Author Topic: Database cleanup (Read 6705 times)

golem · « **on:** October 28, 2009, 14:08 »

Hi all,

Just some thoughts I posted allready elsewhere (not only) regarding the database cleanup of dreamstime, but the situation in general....I prefer to stay anonymous but am a contributor since 5 years.

I welcome the step of dreamstime to delete old, unsold images.

However, I don`t think it`s enough. We have to go one or more steps further in Microstock.

When we continue like this the database faces an extreme dilatation and inflation to the value of our images. Our sales will go down and some actually are already going down. At some point the revenue per image won`t justify professional Stock photography anymore.
Professional contributors will step out. This will cause an decrease in quality and quantity, which is bad for the Company too.
(off course all this is speculative :-) )

Deleting images with no sales doesn`t help to improve our sales, since they haven`t been in competition ... with zero downloads. The amount of money in the market is the same. So I see it more as an advantage for the dreamstime servers than for contributors.

My solution would be even more radical:
- After three years: delete every image with 0 sales
- After four Years: delete every image with 1 sale
- After five Years: delete every image with 3 sales or lower
- After six years: delete every image below 10 sales.
- As exeptions you can exclude certain images of e.g. niche markets etc. from the removal.
- Old images with real value are staying in the database forever.

Results:
- A constantly high image quality of the Database. Many old Images just doesn`t match current standards anymore, even if they have generated one or two sales in the past.
- Active contributors have the chance to maintain a certain level of sales due to the removal of older files which actualy had been in competition. Inactive contributors lose sales over the years.
- It keeps profitable to produce high quality images for the stock market, which assures a certain quality level.

I know that NO artist is very pleased seeing his work deleted from an (commercial) database, but I`m not only an Artist, I`m a business man too.

Thanks for listening....

melastmohican · « **Reply #1 on:** October 28, 2009, 14:21 »

Why minimum of 3 years? If images have not been sold for year would you think there is a chance somebody will find them under a pile of new ones?

alias · « **Reply #2 on:** October 28, 2009, 14:30 »

Quote from: golem on October 28, 2009, 14:08

- After three years: delete every image with 0 sales
- After four Years: delete every image with 1 sale
- After five Years: delete every image with 3 sales or lower
- After six years: delete every image below 10 sales.

And if all the sales were yesterday because something change at Google ? Sometimes an image suddenly starts selling after a few years.

Quote from: golem on October 28, 2009, 14:08

- As exeptions you can exclude certain images of e.g. niche markets etc. from the removal.
- Old images with real value are staying in the database forever.

A real person has to actually look at millions of image to decide ? Who pays their wages ?

One solution for old images is to recycle them as subscription and traffic bait.

dirkr · « **Reply #3 on:** October 28, 2009, 16:24 »

Why care about deleting old images anyway?

The only reason I can think of is storage cost for the agency. Anything else does not matter.
And yes, files with no sales after two years sometimes do sell.

There are subject (you call them "niche markets") that may not sell that often, but how to identify them? That would be a manual process which would certainly outweigh the savings in storage cost...

madelaide · « **Reply #4 on:** October 28, 2009, 18:22 »

Quote from: dirkr on October 28, 2009, 16:24

Why care about deleting old images anyway?

In theory, they may be lower quality images from times of different submission standards. Or they may be very small.

golem · « **Reply #5 on:** October 28, 2009, 20:03 »

To melastmohi:
>Why minimum of 3 years?
The timeframes are just an example....put one year or ten years, this would be up to discussion. Its about the Idea...

To alias:
>And if all the sales were yesterday because something change at Google ? Sometimes an >image suddenly starts selling after a few years.
Thats the Idea: deleting images after some time even if they generate _some_ sales. This is eliminating compteition from old files and is rewarding active contributors.

>A real person has to actually look at millions of image to decide ? Who pays their wages ?
No. If the image has sold more than x times it just doesn`t get deleted. This process is automatic. If an image is from a niche market the inspector could note it at approval.

>One solution for old images is to recycle them as subscription and traffic bait.
Yes, good idea!

To Dirkr:
>Why care about deleting old images anyway?
For the contributor: Because the are diluting the database and inflating the value of the general content. Just read and understand the initial post.
For the agency: quality standards move on. Older files are more likely to be lower standard, if they sell nevertheless or are not, they automaticly just don`t get deleted.

>There are subject (you call them "niche markets") that may not sell that often, but how to >identify them? That would be a manual process which would certainly outweigh the >savings in storage cost...
See above. Personally, from a business point of view, I wouldn`t bother to just delete them too.

Have a nice day

dirkr · « **Reply #6 on:** October 29, 2009, 03:07 »

Quote from: madelaide on October 28, 2009, 18:22

Quote from: dirkr on October 28, 2009, 16:24
Why care about deleting old images anyway?
In theory, they may be lower quality images from times of different submission standards. Or they may be very small.

I know. But why delete them? If they are not sold, they will likely sink to the bottom of the search and nobody will ever see them. And in that case they are no competition to newer, better images anyway.
But if somebody finds and buys them (so if they are competition), than why delete them?

@golem:

I think it does not make sense just to delete old images.

The problem is not the competition of old, unsold, sub-par images. Dilution of sales comes from masses of newer, high-quality images. The illusion that by deleting the old, unsold images your own images will get better exposure and sell more is exactly that - an illusion.

alias · « **Reply #7 on:** October 29, 2009, 05:47 »

Imagine something better than the either or of deletion or sub.

Imagine sub sales at one site affected some search algorithm at another site in the same family. This would bring worthy images back from the dead.

Would be interesting.

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #8 on:** October 29, 2009, 11:05 »

There are other factors to consider before deleting images.

Ex: NYC skyline before the twin towers. Then with the twin towers. Then with the twin towers being destroyed. Then a NYC skyline without the twin towers but with a new structure in their place.

Other images of less obvious values could also be lost. EX: Fashions of 10 years ago. etc.

To blindly delete the images would be wrong in many cases.

-Larry

travelstock · « **Reply #9 on:** October 29, 2009, 11:53 »

Quote from: Lcjtripod on October 29, 2009, 11:05

There are other factors to consider before deleting images.

Ex: NYC skyline before the twin towers. Then with the twin towers. Then with the twin towers being destroyed. Then a NYC skyline without the twin towers but with a new structure in their place.

Other images of less obvious values could also be lost. EX: Fashions of 10 years ago. etc.

To blindly delete the images would be wrong in many cases.

-Larry

Its a very good point. There is a growing recognition of "long tail theory" where subjects that may not be high in demand nevertheless add considerable value and revenue to a collection. The costs of hosting images are constantly reducing, so as long as you have an effective search, the extra volume is really quite irrelevant.

On the other hand, you may have an obscure subject that is only required once in a blue moon - if a buyer needs it and its there, it adds considerable value - if its not, they are forced to go to your competitor.

gostwyck · « **Reply #10 on:** October 30, 2009, 15:21 »

I think I'll send Serban some emails asking him to donate some of his own possessions like his car, tv, etc. The 'default option' will be to assume he has agreed to it irrespective of whether he replies or even recieves my emails.

Of course when I take his car then I'll drive around in it taking pictures which will naturally be of immense benefit to the agency and all contributors.