Author Topic: New Asset Detail Pages Are Active / All Descriptions And Lightbox Links Are Gone (Read 18693 times)

B8 · « **on:** April 14, 2015, 22:23 »

The new asset detail pages now contain no descriptions at all. No more ability to link light boxes or anything either to your images. I realize this was coming for a while, but in this case what was the point of that whole recent campaign of trying to get all contributors to go back and write longer descriptions on all their thousands of old files in order to get better Google image search results? A big waste of everyone's time it seems in having everyone do that for nothing? What a big circle wank!

In addition, they are now offering huge closeup images of 1,235 pixels on the longest side. Pretty soon people wanting a small or medium sized download will simply download the closeup images only and for free and then run either Inpaint Pro (https://www.theinpaint.com/), Remove Watermark Pro (http://remove-watermark-pro.en.softonic.com/), or one of the myriad of other programs out there that work in a content-aware way to automatically remove unwanted watermarks from photos.

I'll bet we can expect to see our sales ratchet down another big percentage here very soon.

Monkeyman · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2015, 06:19 »

I'm not seeing any changes yet. And when it comes to descriptions they are still there. I think they're visible for the visitor the first time they view an image, and then the text is hidden but still on the page so it can be indexed by the search engines. Or something like that.

I agree that large watermarks is quite risky. I see this at many sites, where the previews are huge and the watermarks are tiny, almost invisible or just covering a tiny part of the image. It makes it very easy to steal. Can't believe they don't take this more seriously.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2015, 06:43 »

They are claiming that better descriptions helps Google SEO:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=366063&messageid=7091657
Though I have sympathy with StanRohrer's post:
"So for those of us who are even IS exclusives, this SEO project just makes it easier for buyers to find the image across multiple Getty family sites so the buyer can get it from the lowest priced site and the contributor gets the lowest income. Why should I (contributor) spend my time to help lower my income."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=366063&messageid=7091821
I also feel, in an adaptation of another post, that I'd rather an actual iS buyer was able to see my detailed description, than some 'organic searcher' was able to find and steal my image via Google.
BTW, can someone please tell me what 'organic' search is as opposed to an ordinary Google search?

Apparently under the present iteration of the new ADP, the ONLY time a visitor will see the description on a file is the very first page they see on the site until they've 'been cookied'. After that, no descriptions on any file.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365525&messageid=7088449

PhotoLA · « **Reply #3 on:** April 15, 2015, 12:35 »

Removing the descriptions is completely stupid.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 15, 2015, 13:57 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 15, 2015, 06:43

BTW, can someone please tell me what 'organic' search is as opposed to an ordinary Google search?

Organic search is Google search results that are not paid for (as opposed to the paid search results that show up at the top of the results and have a little yellow box that says "ad" in them).

StanRohrer · « **Reply #5 on:** April 15, 2015, 14:33 »

Quote from: PhotoLA on April 15, 2015, 12:35

Removing the descriptions is completely stupid.

And I'll bet the search engines soon figure out viewable and non-viewable fields (just like keywords on HTML pages) and these descriptions rate them lower priority in search results. Hence the SEO long descriptions IS has asked for will have to become viewable again on the ADP. Then these long descriptions will be less than human readable and we will again be asked to shorten them up. Ha!

Chasing a search engine by SEO results may produce short term gains but likely is futile in the end.

Difydave · « **Reply #6 on:** April 15, 2015, 14:56 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on April 15, 2015, 14:33

Quote from: PhotoLA on April 15, 2015, 12:35
Removing the descriptions is completely stupid.
And I'll bet the search engines soon figure out viewable and non-viewable fields (just like keywords on HTML pages) and these descriptions rate them lower priority in search results. Hence the SEO long descriptions IS has asked for will have to become viewable again on the ADP. Then these long descriptions will be less than human readable and we will again be asked to shorten them up. Ha!

Chasing a search engine by SEO results may produce short term gains but likely is futile in the end.

Yes the search engines will just move the goal, which is (I imagine) to get paid for showing favourable results for other businesses.
Whatever, in my case, and I'm sure yours, any re-doing of information represents a mammoth task, many, many hours of work, with no real promise of any return.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** April 15, 2015, 15:55 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 15, 2015, 13:57

Quote from: ShadySue on April 15, 2015, 06:43

BTW, can someone please tell me what 'organic' search is as opposed to an ordinary Google search?

Organic search is Google search results that are not paid for (as opposed to the paid search results that show up at the top of the results and have a little yellow box that says "ad" in them).

Tx

B8 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 15, 2015, 16:20 »

Quote from: Monkeyman on April 15, 2015, 06:19

I'm not seeing any changes yet. And when it comes to descriptions they are still there. I think they're visible for the visitor the first time they view an image, and then the text is hidden but still on the page so it can be indexed by the search engines. Or something like that.

I agree that large watermarks is quite risky. I see this at many sites, where the previews are huge and the watermarks are tiny, almost invisible or just covering a tiny part of the image. It makes it very easy to steal. Can't believe they don't take this more seriously.

When I was logged in yesterday, every Asset Detail page i looked at, whether for my own files, or someone else's were the new design with no descriptions or light box links at all and showing only keywords in big blocks across the page under the image.

Now they are all back to as they were before and have always been. Very odd.

I should have taken some screen shots of what I saw and posted them, but at the time I assumed it was a permanent change already and the same for everyone so I didn't record it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** April 15, 2015, 16:34 »

Quote from: B8 on April 15, 2015, 16:20

Quote from: Monkeyman on April 15, 2015, 06:19
I'm not seeing any changes yet. And when it comes to descriptions they are still there. I think they're visible for the visitor the first time they view an image, and then the text is hidden but still on the page so it can be indexed by the search engines. Or something like that.

I agree that large watermarks is quite risky. I see this at many sites, where the previews are huge and the watermarks are tiny, almost invisible or just covering a tiny part of the image. It makes it very easy to steal. Can't believe they don't take this more seriously.

When I was logged in yesterday, every Asset Detail page i looked at, whether for my own files, or someone else's were the new design with no descriptions or light box links at all and showing only keywords in big blocks across the page under the image.

Now they are all back to as they were before and have always been. Very odd.

I should have taken some screen shots of what I saw and posted them, but at the time I assumed it was a permanent change already and the same for everyone so I didn't record it.

First of all, the ADP was rolled out to a changing 5% of visitors at a time; then 25%; now, 'according to Lobo', "the ADP is only out to less than 50% of the membership right now. There might be changes to how content is displayed, if only ever so slightly."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365525&messageid=7097089
Worth keeping up with that thread, if this issue is of interest.

iStop · « **Reply #10 on:** April 15, 2015, 16:42 »

What B8 described seeing doesn't sound to be changes on how content is displayed that are "ever so slight".

You would also think if they've rolled it out to 50% of the membership then those 50% of the membership would at least see the same thing all the time. But it sounds like a rolling change which seems to be pot luck for everyone at any given moment.

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** April 15, 2015, 16:57 »

Quote from: iStop on April 15, 2015, 16:42

What B8 described seeing doesn't sound to be changes on how content is displayed that are "ever so slight".

You would also think if they've rolled it out to 50% of the membership then those 50% of the membership would at least see the same thing all the time. But it sounds like a rolling change which seems to be pot luck for everyone at any given moment.

"Ever so slight" would refers to changes to the new ADP itself, not compared to the old one.
And yes, it's a rolling roll-out.

'According to kelvinjay', "there are numerous test versions of the ADP out there"
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365525&messageid=7096999

Again, following the thread is useful for people who are interested in this, and those who have concerns (and are able to) actually contributing to the thread might have some value.
On the other hand, several people have asked why 'someone' thought it was a good idea to get rid of descriptions, and no-one has answered it yet; nor other questions, like
(ClarkAndCompany) "Lobo, do you ever report back to the people who make the decisions about the ADP about our concerns? And consequently is anything going to change ...? It always seems to be the way that a forum is a useful vent for HQ to simply ignore contributors ideas, questions and concerns."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365525&messageid=7097063
which certainly seems to be the case over the past few years. No matter how daft some of their ideas have been, they are a fait accompli, even when the errors are pointed out.

qwerty · « **Reply #12 on:** April 15, 2015, 18:12 »

These guys are idiots, whats the problem with displaying a description.
They're showing a description for editorial underneath the photos, what's the big problem
with showing it for commercial photos ?

Take a landscape photo, if you don't have the location in the title now the buyer wouldn't know exactly where its from.

Another thing I couldn't see how to sort by newest first on my own or anyone elses portfolio page. I normally scroll through to see how many of my new photos haven't sold yet.

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** April 15, 2015, 18:26 »

Quote from: qwerty on April 15, 2015, 18:12

Another thing I couldn't see how to sort by newest first on my own or anyone elses portfolio page. I normally scroll through to see how many of my new photos haven't sold yet.

Unless they've changed that too, and you're on a different iteration than I'm currently seeing (!), on the search page, under the title near the top left of the page, "[Subject] Stock Photos", there are Best Match, New and Most Popular sort options, the latter being further sortable into This Year, This Month and All Time.

In your portfolio, it's in a similar place. Under [Username] Portfolio, if it's your own port, you'll have links to details, subscriptions, ELs etc, and under that, the three sort options above are in boxes.

If your layout is different from either the old ADP or the new version I've seen (which doesn't affect the above), you're on your own, sorry.

Added: just noticed Search Results look a bit different in IE than in FF (which I use). But the sort function is towards the top left in both.

PhotoLA · « **Reply #14 on:** April 15, 2015, 19:00 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 15, 2015, 18:26

Quote from: qwerty on April 15, 2015, 18:12
Another thing I couldn't see how to sort by newest first on my own or anyone elses portfolio page. I normally scroll through to see how many of my new photos haven't sold yet.
Unless they've changed that too, and you're on a different iteration than I'm currently seeing (!)

Yup, they seem to be changing the Search Results Pages too. I've also seen a new version a few times todays. It pretty much sucks. No options for changing the sort order. No search options on the left side.

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** April 15, 2015, 19:10 »

^^ Another weird decision if it is a positive decision and not an occasional bug. (I don't check the bug thread there. Life's too short.

Holmes · « **Reply #16 on:** April 15, 2015, 19:19 »

IS's management motto is:

"If it's not broken, break it. If it's broken, break it some more."

PhotoLA · « **Reply #17 on:** April 15, 2015, 19:43 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 15, 2015, 19:10

^^ Another weird decision if it is a positive decision and not an occasional bug. (I don't check the bug thread there. Life's too short.

It's definitely a new design. Very slow. No Loupe. But I did find the sort order…it doesn't show up when you're looking at your own portfolio, but does show up on searches.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #18 on:** April 15, 2015, 20:30 »

If some evil genius intentionally set out to make Istock as complicated and unusable for customers as possible, I can't imagine they would do a better job than they have done with these latest improvements.

qwerty · « **Reply #19 on:** April 15, 2015, 23:04 »

Quote from: PhotoLA on April 15, 2015, 19:43

Quote from: ShadySue on April 15, 2015, 19:10
^^ Another weird decision if it is a positive decision and not an occasional bug. (I don't check the bug thread there. Life's too short.

It's definitely a new design. Very slow. No Loupe. But I did find the sort order…it doesn't show up when you're looking at your own portfolio, but does show up on searches.

That's what I'm seeing, able to sort in search but not my own or anybody elses "portfolio" page

I can go to "my uploads" page and see them in upload order

JKB · « **Reply #20 on:** April 16, 2015, 04:37 »

I'm not saying it's a good idea to remove descriptions from the details page - the possibility of a caption under the image, as in the case with editorial, would be better IMO - but I'm not going to worry about it. Life's too short, and things change anyway. And just as a comparison, Offset images haven't got descriptions either, though their titles can be expanded more than on iStock.

FWIW, I haven't seen any real reason to change the way I usually do titles, descriptions and keywords, which is simply being as brief and accurate as I possibly can. Keywords show up more prominently on the page than what they used to, which I like, and this is where important additional information about the image can be found. I know a lot of people on msg are very critical of iStock, and in many cases for good reasons, no doubt. Personally I think a lot of the recent changes are good, so I'll just keep an open mind and see how things go.

Edited to remove ref.

B8 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 16, 2015, 10:10 »

When I saw that new Asset Detail Page temporarily I also noticed that they removed the size options now and only offer the buyer the option to download the full, highest-res file that is available, even if the buyer may only require a small sized file for web use.

This means clients that are not adept at resizing photos may be putting the high res photos they download right onto their web sites, thus making it much easier for photo buyers to do Google image searches using the comp from the iStock site from the Asset Detail page and then locate a free copy of the full res image somewhere online for free.

This is just another level of decreasing security on our content and making it much easier for copyright infringement and loss of revenue to occur.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #22 on:** April 16, 2015, 12:04 »

When I searched for one of my primary keywords, and clicked "NEW" I saw four images from the last 148 approved, the rest are older.

As for the Caption and Description = Identical.

Another shut down tomorrow, which tells me, I should make a screen capture of what the pages look like now.

Then Monday maybe I'll be included in the new improved view. I'm seeing the same old pages as far as I can see.

B8 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 16, 2015, 16:37 »

I was just able to pull this up using Tor Browser without being logged in to the site. This confirms they are already using the new Asset Detail page design I first indicated when I started this thread and the layout contains all the elements I mentioned such as no descriptions, only the option to download the full-res image, and of course no lightbox links as expected.

I just pulled up this image at random, so there is no significance as to why I chose this image. If you pull up the Asset Detail page for any image then the layout and design will be exactly the same, but may show some "Similar Image" thumbnail options on certain images.

B8 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 16, 2015, 16:43 »

And here are the high-res comps they are providing now which are very easy to remove the watermarks on. This file was 988K when I saved it as JPG from the zoom page and it is a 3.26MB file when uncompressed. I had to compress it down to under 500K though so I could add it to this post.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New Asset Detail Pages Are Active / All Descriptions And Lightbox Links Are Gone (Read 18693 times)

B8

Monkeyman

ShadySue

PhotoLA

Shelma1

StanRohrer

Difydave

ShadySue

B8

ShadySue

iStop

ShadySue

qwerty

ShadySue

PhotoLA

ShadySue

Holmes

PhotoLA

PixelBytes

qwerty

JKB

B8

Uncle Pete

B8

B8

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors