Pseudonyms, CTR and AR? What's the current thinking?

[IanButty]

Sorry folks, this is another of my what's changed since I was active posts.

 

I've done a search of the forums and read a few interesting posts suggesting that pseudonyms are no longer independent of each other.  When I was active and submitting regularly the general thinking was that it was good practice to split the images into different pseudonyms because it meant that an unpopular pseudonym wouldn't drag down a popular one.  At the time I started creating a new pseudonym for each country of the world I had photographed, each region of the UK, and in the case of models one for each model I'd shot.  Since then I've travelled to many more countries and worked with many more models and my list of pseudonyms not runs to over 60!!

 

The fact that I had so many pseudonyms didn't really bother me - 60 is just a number, and until I read the recent posts I believed it was a good idea to continue to keep them separate - let each collection fend for itself and in the gladiatorial arena that is Alamy Rank.   However now with the theory that the pseudonyms are somehow linked in the ranking algorithm,  I wondering if I ought to consolidate back down to smaller number.

 

When I set up the pseudonyms it was round the time that we all used the BHZ keyword (and yes we called them keywords not tags in those days) to get an idea of relative ranking.  As things stand at the moment I have one pseudonym "Ian M Butterfield (concepts)" that ranks on page 5 out 30+ pages.  The rest are languishing between 1/2 and 2/3s down the listing.  Some of the newer pseudonyms don't have any images with a BHZ tag, so I don't know there they fit into the grand scheme of things.

I can already think of one big reason for consolidating.  The Alamy measures info is VERY misleading with a lot of pseudonyms .  Because I have a relatively low number of images in each pseudonym (Average of just over 115 per pseudo)  it can give odd results.  If I look at the the CTR for "Ian M Butterfield (Canada)" over the period 1 Jan 17 - 28 Sep 17.  it has a CTR of 25.0 - wow! thought, until I delved deeper.  Over that whole 9 month period, there were only two searches resulting only 4 views and 1 zoom.  It might be a CTR of 25.0 but actually it was pretty rubbish performing pseudonym!

 

So bottom line, what's the current thinking?  Is there much point in creating lots of pseudonyms anymore?  How many do people have and are people still using them to let different images live or die on their own merits?

 

Thanks

Ian.

 

[Bryan]

For most of my time on Alamy I have had but two, the main collection and a junk heap for discards. However, in recent months I've branched out and added a third, with a name that I felt might be more attractive to buyers for that particular subject matter. Sold a couple with the new pseudo, it doesn't appear to have done any harm, but far too early to judge really.

[Stokie]

I've only ever had one pseudo since I started in 2007.

 

John.

[spacecadet]

I started a new one for archival. It's only about 2% of my numbers so probably too small to draw conclusions, but it does have a comparatively high CTR and sales.

The stark fact is that my earliest non- QC-passable digital is only a year newer than the newest archival. I'm never tempted to sneak any of it in as archival, of course.

[IanButty]

4 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Try this search term:

 

 Ggantija neolithic megalithic 5500 years old prehistoric temple complex site Gozo, Malta

 

It produces 34 images. The first 20 without break are 'geogphotos' the remaining 14 are all 'geogphoto'

 

All 34 pics have the same caption and keywords ( except for a few additional words added as appropriate at the end), uploaded at the same time into my default pseudo of 'geogphoto' then those chosen for 'geogphotos' changed at a later stage.

 

When I do a more limited search  'Ggantija temple Gozo'  the first 20 of mine are all 'geogphotos' and the 14 'geogphoto' ones all come lower down.

 

However, even the lower pseudo deliberately starved of 'algo-juice' come higher than you might expect and not right at the very bottom of the search order. So it could be that despite not getting any help it is benefitting from my overall rank??

 

Not sure of the interpretation overall in relation to the OP.

 

 

Interesting.  

 

I studied physics at University.  One of the principals of physics is that the way to solve problems is to come up with a theory.  At this stage you don't have any evidence, it's just an idea.  Then... you look for ways to either disprove the theory or ways to confirm the theory.  If you can prove the theory fantastic.  Job done.  If you disprove the theory you come up with a new one and design a new set of tests, until you can either prove it or more often than not just run out of ways to disprove the theory.  If the later is what happens then you have the current best understanding as to what is happening.

 

So applying this approach.  From what people are reporting, here and on other threads.  I have a theory.

 

• Order in which the first image from a specific photographer appears on a search is calculated by the overall/average rank of the contributor.
• What the first image is and the order of subsequent images from that photographers is calculated by the rank of the specific pseudonym.

 

All I (we) need to do is come up with a test to prove or disprove it.

 

Of course... even if I could prove or disprove it, it doesn't answer the question of whether I should consolidate my pseudonyms.  I guess as goegphotos said I might have to ask Member Services about that one.

 

Ian.