may not have been implemented. The algorithms will go through many iterations to make sure there is no detrimental effect on the bottom line so within a short time would be quite complex Hence the many conspiracy theories and speculation why some contributors would appear to slip through the net if that is the case? Trying to work it out would be akin to an alchemist trying to turn lead into gold but a lot more profitable

My keyboard seems to have stopped putting in comas and full stops so if it don't make sense it could be for one of two reasons

Good post!! its a well known fact and the old FT admitted that once turned Emerald or gold you were automatically pushed down in search to give preference to new contributors who demand less in royalty.
I dont know if they are still doing this after merging with Adobe?

Some year back files of higher commercial value was automatically given exposure on the first couple of pages but with the incredible magnitude of new uploads I guess its an impossible task. Well frankly sometimes I dont think the agencies themselves have got a clue about the algorithm as long as they keep selling any old files.
When did they admit this? I heard a lot of people saying it but never noticed it when I turned emerald and never knew FL confirmed it.

Lucky you! an old member here was among the first ones to point this out. Many earnings were cut in half. Of course there are bound to be exceptions you being one.

Anyway lots of water under the bridge since then and I doubt very much and with the merger of adobe its still going on. It has to be undestood though that was nothing wrong but perfectly legit since its business and as a business they are trying to act in the best possible ways to increase profits.

Nowadays I think adobe/ft is probablty the best agency to join. They have everything going for them and sales are rolling in like never before and taking size and the percentage factor into account they are almost on par with SS. Not bad.

obj owl · « **Reply #8 on:** October 20, 2016, 04:05 »

Quote from: gyllens on October 19, 2016, 13:04

Good post!! its a well known fact and the old FT admitted that once turned Emerald or gold you were automatically pushed down in search to give preference to new contributors who demand less in royalty.
I dont know if they are still doing this after merging with Adobe?

Some year back files of higher commercial value was automatically given exposure on the first couple of pages but with the incredible magnitude of new uploads I guess its an impossible task. Well frankly sometimes I dont think the agencies themselves have got a clue about the algorithm as long as they keep selling any old files.

Shutterstock go further than just the first couple of pages for files of higher commercial value, they gave them their own website, which only their ever growing number of Enterprise clients have access to. That means Premier Select contributors get two bites of the cherry for their new content regardless of the algorithm.

gyllens · « **Reply #9 on:** October 20, 2016, 04:29 »

Quote from: obj owl on October 20, 2016, 04:05

Quote from: gyllens on October 19, 2016, 13:04

Good post!! its a well known fact and the old FT admitted that once turned Emerald or gold you were automatically pushed down in search to give preference to new contributors who demand less in royalty.
I dont know if they are still doing this after merging with Adobe?

Some year back files of higher commercial value was automatically given exposure on the first couple of pages but with the incredible magnitude of new uploads I guess its an impossible task. Well frankly sometimes I dont think the agencies themselves have got a clue about the algorithm as long as they keep selling any old files.

Shutterstock go further than just the first couple of pages for files of higher commercial value, they gave them their own website, which only their ever growing number of Enterprise clients have access to. That means Premier Select contributors get two bites of the cherry for their new content regardless of the algorithm.

Yes I know that. Their special collections and agencies are still trailing badly after SS. Few designers or art-directors bother to use infinite or offset in comparison to the main SS.
I know many creative people who buy from Gettys PC but very few even bothering with Gettys Prestige collection.

I know what you mean though there are all sorts of ways agencies use to skew searches and algorithms.

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** October 20, 2016, 04:36 »

How is the Premier / Premium collection at Adobe working and is it impacting other sales?

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #11 on:** October 20, 2016, 06:00 »

Quote from: gyllens on October 20, 2016, 04:29

I know what you mean though there are all sorts of ways agencies use to skew searches and algorithms.

The very definition and purpose of search algorithms is to skew searches... Otherwise you would only be able to sort by sales and upload date.

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #12 on:** October 20, 2016, 06:03 »

Quote from: gyllens on October 20, 2016, 03:49

Lucky you! an old member here was among the first ones to point this out. Many earnings were cut in half. Of course there are bound to be exceptions you being one.

I too would like to see the statement where Fotolia admitted to it. Not saying it didn't happen, but where can I see proof? It does seem like a terrible business decision in the long run... A little more $ in the short run...

Pauws99 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 20, 2016, 06:05 »

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on October 20, 2016, 06:00

Quote from: gyllens on October 20, 2016, 04:29
I know what you mean though there are all sorts of ways agencies use to skew searches and algorithms.

The very definition and purpose of search algorithms is to skew searches... Otherwise you would only be able to sort by sales and upload date.

Shutterstock have said they experiment with their algorithm to maximise sales...I believe them. Why would they want to do anything else?

unnonimus · « **Reply #14 on:** January 02, 2017, 19:04 »

I have written a lot of search engines and have a complete understanding of how they work. there is no secret to search engine algorithms, most companies use the same techniques, and they are well known. for example, 'keyword density' is a common search engine algorithm. rotating listings every few hours or days is another well known technique.

the problem you describe was first solved by a company called Northern Lights which had a search engine for online documents. what they did was group collections together instead of displaying individual results. so in the case of a stock photo site, if you uploaded 100 similar engines, they would have 1 placement in the search rankings instead of 100. then, users would be exposed to the work of many photographers, and see a sample image or a few sample images to decide if they want to drill down to see the entire similar group.

if you go to northernlight.com, it is a very different site now, but you can see they still group results together just like they did about 20 years ago.

most search engine companies do not offer this feature. I believe it would enhance search engine results by grouping images form the same artist together.

gyllens · « **Reply #15 on:** January 03, 2017, 04:27 »

Quote from: unnonimus on January 02, 2017, 19:04

I have written a lot of search engines and have a complete understanding of how they work. there is no secret to search engine algorithms, most companies use the same techniques, and they are well known. for example, 'keyword density' is a common search engine algorithm. rotating listings every few hours or days is another well known technique.

the problem you describe was first solved by a company called Northern Lights which had a search engine for online documents. what they did was group collections together instead of displaying individual results. so in the case of a stock photo site, if you uploaded 100 similar engines, they would have 1 placement in the search rankings instead of 100. then, users would be exposed to the work of many photographers, and see a sample image or a few sample images to decide if they want to drill down to see the entire similar group.

if you go to northernlight.com, it is a very different site now, but you can see they still group results together just like they did about 20 years ago.

most search engine companies do not offer this feature. I believe it would enhance search engine results by grouping images form the same artist together.

unnonimus!

Good post and all correct^ I happen to know one of the biggest Tech-firms in Seattle with one of the partners also being a distant family member. Most people are under the impression a search is something incredibly difficult and intricate but youre right its NOT its in fact quite a simple mechanism constructed by keywords and sometimes titles descriptions and so on with keywords ultimately carrying the weight.

However a search can be manipulated! it can be geared and manipulated into doing almost everything and the Internet has made that even easier then ever. If you have lets say 100 members it can be orchestrated to single out one member to recieve all the sales and so on.

In other words we are at the giant mercy of trust and fair play which most unfortunately don't hold true considering some experiences we do have of certain agencies remaining nameless.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 03, 2017, 05:48 »

Quote from: gyllens on January 03, 2017, 04:27

Quote from: unnonimus on January 02, 2017, 19:04
I have written a lot of search engines and have a complete understanding of how they work. there is no secret to search engine algorithms, most companies use the same techniques, and they are well known. for example, 'keyword density' is a common search engine algorithm. rotating listings every few hours or days is another well known technique.

the problem you describe was first solved by a company called Northern Lights which had a search engine for online documents. what they did was group collections together instead of displaying individual results. so in the case of a stock photo site, if you uploaded 100 similar engines, they would have 1 placement in the search rankings instead of 100. then, users would be exposed to the work of many photographers, and see a sample image or a few sample images to decide if they want to drill down to see the entire similar group.

if you go to northernlight.com, it is a very different site now, but you can see they still group results together just like they did about 20 years ago.

most search engine companies do not offer this feature. I believe it would enhance search engine results by grouping images form the same artist together.

unnonimus!

Good post and all correct^ I happen to know one of the biggest Tech-firms in Seattle with one of the partners also being a distant family member. Most people are under the impression a search is something incredibly difficult and intricate but youre right its NOT its in fact quite a simple mechanism constructed by keywords and sometimes titles descriptions and so on with keywords ultimately carrying the weight.

However a search can be manipulated! it can be geared and manipulated into doing almost everything and the Internet has made that even easier then ever. If you have lets say 100 members it can be orchestrated to single out one member to recieve all the sales and so on.

In other words we are at the giant mercy of trust and fair play which most unfortunately don't hold true considering some experiences we do have of certain agencies remaining nameless.

Searches are manipulated by their very nature as they deliver a priority order which is subjective but they can't make anyone receive any sales people still have to want to buy the picture. Whether it is fair or not is opinion.

gyllens · « **Reply #17 on:** January 03, 2017, 06:00 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 03, 2017, 05:48

Quote from: gyllens on January 03, 2017, 04:27
Quote from: unnonimus on January 02, 2017, 19:04
I have written a lot of search engines and have a complete understanding of how they work. there is no secret to search engine algorithms, most companies use the same techniques, and they are well known. for example, 'keyword density' is a common search engine algorithm. rotating listings every few hours or days is another well known technique.

the problem you describe was first solved by a company called Northern Lights which had a search engine for online documents. what they did was group collections together instead of displaying individual results. so in the case of a stock photo site, if you uploaded 100 similar engines, they would have 1 placement in the search rankings instead of 100. then, users would be exposed to the work of many photographers, and see a sample image or a few sample images to decide if they want to drill down to see the entire similar group.

if you go to northernlight.com, it is a very different site now, but you can see they still group results together just like they did about 20 years ago.

most search engine companies do not offer this feature. I believe it would enhance search engine results by grouping images form the same artist together.

unnonimus!

Good post and all correct^ I happen to know one of the biggest Tech-firms in Seattle with one of the partners also being a distant family member. Most people are under the impression a search is something incredibly difficult and intricate but youre right its NOT its in fact quite a simple mechanism constructed by keywords and sometimes titles descriptions and so on with keywords ultimately carrying the weight.

However a search can be manipulated! it can be geared and manipulated into doing almost everything and the Internet has made that even easier then ever. If you have lets say 100 members it can be orchestrated to single out one member to recieve all the sales and so on.

In other words we are at the giant mercy of trust and fair play which most unfortunately don't hold true considering some experiences we do have of certain agencies remaining nameless.
Searches are manipulated by their very nature as they deliver a priority order which is subjective but they can't make anyone receive any sales people still have to want to buy the picture. Whether it is fair or not is opinion.

Good answer but hey listen you know what I mean. Sort of different manipulation without having to go in to details. You be very surprised

Pauws99 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 03, 2017, 06:36 »

Yeah but I don't share the idea that the search engine is manipulated to "punish" certain contributors. I don't see any rationale to do that. But what I do think is fundamental is that buyers rule not the agencies. I don't think even SS would want to risk losing sales by depriving customers of the content they want. You may be right to an extent and SS may learn a painful lesson.

cathyslife · « **Reply #19 on:** January 03, 2017, 07:55 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 03, 2017, 06:36

Yeah but I don't share the idea that the search engine is manipulated to "punish" certain contributors. I don't see any rationale to do that. But what I do think is fundamental is that buyers rule not the agencies. I don't think even SS would want to risk losing sales by depriving customers of the content they want. You may be right to an extent and SS may learn a painful lesson.

I dont think they punish certain contributors either. It is all about their bottom line, and what buyers want, and in the shuffle, some will gain an advantage and some will lose. And it constantly changes.

If one of the criteria were to put contributors who upload every day before those who havent uploaded in a year, i would be at the bottom every time. It would seem like i am being punished, but it might make $$$ sense to them. And since there are multiple criteria in the algoritm, one might cancel out that "no uploading" one for me, since I still sell images. For instance, best sellers might take me back up in the search.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 03, 2017, 08:25 »

I think it would make perfect sense, from SS's point of view, for them to push newbies up in the search. Knowing how they're constantly testing and rolling out new approaches, I'm sure they've thoroughly tested how pushing new files from new contributors to the top affects overall income and profit margins for them.

gyllens · « **Reply #21 on:** January 03, 2017, 09:11 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 03, 2017, 06:36

Yeah but I don't share the idea that the search engine is manipulated to "punish" certain contributors. I don't see any rationale to do that. But what I do think is fundamental is that buyers rule not the agencies. I don't think even SS would want to risk losing sales by depriving customers of the content they want. You may be right to an extent and SS may learn a painful lesson.

It was just an example. No one said " to punish certain contributors" youre reading too much in between lines. Just to demonstrate that any search can be manipulated in every single way. You can make one guy earn a million a day and zip the next. You can shove pictures you want to sell right under buyers noses if you wish.

The Techs will follow the suggested search and construct it accordingly.

Everything isnt just a sunny side up or what it seems to be.

unnonimus · « **Reply #22 on:** January 03, 2017, 09:52 »

Every stock photo company is going to use the same algorithm for search results.

- prioritize media that has existing sales, or user generated interest
- prioritize meta data that has the highest keyword density

so here is how it goes metadata has title, keywords, descriptions, etc.

you create a score for every record. you check the term against the title, description, and keywords, and build the score value. since the title is shortest, if the keyword appears in the title, you give it more points (such as +3). if it appears in the description, it might be +2, and for keywords, +1. then each file gets a score based on the search term.

if the term appears first in the keyword list, title, description, etc, you may give it an additional point.

you then give points for plurals, synonyms, mispellings, etc.

then you sort all the matching media files based on the score they earned.

in addition, you give extra points to media files if they have had many sales. most companies will do this based on the sales value, but it should be profit, or cost of acquisition to point of sale (more complicated). then, you give points for downloads, then you give points based on users 'liking' the media because they expressed a positive interest, and last, you give points based on views, which may or may not mean the viewer liked it.

you also penalize large portfolios that have low sales, and boost small portfolios that have high earnings.

each media item can be given a quality score to influence its rank, which can be done manually, or by analyzing the file. for example, 4k might get a higher rating than HD because it should be higher quality. the same can be done to boost clips based on their bitrate, codec, file size, etc.

you also use the amount of time the clip has been for sale in the algorithm. if it is new, it gets a higher ranking, and if old, it gets a lower ranking.

ideally, each media item will get a quality score that will be stored in its row in the table, and the table will be sorted on a regular basis such that the media items with the highest quality or sales will appear first in the database, and the ones with the lowest appear last in the database. this makes sorting faster, and when search results are limited (such as the top 1,000 matches), the best videos will be included and the worst will be cut.

there is another technique whereby if a clip has a sale it gets moved up 1 position in the rankings which makes the system a real-time sort.

that is what all stock media sites are going to use in their search algorithms, and there is no secret recipe.

cathyslife · « **Reply #23 on:** January 03, 2017, 10:17 »

Quote from: gyllens on January 03, 2017, 09:11

It was just an example. No one said " to punish certain contributors" youre reading too much in between lines. Just to demonstrate that any search can be manipulated in every single way. You can make one guy earn a million a day and zip the next. You can shove pictures you want to sell right under buyers noses if you wish.

The Techs will follow the suggested search and construct it accordingly.

Everything isnt just a sunny side up or what it seems to be.

I agree, but I don't think it's intentional. I think it just depends on the algorithm. For instance, a newbie might make a million today because the search is favoring new images. Tomorrow, it won't, so he will drop to the bottom of the pile. That doesn't mean he was intentionally targeted, just the luck of the draw. But who really knows, no one here.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 03, 2017, 10:32 »

Quote from: unnonimus on January 03, 2017, 09:52

Every stock photo company is going to use the same algorithm for search results.

-

No they're not same principles maybe SS has stated they don't use the same one from one day to the next

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Search Algorithms: How Do They Work? (Read 17926 times)

Pickerell

spike

obj owl

increasingdifficulty

obj owl

gyllens

Justanotherphotographer

gyllens

obj owl

gyllens

ShadySue

increasingdifficulty

increasingdifficulty

Pauws99

unnonimus

gyllens

Pauws99

gyllens

Pauws99

cathyslife

Shelma1

gyllens

unnonimus

cathyslife

Pauws99

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors