Author Topic: Lucky Oliver Big Wig list (Read 11867 times)

leaf · « **on:** January 14, 2008, 08:18 »

Did you make it on the list of the top 50 portfolios for views?

http://www.luckyoliver.com/blog

i didn't

but congrats to those who did!

but the top searched for words is a valuable asset to us. When creating keywords for an image it is good to make sure you get any of the popular ones that fit.

nicemonkey · « **Reply #1 on:** January 14, 2008, 08:35 »

I didnt either

but I wasnt expecting to as I keep bobbing in and out of the top 100 carnie

www.nicemonkey.co.uk

sharply_done · « **Reply #2 on:** January 14, 2008, 08:55 »

Wow, is that 'Most Viewed Portfolios' list ever wacked: the number two spot only has 27 images! Not very impressive ...

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** January 14, 2008, 09:02 »

perhaps because they made 188 comments on the odditorium other lucky oliver members are viewing their profile.

rene · « **Reply #4 on:** January 14, 2008, 09:22 »

Quote from: leaf on January 14, 2008, 09:02

perhaps because they made 188 comments on the odditorium other lucky oliver members are viewing their profile.

Luckyoliver is good for writers, not for photographers.

bryan_luckyoliver · « **Reply #5 on:** January 14, 2008, 10:59 »

Quote from: sharply_done on January 14, 2008, 08:55

Wow, is that 'Most Viewed Portfolios' list ever wacked: the number two spot only has 27 images! Not very impressive ...

sharply_done, the portfolio list doesn't have anything to do with photo sales or views- many on those on the list send traffic to their portfolios from outside links. I thought it would be nice to show active Carnies.

As an example, Yuri doesn't get much portfolio traffic, but his images do sell from search.

sharply_done · « **Reply #6 on:** January 14, 2008, 12:05 »

Bryan: I'm looking at this from an outsider's perspective. You published a list entitled "Most Viewed Portfolios", and when I visited these portfolios I was expecting to be impressed by an excellent and diverse sampling of images available for purchase on your website. I didn't come away with that impression.

bryan_luckyoliver · « **Reply #7 on:** January 14, 2008, 13:37 »

Quote from: sharply_done on January 14, 2008, 12:05

Bryan: I'm looking at this from an outsider's perspective. You published a list entitled "Most Viewed Portfolios", and when I visited these portfolios I was expecting to be impressed by an excellent and diverse sampling of images available for purchase on your website. I didn't come away with that impression.

Well, sure. Perhaps this week I'll publish some of my favorite photos. I think this list is more of what your talking about:
http://www.luckyoliver.com/blog/294/stunning_new_images

I think rewarding Carnies that have participated in the community with exposure isn't a bad thing. It's statistical analysis. Many of these artists are driving traffic to other people's work.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #8 on:** January 14, 2008, 14:45 »

Brian:

I am a little confused.

I was expecting a list titled "Most Viewed Portfolios" to contain portfolios that consist of images that were viewed many times. But that is not what I found.

For example, take the second artist on the list. As reported above, they have 27 images, their most viewed image was viewed 26 times, and all of their images were viewed a total of about 350 times.

One of my most popular images has over 1,000 views alone (http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/91556/close-up_macro_of_water_drop_blue).

So how is this list defined?

bryan_luckyoliver · « **Reply #9 on:** January 14, 2008, 15:28 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on January 14, 2008, 14:45

Brian:

I am a little confused.

I was expecting a list titled "Most Viewed Portfolios" to contain portfolios that consist of images that were viewed many times. But that is not what I found.

For example, take the second artist on the list. As reported above, they have 27 images, their most viewed image was viewed 26 times, and all of their images were viewed a total of about 350 times.

One of my most popular images has over 1,000 views alone (http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/91556/close-up_macro_of_water_drop_blue).

So how is this list defined?

The portfolios that received the most views came from a wide selection of Carnies. This list is generated from unique portfolio views- not a sum of all photos views.

Basically, I wanted to show which Carnies gain traction and exposure- if their portfolios are not up to snuff then photo views would be lower. I might do a separate list of people with most exposure total.

maunger · « **Reply #10 on:** January 14, 2008, 18:28 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on January 14, 2008, 14:45

So how is this list defined?

If i can expand on what Bryan said... i believe that since LO defines a portfolio with a special link, they are probably reporting on specific hits to the entire portfolio view - not adding up views (which is what bryan said)... example: http://www.luckyoliver.com/portfolio/maunger

Does that help?

DanP68 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 15, 2008, 01:09 »

Quote from: bryan_luckyoliver on January 14, 2008, 13:37

I think rewarding Carnies that have participated in the community with exposure isn't a bad thing. It's statistical analysis. Many of these artists are driving traffic to other people's work.

I respectfully disagree Bryan. I don't like the idea of awarding a lot of message board posting with increased portfolio exposure. A lot of the posts I read when I was active had to do with griping about slow site traffic, and how people were doing at other agencies. I don't know why this should be rewarded with portfolio exposure.

If you are looking for innovative ways to give people empowerment and exposure, I suggest basing an idea on 123RF's "Fave" list, which is one of the simplest, best ideas I have come across. It allows contributors to take 1 image for every 20 accepted images (5%), and "Fave" it. The result is the any "Faved" image ends up near the top of the relevant search list.

I like this type of empowerment, as it allows artists to put their money with their mouth is with ideas of what their best images are. Something along these lines is smart in my opinion, and a lot more empowering than something you are going to run into elsewhere. Think along these types of lines and get artists more involved with promoting their portfolios. If people want to post a lot, let them post a lot. I prefer to create images rather than chat about a site.

maunger · « **Reply #12 on:** January 15, 2008, 06:35 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 15, 2008, 01:09

Quote from: bryan_luckyoliver on January 14, 2008, 13:37
I think rewarding Carnies that have participated in the community with exposure isn't a bad thing. It's statistical analysis. Many of these artists are driving traffic to other people's work.

I respectfully disagree Bryan. I don't like the idea of awarding a lot of message board posting with increased portfolio exposure. A lot of the posts I read when I was active had to do with griping about slow site traffic, and how people were doing at other agencies. I don't know why this should be rewarded with portfolio exposure.

If you are looking for innovative ways to give people empowerment and exposure, I suggest basing an idea on 123RF's "Fave" list, which is one of the simplest, best ideas I have come across. It allows contributors to take 1 image for every 20 accepted images (5%), and "Fave" it. The result is the any "Faved" image ends up near the top of the relevant search list.

I like this type of empowerment, as it allows artists to put their money with their mouth is with ideas of what their best images are. Something along these lines is smart in my opinion, and a lot more empowering than something you are going to run into elsewhere. Think along these types of lines and get artists more involved with promoting their portfolios. If people want to post a lot, let them post a lot.

Um... Bryan didn't say it was only 'message board posting' that he was talking about... LO allows comments on photos, blogs, as well as the Odditorium. I'm not aware of the details about what Bryan's talking about, but I imagine that all participation in the LO community counts.

And, you must not read the Odditorium much because there's a lot more there than just the few posts about sales. People are very helpful and work together to improve their portfolios on LO.

LO's SideShow feature is very similar to the 'fave' idea at 123 - different implementations obviously, but similar in concept. I agree 123's doing a good thing there - tho i wasn't aware of it before so i appreciate you pointing me to it

Quote from: DanP68 on January 15, 2008, 01:09

I prefer to create images rather than chat about a site.

Hmm... what is it you're doing here? LOL

DanP68 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 15, 2008, 07:28 »

Quote from: maunger on January 15, 2008, 06:35

I'm not aware of the details about what Bryan's talking about, but I imagine that all participation in the LO community counts.

I don't know why it would. If I am a buyer looking for images, I want Search to return the best, or at least most relevant, images. If "community participation" (other than message boards and blogging, what is there?) is influencing search, then you are not exactly giving buyers what they are searching for. Why do they care if someone likes to post a lot?

maunger · « **Reply #14 on:** January 15, 2008, 08:16 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 15, 2008, 07:28

Quote from: maunger on January 15, 2008, 06:35
I'm not aware of the details about what Bryan's talking about, but I imagine that all participation in the LO community counts.
I don't know why it would. If I am a buyer looking for images, I want Search to return the best, or at least most relevant, images. If "community participation" (other than message boards and blogging, what is there?) is influencing search, then you are not exactly giving buyers what they are searching for. Why do they care if someone likes to post a lot?

What are the little tricks that all the other sites use for their "best match" or "most popular"? It isn't just one thing that they use, some use ratings, some use a flavor of new vs old, some use voodoo... LO happens to have thrown in a bit of the "community" aspect. I'm not saying it is any more right or wrong than the voodoo that any of the other sites use. It is just one small piece of the "best" pie.

Suppose you were trying to build a site, what would you do to help those people who put something into the site? Especially someone who helps others by commenting on the photos, either to help them become a better photog or to help get the image noticed via search engines, or to help add/remove sticky words (as appropriate) etc. Wouldn't it help to reward those who participate a tiny bit? (Again, we don't know how much this factors into the search - it could be just 5% or something).

Lets not make everyone think that LO searches aren't first based on sticky words either... LO has some pretty darn relevant searches.

anonymous · « **Reply #15 on:** January 15, 2008, 08:29 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 15, 2008, 07:28

I don't know why it would. If I am a buyer looking for images, I want Search to return the best, or at least most relevant, images. If "community participation" (other than message boards and blogging, what is there?) is influencing search, then you are not exactly giving buyers what they are searching for. Why do they care if someone likes to post a lot?

ditto...it's one thing for an IS to engine tweak (even though i disagree with it) because they have the traffic and revenue stream to get away with it. LO has neither. It just winds up a mess, and as you said, may not deliver the image the client is searching for...not really the best way to "service" your customers OR your contributors.

maunger · « **Reply #16 on:** January 15, 2008, 08:32 »

Quote from: anonymous on January 15, 2008, 08:29

Quote from: DanP68 on January 15, 2008, 07:28
I don't know why it would. If I am a buyer looking for images, I want Search to return the best, or at least most relevant, images. If "community participation" (other than message boards and blogging, what is there?) is influencing search, then you are not exactly giving buyers what they are searching for. Why do they care if someone likes to post a lot?

ditto...it's one thing for an IS to engine tweak (even though i disagree with it) because they have the traffic and revenue stream to get away with it. LO has neither. It just winds up a mess, and as you said, may not deliver the image the client is searching for...not really the best way to "service" your customers OR your contributors.

Have you people done any searches at LO? What makes you think they aren't relevant? I think LO has dang good search results compared to IS.

anonymous · « **Reply #17 on:** January 15, 2008, 08:34 »

plenty

maunger · « **Reply #18 on:** January 15, 2008, 08:39 »

Quote from: anonymous on January 15, 2008, 08:34

plenty

Assuming you're replying to my comment about searches... give some examples instead of just one word answers please.

I watch the LO recent searches page a lot and don't find many user searches where they don't get darn good relevancy on the results.

epixx · « **Reply #19 on:** January 15, 2008, 12:00 »

I've done lots of searches at LO, and I always find my own images at page one zillion, which is probably the reason why I have no sales there.

Fred · « **Reply #20 on:** January 15, 2008, 13:16 »

Quote from: epixx on January 15, 2008, 12:00

I've done lots of searches at LO, and I always find my own images at page one zillion, which is probably the reason why I have no sales there.

And that is what it is really all about -- sales and buyers. I don't know why buyers are not going to LO but my own experience and all the reliable statistics I have been able to drudge up indicate they are not. Perhaps it is because they can't find what they need due to the search algorythm perhaps it is something else - lack of marketing/advertising for instance - but the plain fact is there are not enough buyers to generate reasonable sales for contributors and over the last 6 months it has only gotten worse rather than better. fred

bryan_luckyoliver · « **Reply #21 on:** January 15, 2008, 14:46 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 15, 2008, 01:09

I respectfully disagree Bryan. I don't like the idea of awarding a lot of message board posting with increased portfolio exposure. A lot of the posts I read when I was active had to do with griping about slow site traffic, and how people were doing at other agencies. I don't know why this should be rewarded with portfolio exposure.

Danp68-
I put a list of artists up on our blog that highlighted /portfolio views. It was a statistical list. It shows some transparency. The traffic could be from outside sites and blogs(referrers), internal links and photo pages. It's nothing more than a tip of the hat. These artists have participated in the community or created amazing work to get traffic to their images. Why are we not suppose to highlight people that make LO better place?

http://www.luckyoliver.com/blog/294/stunning_new_images

At the same time we try to highlight talented artists. We also try to let the market decide what is great with the sideshow, search and feedback.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Lucky Oliver Big Wig list (Read 11867 times)

leaf

nicemonkey

sharply_done

leaf

rene

bryan_luckyoliver

sharply_done

bryan_luckyoliver

GeoPappas

bryan_luckyoliver

maunger

DanP68

maunger

DanP68

maunger

anonymous

maunger

anonymous

maunger

epixx

Fred

bryan_luckyoliver

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors