Author Topic: The 4/3/11 Istockphoto Best Match Change (Read 59739 times)

Difydave · « **Reply #100 on:** April 05, 2011, 08:22 »

The slider's disappeared for me now, look's like the results are now as it was set in the middle.
If these are the new "best match" results with no option to modify them then it looks to me as if most of us are in for a tough time.

ShadySue · « **Reply #101 on:** April 05, 2011, 08:25 »

Quote from: Difydave on April 05, 2011, 08:22

The slider's disappeared for me now, look's like the results are now as it was set in the middle.
If these are the new "best match" results with no option to modify them then it looks to me as if most of us are in for a tough time.

Isn't it funny that when it's disadvantageous things (cutting commissions, removing slider, fraud clawback) they can implement it at top speed or sooner. Anything people actually want (fixing sRGB problem, returning unpaid royalties etc etc) seem to throw up insuperable difficulties.
So now, despite some, admittedly a FEW, buyers requesting a way to filter out V/A, they are now forced to wade through them without even the consolation of moving the slider for a more mixed search.
It would e interesting to discover whether more sales of V&A are resulting from this tactic. I presume if sales were falling they'd change it in an instant.

fotografer · « **Reply #102 on:** April 05, 2011, 08:46 »

Wow, I have just done a search on my current best sellers main keyword and where I used to appear on the first page of the best match search as my image is about to become blue flame, about 3/4 of the results in the first 100 have 0 or 1 dl and most aren't very relevant to the keyword. The only upside to this that I cas see is that the results are so bad that buyers may well look and see what search by dls brings up and I will be back on the first page

caspixel · « **Reply #103 on:** April 05, 2011, 09:03 »

On the verge of having another customer leave because of this "new" best match:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=321102&page=1

...Or is it as I am sure the majority of customers have assumed (myself included) that indeed it is Managements intention to never implement this feature in hopes that we will cave and somehow start paying 1000-1800% more?

"Wishful thinking" comes to mind.

My latest search, "consultant", yielded only 36 regular images out of a page of 200! all down the very bottom. For some customers that would equate to many pages before hitting (for some) something affordable.

There are filters to essentially exclude non collection images - why . isn't there one for the reverse? Whatever the logic, its a pain in the a$$ and hence an answer as to whether or not this feature is coming would be appreciated.

So. Is it coming or should I just start making up lightboxes somewhere else and save myself the hassle?

lagereek · « **Reply #104 on:** April 05, 2011, 09:35 »

Yes, the slider has been removed, as much as I would have liked to keep it. I havent had time to look at any best match results yet, even so, even if it turns out to be a good best match, I think the chances of earnings going back to normal is pretty slim, the damage is probably done already.

Difydave · « **Reply #105 on:** April 05, 2011, 09:47 »

My downloads have dropped right off today. Coincidence, happenstance or "Enemy action" I wonder.
Yesterday was a good day. So it might be that buyers had learnt where the slider was.
Whatever the case, do iStock really think that this is properly representational of the collection.
What about giving some other contributors a chance, apart from a handful of those with Vetta and Agency?
This one really needs sorting!

lagereek · « **Reply #106 on:** April 05, 2011, 10:48 »

Quote from: Difydave on April 05, 2011, 09:47

My downloads have dropped right off today. Coincidence, happenstance or "Enemy action" I wonder.
Yesterday was a good day. So it might be that buyers had learnt where the slider was.
Whatever the case, do iStock really think that this is properly representational of the collection.
What about giving some other contributors a chance, apart from a handful of those with Vetta and Agency?
This one really needs sorting!

Hi mate!

I think everyone has taken a fall today, the calm after the storm, you know. Might pick up after buyers getting used to new best match, dont know? I dont want to be the devils-advocate, but I know from experience that its extremely hard to do a come-back after all the commotion thats been hitting us lately. If they manage to do that, they have got my full support and respect for life.

BTW, soon youre a Diamond, congrats!

all the best Dave! Christian

SNP · « **Reply #107 on:** April 05, 2011, 10:55 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 04:09

Quote from: lisafx on April 04, 2011, 18:34
Quote from: cobalt on April 04, 2011, 18:20

I know this place is as negative as can be about istock and I also know that in the last months has mucked up a lot but sometimes I wonder....

When you have any business that has one massive screw up after another for many months, coupled with terrible communication (or none at all) , it creates a fertile environment for conspiracy theories.

I agree with that, I certainly wish for better communication. Just wanted to add my 2 cents.

I don´t like the current best match either, mostly because the search results look strange. V/A is very beautiful but there is a reason why it is sold in small quantities, it is just not generic enough. And many bestsellers have dissappeared, so the buyers are not really getting a Best Match.

I am confident they will improve it, or the system will swing back to normal, I don´t know how these software things work.

I agree with your posts...especially this one. I have to add that this best match incarnation seems to be working out well for me, but the swings always scare me because they can just as easily not work out for me as happened in 2008. the search has been fairly stable until a few months ago, I'd like to see it stabilize again. Pushing Vetta and Agency to the front will alienate frustrated buyers from those collections, and it seems like a naked attempt to make more money, which buyers won't appreciate. As a contributor, I don't appreciate it either. it's a short-sighted approach to increasing profits, where Getty needs to see that they could REALLY affect positive direction in the industry if they were to place appropriate value on our work and on their relationship with contributors and make a bold move to prioritize those values.

lagereek · « **Reply #108 on:** April 05, 2011, 11:27 »

Quote from: SNP on April 05, 2011, 10:55

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 04:09
Quote from: lisafx on April 04, 2011, 18:34
Quote from: cobalt on April 04, 2011, 18:20

I know this place is as negative as can be about istock and I also know that in the last months has mucked up a lot but sometimes I wonder....

When you have any business that has one massive screw up after another for many months, coupled with terrible communication (or none at all) , it creates a fertile environment for conspiracy theories.

I agree with that, I certainly wish for better communication. Just wanted to add my 2 cents.

I don´t like the current best match either, mostly because the search results look strange. V/A is very beautiful but there is a reason why it is sold in small quantities, it is just not generic enough. And many bestsellers have dissappeared, so the buyers are not really getting a Best Match.

I am confident they will improve it, or the system will swing back to normal, I don´t know how these software things work.

I agree with your posts...especially this one. I have to add that this best match incarnation seems to be working out well for me, but the swings always scare me because they can just as easily not work out for me as happened in 2008. the search has been fairly stable until a few months ago, I'd like to see it stabilize again. Pushing Vetta and Agency to the front will alienate frustrated buyers from those collections, and it seems like a naked attempt to make more money, which buyers won't appreciate. As a contributor, I don't appreciate it either. it's a short-sighted approach to increasing profits, where Getty needs to see that they could REALLY affect positive direction in the industry if they were to place appropriate value on our work and on their relationship with contributors and make a bold move to prioritize those values.

Stacey my dear girl. It would work out well for you, youre exclusive, Its worked out pretty jolly for myself, only I would have liked a bit more diversity within my port.

BTW. your IS portrait, looks like Judy garland.

SNP · « **Reply #109 on:** April 05, 2011, 11:46 »

Christian - I think you restated my point, lol. it doesn't matter if it works out for me right now or not, the value is being placed on the wrong things IMO, at least by appearances. and that kind of approach is totally myopic. I personally feel the Vetta/Agency presence in the best match sort is temporary. that isn't based on any inside knowledge, it's just my analysis. I don't think it makes sense from any point of view, other than a temporary state while they tweak the best match. if it is intentional, I'm shaking my head wondering what the h*ll is going on.

lagereek · « **Reply #110 on:** April 05, 2011, 12:01 »

Quote from: SNP on April 05, 2011, 11:46

Christian - I think you restated my point, lol. it doesn't matter if it works out for me right now or not, the value is being placed on the wrong things IMO, at least by appearances. and that kind of approach is totally myopic. I personally feel the Vetta/Agency presence in the best match sort is temporary. that isn't based on any inside knowledge, it's just my analysis. I don't think it makes sense from any point of view, other than a temporary state while they tweak the best match. if it is intentional, I'm shaking my head wondering what the h*ll is going on.

Yup! I agree to that, and I really hope the Vetta/agency is temporary, scares buyers away but you know? Getty rules, right.

changed my mind, you look like a young Audrey Hepburn

SNP · « **Reply #111 on:** April 05, 2011, 12:12 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 05, 2011, 12:01

Quote from: SNP on April 05, 2011, 11:46
Christian - I think you restated my point, lol. it doesn't matter if it works out for me right now or not, the value is being placed on the wrong things IMO, at least by appearances. and that kind of approach is totally myopic. I personally feel the Vetta/Agency presence in the best match sort is temporary. that isn't based on any inside knowledge, it's just my analysis. I don't think it makes sense from any point of view, other than a temporary state while they tweak the best match. if it is intentional, I'm shaking my head wondering what the h*ll is going on.

Yup! I agree to that, and I really hope the Vetta/agency is temporary, scares buyers away but you know? Getty rules, right.

changed my mind, you look like a young Audrey Hepburn

lol. I've been told Audrey Hepburn a lot. though she was very wispy and petite...I'm tall, 5' 10" and not wispy, lol. anyways, I think we'll see a shift back to a more balanced best match sort as they tweak. at least that's what I'm hoping. I have barely any Vetta and just one Agency image, so this new sort really stands out to me obviously. ironically, a few contributors I'm close with are quite Vetta heavy and have been experiencing slow sales. so, to say the least, sales right now are bizarre..

SNP · « **Reply #112 on:** April 05, 2011, 12:33 »

FYI, update from Andrew:

"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."

Elenathewise · « **Reply #113 on:** April 05, 2011, 12:47 »

Quote from: SNP on April 05, 2011, 12:33

FYI, update from Andrew:

"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."

Sigh... why don't they quit turning dials and give customers clear option to search Vetta and Agency only, exclusive stuff only, or search anything and everything sorted by good old relevance? Seriously, if I was an Istock buyer I'd be so pissed - I really don't appreciate being fooled or tricked into buying one thing or another. I'd go shop some other place - I think lots of them went to shutter, I had 3 ELs today already:)

nruboc · « **Reply #114 on:** April 05, 2011, 13:00 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on April 05, 2011, 12:47

Quote from: SNP on April 05, 2011, 12:33
FYI, update from Andrew:

"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."

Sigh... why don't they quit turning dials and give customers clear option to search Vetta and Agency only, exclusive stuff only, or search anything and everything sorted by good old relevance? Seriously, if I was an Istock buyer I'd be so pissed - I really don't appreciate being fooled or tricked into buying one thing or another. I'd go shop some other place - I think lots of them went to shutter, I had 3 ELs today already:)

Yup, nothing pisses me off more as a buyer than companies that don't give me the option to filter out price points I can't afford. I'm sure that's why they came up with ThinkStock, try to shuffle the price conscious customers there instead of losing them to a competeing agency

elvinstar · « **Reply #115 on:** April 05, 2011, 13:26 »

Quote

- I think lots of them went to shutter, I had 3 ELs today already:)

I've also had my first EL in quite a while. Let's hope the migration continues!

jamirae · « **Reply #116 on:** April 05, 2011, 13:29 »

Quote from: nruboc on April 05, 2011, 13:00

Quote from: Elenathewise on April 05, 2011, 12:47
Quote from: SNP on April 05, 2011, 12:33
FYI, update from Andrew:

"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."

Sigh... why don't they quit turning dials and give customers clear option to search Vetta and Agency only, exclusive stuff only, or search anything and everything sorted by good old relevance? Seriously, if I was an Istock buyer I'd be so pissed - I really don't appreciate being fooled or tricked into buying one thing or another. I'd go shop some other place - I think lots of them went to shutter, I had 3 ELs today already:)

Yup, nothing pisses me off more as a buyer than companies that don't give me the option to filter out price points I can't afford. I'm sure that's why they came up with ThinkStock, try to shuffle the price conscious customers there instead of losing them to a competeing agency

I referred 3 pissed off customers to other agencies yesterday. people tweeting things like "can anyone recommend a cheaper place for stock imagery other than istock? they've gotten outrageous lately"

yeah.. business is picking up for the competitors! I guess money from a happy, loyal customer is not what makes istock happy.

SNP · « **Reply #117 on:** April 05, 2011, 13:44 »

you know, I have to say that I think it's a really dangerous game referring customers away from sites you dislike TO sites you happen to like at any given time. a) I think it's unprofessional and looks petty, b) I think it's as slimy as the business practices many of you are criticizing. it's a move that can only bite you in the a55 eventually. but whatever, that's not how I do business.

I also can't imagine dragging my clients into my relationship with my agencies. who does that? seems quite ridiculous to me. no matter how I feel about my agency (ies).

alias · « **Reply #118 on:** April 05, 2011, 14:04 »

Could a greasemonkey script be used to enable buyers to exclude v/agency ?

SNP · « **Reply #119 on:** April 05, 2011, 14:05 »

Quote from: alias on April 05, 2011, 14:04

Could a greasemonkey script be used to enable buyers to exclude v/agency ?

hmm, good question.

Pixart · « **Reply #120 on:** April 05, 2011, 14:19 »

Quote from: SNP on April 05, 2011, 13:44

you know, I have to say that I think it's a really dangerous game referring customers away from sites you dislike TO sites you happen to like at any given time. a) I think it's unprofessional and looks petty, b) I think it's as slimy as the business practices many of you are criticizing. it's a move that can only bite you in the a55 eventually. but whatever, that's not how I do business.

I also can't imagine dragging my clients into my relationship with my agencies. who does that? seems quite ridiculous to me. no matter how I feel about my agency (ies).

Yeah, I agree with you totally. Next time 3 bitter angry people ask me for alternatives to Istock I will tell them to man up and stop complaining. If they complain about prices, customer service, site usability they shouldn't be allowed to purchase photographs anyway.

jamirae · « **Reply #121 on:** April 05, 2011, 14:24 »

Quote from: SNP on April 05, 2011, 13:44

you know, I have to say that I think it's a really dangerous game referring customers away from sites you dislike TO sites you happen to like at any given time. a) I think it's unprofessional and looks petty, b) I think it's as slimy as the business practices many of you are criticizing. it's a move that can only bite you in the a55 eventually. but whatever, that's not how I do business.

I also can't imagine dragging my clients into my relationship with my agencies. who does that? seems quite ridiculous to me. no matter how I feel about my agency (ies).

don't get your undies in a bunch. I did not give a referral because I dislike istock. I'm doing it to help the buyers and show them they have more options. They asked for referrals to other stock agencies, I was giving them a referral. It's not like I added something like "well istock really sucks so go try this place instead" there was no malintent toward istock. I still refer folks to istock from my blog as well so don't try to call me out as doing something slimy when all I am doing is helping a customer who asks for it.

jamirae · « **Reply #122 on:** April 05, 2011, 14:27 »

Quote from: alias on April 05, 2011, 14:04

Could a greasemonkey script be used to enable buyers to exclude v/agency ?

evenso then you get into the whole issue with having to teach buyers something new and make them add some script thing to do something that the site should already do for them. geez.. even amazon lets me sort by price for goodness sake. I just don't get why there's such a resistance to providing customer service over pushing high-priced products on people who don't want to pay for that sort of thing.

SNP · « **Reply #123 on:** April 05, 2011, 14:27 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 05, 2011, 14:19

Quote from: SNP on April 05, 2011, 13:44
you know, I have to say that I think it's a really dangerous game referring customers away from sites you dislike TO sites you happen to like at any given time. a) I think it's unprofessional and looks petty, b) I think it's as slimy as the business practices many of you are criticizing. it's a move that can only bite you in the a55 eventually. but whatever, that's not how I do business.

I also can't imagine dragging my clients into my relationship with my agencies. who does that? seems quite ridiculous to me. no matter how I feel about my agency (ies).

Yeah, I agree with you totally. Next time 3 bitter angry people ask me for alternatives to Istock I will tell them to man up and stop complaining. If they complain about prices, customer service, site usability they shouldn't be allowed to purchase photographs anyway.

I think it's obvious that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about contributors bragging about actively campaigning to buyers to get them away from iStock (and FWIW, I would say the same if it was being done to any other agency). it's a silly game to play IMO.

nruboc · « **Reply #124 on:** April 05, 2011, 14:33 »

Quote from: jamirae on April 05, 2011, 13:29

Quote from: nruboc on April 05, 2011, 13:00
Quote from: Elenathewise on April 05, 2011, 12:47
Quote from: SNP on April 05, 2011, 12:33
FYI, update from Andrew:

"We're continuing the Best Match dial turning also. We're working on getting to a set of results where Vetta and Agency are less prominent than they are now but slightly more prominent than they were last week."

Sigh... why don't they quit turning dials and give customers clear option to search Vetta and Agency only, exclusive stuff only, or search anything and everything sorted by good old relevance? Seriously, if I was an Istock buyer I'd be so pissed - I really don't appreciate being fooled or tricked into buying one thing or another. I'd go shop some other place - I think lots of them went to shutter, I had 3 ELs today already:)

Yup, nothing pisses me off more as a buyer than companies that don't give me the option to filter out price points I can't afford. I'm sure that's why they came up with ThinkStock, try to shuffle the price conscious customers there instead of losing them to a competeing agency

I referred 3 pissed off customers to other agencies yesterday. people tweeting things like "can anyone recommend a cheaper place for stock imagery other than istock? they've gotten outrageous lately"

yeah.. business is picking up for the competitors! I guess money from a happy, loyal customer is not what makes istock happy.

Only 3? You're not trying hard enough...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

How has the 4/3/11 Best Match change affected your sales?

Author Topic: The 4/3/11 Istockphoto Best Match Change (Read 59739 times)

Difydave

ShadySue

fotografer

caspixel

lagereek

Difydave

lagereek

SNP

lagereek

SNP

lagereek

SNP

SNP

Elenathewise

nruboc

elvinstar

jamirae

SNP

alias

SNP

Pixart

jamirae

jamirae

SNP

nruboc

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors