Author Topic: SEO - how did you fare? (Read 15319 times)

ShadySue · « **on:** March 04, 2015, 18:01 »

'According to Lobo' stage 1 of the SEO test has shown that those 'asssets' with 50-word descriptions have "pulled away from the pack", and "What we are saying is that the files we added 50 word descriptions to in our earlier test fared considerably better than the 30/100 word descriptions."
However, to curb anyone's enthusiasm, he qualified it by saying "you have to appreciate we are talking about SEO and not customers"
And now apparently they're going to nominate another 50k 'assets' to have their descriptions rewritten for SEO (it won't be seen by site customers.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365797&page=1
I heard anecdotally and read in the forums that some of the descriptions were just factually wrong. I also wonder how many actual potential customers arrive via SEO. I'm thinking relatively far fewer than those who might be hacked off by already being a 'customer' but not able to see a helpful, and possibly accurate (who knows?) description.
Did anyone who was in the experiment find that their selected files suddenly started selling better, rather than just getting a higher position on Google?

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #1 on:** March 04, 2015, 18:12 »

You can wait for Google to reshuffle their indexing weight and see all work be nullified again. SEO is one of those mythical things that everyone needs to have, because everyone else has, but no one knows how it works.

Holmes · « **Reply #2 on:** March 04, 2015, 21:52 »

i thought they were doing away with descriptions

PixelBytes · « **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2015, 00:10 »

Quote from: Holmes on March 04, 2015, 21:52

i thought they were doing away with descriptions

Yes, same here. Are you sure they dont mean 50 keywords ? Even my m9st complex images don't come near to 50 word descriptions. Or even 30 word descriptions.

wordplanet · « **Reply #4 on:** March 05, 2015, 02:29 »

My understanding is that google searches descriptions, and that the keywords are only searched once a client is on a stock site, so both are important, one to potentially bring someone into the site, and the other once they are there.

No clue what SEO experiments iStock is doing, but I'd be surprised if there's even room to write a 50-word description, though I could see the benefit for garnering google hits.

B8 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 05, 2015, 04:10 »

The point in all this that kind of leaves me there with my jaw hanging open, and my finger scratching my head, is why would SEO even matter if a stock photo company has a good search engine on their site and a strong customer base to begin with? Isn't that how stock photo sites grow their businesses normally? Are they trying to tell us now in a roundabout way that their search system is not efficient enough, that they can't pull in the buyers anymore, and are so desperate that their best chance of selling files now is Google web searches? This is insulting. It sounds like capitulation to me.

I thought the reason we were paying them up to 85% of the royalties taken in is because they are bringing the buyers to us? If one wanted to rely on Google and SEO to bring buyers to one's pictures then what incentive does one have to place those pictures with an agency to begin with? Theoretically one could place the photos on their own site with their own good SEO, have the buyers come in that way, and without having to pay out 85% of their royalty to an agency.

Who wants to waste their time with this nonsense? I already spent all my time keywording my images properly to meet the workings of their internal search system. Isn't that enough? What I want to hear is how iStock is successfully growing their business through direct marketing and bringing in more customers. That is what I am paying them for. Not how they are relying on Google image searches to try and bring in buyers. Plus, 90% (or more) of the people searching for images on Google are looking for free stuff anyway. If people searching in Google were really looking to buy stock photos then they would be searching on a stock photo agency site and not scrounging around the web using search engines. So iStock seems to be going down the wrong rabbit hole with their SEO campaign.

Desperate times for a company on the brink of bankruptcy, so that means desperate measures I guess.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #6 on:** March 05, 2015, 04:39 »

B8, that is hitting the nail on the head. It makes no sense, unless they are desperate.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #7 on:** March 05, 2015, 05:21 »

Sales on IS are plummeting at such an alarming rate that fiddling with SEO is like [insert appropriate metaphor here].

If they want to stand any chance of continuing as a business they need major reforms, e.g. complete restructuring of royalty system, upload process and so on, this is a complete waste of effort.

iStop · « **Reply #8 on:** March 05, 2015, 05:34 »

I completely agree. And what self respecting photo agency would even be shameless enough to go out to their contributors and tell them that their biggest and brightest brain fart is to revert to trying to get sales via search engines?

I'm also dumbfounded how pathetic this whole thing sounds to begin with. How can you build confidence with your contributors when you admit you can't make enough sales based on your own corporate branding and company image?

We want to hear words like "Market Leader", "Buyer Network", "Marketing Strategy", "Market Penetration"., etc.

The last word I want to hear coming out of my own agency's mouth frankly is "SEO". Sheesh!

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** March 05, 2015, 06:15 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 05, 2015, 00:10

Quote from: Holmes on March 04, 2015, 21:52
i thought they were doing away with descriptions

Yes, same here. Are you sure they dont mean 50 keywords ? Even my m9st complex images don't come near to 50 word descriptions. Or even 30 word descriptions.

No, they meant 50 word descriptions. I posted the link on the OP.
A good proportion of my descriptions have over 50 words, but almost all my images are either editorial or 'most probably will be used as editorial but don't need releases' and things like species names (verancular, alternates (e.g. US/English names), scientific, scientific alternates (in some cases) and location can take up a lot of words before anything else is described.

Looks like Lobo has at least seen sense and has seen that removing descriptions from files as viewed by potential buyers is NOT a good idea:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365525&messageid=7088389

Thank goodness. I really hope they will revisit and reverse that insanity. That really had the potential to be the worst of all the appalling decisions iS has made. You know for a long time now, I've suspected that every week or so some poor employee is forced to think of 'something new'. They long ago squeezed out the masseuse, tea lady, cleaner and delivery boy (or masseur, tea boy and delivery lady). The 'remove descriptions' idea was probably thought up by the drunk who was propping up the door, who fell in when they all rushed out at 'hometime'.

"We've heard of buyers, but want no truck with them" (apologies to Douglas Adams)

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** March 05, 2015, 06:20 »

Quote from: Holmes on March 04, 2015, 21:52

i thought they were doing away with descriptions

No, their stupid idea, which I hope they will revise, is that descriptions are still necessary for SEO, but not for buyers to see.
They said that buyers will see descriptions on their 'first visit', but I don't know if that means their first visit to iStock, or their first visit to a particular file.
(Added: that has now been explained "It does not specifically say in the OP that that first time visitors will see descriptions actually on the new ADP itself, simply that descriptions will be shown to first time visitors. First time visitors without iStock cookies will be shown descriptions by dint of the fact that they will be seeing the old ADP, until they are cookied. "
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365525&messageid=7088531

H*ck ,with all the spamming which goes on over there (and not only there, obviously), the description can be the only chance a buyer has to see what the image really shows, as most people tend not to spam descriptions so much.

Gema · « **Reply #11 on:** March 05, 2015, 07:23 »

I don't think they make any sense at all. They think google search will help, but how would google search help someone who is searching for a particular photo on iStock search?

Stockmaan · « **Reply #12 on:** March 05, 2015, 07:30 »

Link between active iStock images and PPsite images is still broken! On PP I miss 30 % of my images.
First of all they must repair this!
Shameful!

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** March 05, 2015, 07:33 »

Quote from: Gema on March 05, 2015, 07:23

I don't think they make any sense at all. They think google search will help, but how would google search help someone who is searching for a particular photo on iStock search?

They seem to be ignoring the spam and thinking keywords will do the job.

And FWIW, a file I uploaded on Tuesday evening arrived with the keywords apparently randomly jumbled. It still isn't searchable, so couldn't be the result of 'buyer action', and it didn't seem to be 'geographic' tags which were promoted, which was suggested before.

dpimborough · « **Reply #14 on:** March 05, 2015, 08:52 »

I think I shall go back to hitting my head against the door frame repeatedly.

Their stupidity is really grinding my gears

tickstock · « **Reply #15 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:07 »

"Creating accurate, precise and easily understood descriptions for your images and footage is absolutely essential to getting them seen and bought. Why? Because good descriptions help customers find your images and footage on search engines like Google, which can be the first place potential customers look when they're ready to buy an image or clip."

Makes sense to me. If 50 words is best then it's good to know that, if you don't feel like it will have an impact then you don't have to do anything. Adding good keywords is nearly as important as making good images so it wouldn't surprise me if good descriptions play a role as well.

iStop · « **Reply #16 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:14 »

Quote from: Gema on March 05, 2015, 07:23

I don't think they make any sense at all. They think google search will help, but how would google search help someone who is searching for a particular photo on iStock search?

I think that's the point perhaps. Not enough people are searching for photos on the iStock site itself and now they think a free search engine like Google is going to save their business by driving all the lost photo buyers back to their site. I wonder who at HQ got the woo-yay for that starry-eyed, self fulfilling prophecy? Here is the deal, all the buyers didn't start searching on Google instead. No, they aren't looking for stock photos to buy using Google search at all. Why would they when they know who sells the stock photos that they want to buy? The serious and important photo buyers are searching on other stock photo sites for what they are looking for and not on iStock. It's as simple as that.

4 years straight of re-pressing the self destruct button every 6 months back at HQ and now Google is here to save the day and bring us back all those long lost photo and video buyers who are now stumbling around in Google cyberspace searching for media because they don't know where else to find it. 👍👌💪

Shelma1 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:21 »

I doubt any of this will have a meaningful impact, because iStock always seems to be grasping at straws. However, if it DID work, I'd be disinclined to spend time on it. Because honestly, I'd rather people find and buy my images elsewhere, since iS has the lowest royalties and lowest RPD.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #18 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:33 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 05, 2015, 11:07

"Creating accurate, precise and easily understood descriptions for your images and footage is absolutely essential to getting them seen and bought. Why? Because good descriptions help customers find your images and footage on search engines like Google, which can be the first place potential customers look when they're ready to buy an image or clip."

Makes sense to me. If 50 words is best then it's good to know that, if you don't feel like it will have an impact then you don't have to do anything. Adding good keywords is nearly as important as making good images so it wouldn't surprise me if good descriptions play a role as well.

OH. By The Way. After you get done with your descrptions we won't show them on the asset page for anyone to read.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #19 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:42 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 05, 2015, 11:07

"Creating accurate, precise and easily understood descriptions for your images and footage is absolutely essential to getting them seen and bought. Why? Because good descriptions help customers find your images and footage on search engines like Google, which can be the first place potential customers look when they're ready to buy an image or clip."

Makes sense to me. If 50 words is best then it's good to know that, if you don't feel like it will have an impact then you don't have to do anything. Adding good keywords is nearly as important as making good images so it wouldn't surprise me if good descriptions play a role as well.

Are you making the changes, and do you think Google search has an impact on IS sales? Do buyers really search Google instead of a stock photo agency when in need of an image?

tickstock · « **Reply #20 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:47 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 05, 2015, 11:42

Quote from: tickstock on March 05, 2015, 11:07
"Creating accurate, precise and easily understood descriptions for your images and footage is absolutely essential to getting them seen and bought. Why? Because good descriptions help customers find your images and footage on search engines like Google, which can be the first place potential customers look when they're ready to buy an image or clip."

Makes sense to me. If 50 words is best then it's good to know that, if you don't feel like it will have an impact then you don't have to do anything. Adding good keywords is nearly as important as making good images so it wouldn't surprise me if good descriptions play a role as well.
Are you making the changes, and do you think Google search has an impact on IS sales? Do buyers really search Google instead of a stock photo agency when in need of an image?

That quote was from Shutterstock so if both iS and SS are saying good SEO helps sales then I think it's reasonable to expect that it does.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #21 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:52 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 05, 2015, 11:47

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 05, 2015, 11:42
Quote from: tickstock on March 05, 2015, 11:07
"Creating accurate, precise and easily understood descriptions for your images and footage is absolutely essential to getting them seen and bought. Why? Because good descriptions help customers find your images and footage on search engines like Google, which can be the first place potential customers look when they're ready to buy an image or clip."

Makes sense to me. If 50 words is best then it's good to know that, if you don't feel like it will have an impact then you don't have to do anything. Adding good keywords is nearly as important as making good images so it wouldn't surprise me if good descriptions play a role as well.
Are you making the changes, and do you think Google search has an impact on IS sales? Do buyers really search Google instead of a stock photo agency when in need of an image?
That quote was from Shutterstock so if both of iS and SS are saying good SEO helps sales then I think it's reasonable to expect that it does.

But SS doesnt talk about a minimum of 50 words. A good clear and simple description could be Green apple isolated on a white background. Thats 7 words and should be enough. I am sure good SEO helps, but creating long novel descriptions cost a lot of time and I'm certain it wont be worth the time spent on it.

tickstock · « **Reply #22 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:57 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 05, 2015, 11:52

I'm certain it wont be worth the time spent on it.

Then you shouldn't do it.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #23 on:** March 05, 2015, 12:01 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 05, 2015, 11:57

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 05, 2015, 11:52
I'm certain it wont be worth the time spent on it.
Then you shouldn't do it.

I know, I am not. I am putting in clear proper descriptions, but not with 50 words.

ShadySue · « **Reply #24 on:** March 05, 2015, 13:03 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 05, 2015, 11:52

But SS doesnt talk about a minimum of 50 words. A good clear and simple description could be Green apple isolated on a white background. Thats 7 words and should be enough. I am sure good SEO helps, but creating long novel descriptions cost a lot of time and I'm certain it wont be worth the time spent on it.

Well, iS isn't talking about a minimum of 50 words, it's saying 50 words is optimal.

Presumably deliberately disingenuously, Lobo posted "I guess if all your files are only white eggs on white backgrounds you probably would do okay with 1 word. Egg."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365797&messageid=7088349
Whereas the better description would be something like "white hen's egg on a plain white background".
Like with your apple, that's perfectly adequate, but putting the type of apple wouldn't do any harm and might help a few buyers - e.g. a Golden Delicious looks very different to a Bramley.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: SEO - how did you fare? (Read 15319 times)

ShadySue

Semmick Photo

Holmes

PixelBytes

wordplanet

B8

Semmick Photo

Justanotherphotographer

iStop

ShadySue

ShadySue

Gema

Stockmaan

ShadySue

dpimborough

tickstock

iStop

Shelma1

StanRohrer

Semmick Photo

tickstock

Semmick Photo

tickstock

Semmick Photo

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors