IDP Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 This has been mentioned in passing in another thread (which I can't now find) but it probably merits a thread of its own. At about the same time as the thumbnail display changed, it soon became apparent to me that customer searches by Alamy reference weren't being shown in My Measures data. I noticed it quite soon, because I often used to get 4 or 5 such searches a day - which weren't always zoomed (no real need, since they could be put straight into a lightbox or basket). At the time I checked the All of Alamy data and noticed that the searches were still appearing there - although seemingly at a slightly lower frequency and often with other keywords included eg. ABC123 Eiffel Tower. Given the above, I surmised that Alamy had probably decided to purposely exclude searches by reference number, believing it skewed CTR data. There is a logic to this, as the idea behind the click through ratio is that a better photographer's images will stand out from the crowd and thus be zoomed. If only one image is being searched for, this criterion doesn't apply. Although, I suppose it could equally be argued that the image might already have stood out from the crowd and, if it was put straight into a lightbox, not registered as a zoom - thus it deserved it on the follow-up search! Given the volume of such searches I used to get, I'm presuming that this is happening to everyone? Perhaps Alamy would like to comment about any change in methodology? Ian D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I used to get searches by Alamy ref showing up as zooms but haven't had one in around a month. Even if they don't count as zooms, IMHO they should somehow figure into the CTR/ranking algorithm. I'm also interested to hear from Alamy on this and other changes in ranking algorithm since the thumbnail change. I love the new look and think it will be a benefit to sales as it gives the site a much more attractive and modern look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I also used to get these regularly but none for a while now. Glad it's not just me so thanks for pointing this out Ian. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSnapper Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 good point... no searches by alamy ref for me in the last 30n days... km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I do realise that it's human nature to seek (and often "find") patterns and order in even the most random and chaotic of situations, but I simply cannot for the life of me see any logical reason for what has been supposed here. That of course doesn't mean it hasn't occured, but for the life of me I can't see why Alamy would bother. When you think of the variables at play here (tens of millions of images, thousands (?) of potential buyers, an infinity of potential subjects requiring matching images), any consistency in any parameter (sales or zooms or views or searches by any particular term for example) is, if my memory of statistical mathematics 101 holds, more likely a purely random event than a sustainable, repeatable pattern. . . . and . . . with the way the search function is performing of late, I'd not be in a rush to look elsewhere to explain any issues related to search results :-) dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Richmond Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I think you've hit the nail on the head, Ian. I've had one search by reference no in the last month - but that was with a long text string attached so not a direct reference. I been used to getting a few every month, often after an image has already been zoomed, but not so many that their absence came as shock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Statistically speaking even for someone with a lot of searches like that, the absence wouldn't seem to be significant, except that the original poster said that he found searches by his ref # in All of Alamy and not in his zooms, which would lead one to think something has changed. Given the size of the collection, if not for the fact that the searches appeared in All of Alamy, I wouldn't think a sudden dearth of searches by ref # would be a sign of anything either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vpics Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Could it be that the Alamy reference number search might have been clicks in people's lightboxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 For me, no searches on Image ref. number only since 9th October, - just 2 searches with the image ref number plus additional keywords. I usually expect a few of those each week. The change from the thumbnails to the larger images came in on the 24th Sept. I think you are right Ian - Kumar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDP Posted November 18, 2015 Author Share Posted November 18, 2015 I do realise that it's human nature to seek (and often "find") patterns and order in even the most random and chaotic of situations, but I simply cannot for the life of me see any logical reason for what has been supposed here. That of course doesn't mean it hasn't occured, but for the life of me I can't see why Alamy would bother. When you think of the variables at play here (tens of millions of images, thousands (?) of potential buyers, an infinity of potential subjects requiring matching images), any consistency in any parameter (sales or zooms or views or searches by any particular term for example) is, if my memory of statistical mathematics 101 holds, more likely a purely random event than a sustainable, repeatable pattern. . . . and . . . with the way the search function is performing of late, I'd not be in a rush to look elsewhere to explain any issues related to search results :-) dd Clearly, you don't remember "statistical mathematics 101"! If I've regularly had 50-100 searches per month, by Alamy Ref, over several years and then suddenly get none in a similar period, then that is statistically highly significant - and not down to random chance. Moreover, if even a handful of people are experiencing the same phenomenon, then it makes it almost a dead certainty that it's intentional. As for why it should have been done, you might not agree with it, but I've given a highly plausible reason for Alamy making the changes. Could it be that the Alamy reference number search might have been clicks in people's lightboxes? Zooms from lightboxes don't show up in measures. Ian D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDP Posted November 18, 2015 Author Share Posted November 18, 2015 For me, no searches on Image ref. number only since 9th October, - just 2 searches with the image ref number plus additional keywords. I usually expect a few of those each week. The change from the thumbnails to the larger images came in on the 24th Sept. I think you are right Ian - Kumar Thanks, Kumar - glad you made a note of when the changes were made! I couldn't remember the exact dates myself, except that the two events seemed fairly close together. However, as you've pointed out, the disappearance of the Alamy Ref search seems to have been a couple of weeks later. I've just checked my own figures and the last week for which I've got those searches is 5th to 9th October - a total of 33 by Alamy Ref. Nothing at all since. Ian D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Given the fact that on average about half the images searched for by ref. number were also zoomed, does this mean we are missing out on zooms and therefore our CTR is being damaged? Kumar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDP Posted November 18, 2015 Author Share Posted November 18, 2015 Given the fact that on average about half the images searched for by ref. number were also zoomed, does this mean we are missing out on zooms and therefore our CTR is being damaged? Kumar It most probably will have some effect on CTR, Kumar, and I presume that was Alamy's intention. However, any negative effect should be counteracted by ensuing sales - if an image ref search has been carried out but not shown. I also suspect that the move may have something to do with making it more difficult to game the system. If a contributor wanted to increase their CTR by getting a registered buyer to zoom their images, the quickest and most foolproof way is to do an image reference search. Perhaps they've discovered some such systematic abuse? Ian D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 It could be that it's simply because there are no ref # on the default page anymore. I hope this does not mean we just have lost all those clients that used ref # to select images. Some have found the button for pre-9 Oct page lay out: a quick look through AoA set with 09 Oct as starting date will show quite a bit of ref # still being searched. Like: A01N93 (RM)(a0426y OR a0c63m OR a264hm OR a2efpf OR a5bwkk OR a6e2g2 OR a7293b OR a7frth OR a7phbd OR a8h14b OR aarxkf OR ac22t5 OR ac3ye9 OR acy0dp OR add5c6 ORA06EPD or EDPDMD or BFNC2E or C51W3D or CY7TAH or A0CD1J or C8KGXT or BM215Y or D44DCKa09b6j (1)A0KR21pray before gameA0P9KJ0A0PGWA0PGWP0A0PGWP2A0PGWPPa0r1my OR d8r0tga0r1my OR d8r0tg OR cc9h02 OR btkd8kA0T65K Sea kayakers at Bowen Falls Milford SoundA198GY or CNR74M or C1BFTRA1B556.jpgA1CGGJ Shih Tzua1ena4 or aen2fca1g06x or a0ej3h or a1827b or aaac5bA2CMMJ Aerial view over new Container Terminal 9 at Kwai Chung Hong KongA2CMMJ Aerial view over new Container Terminal 9 at Kwai Chung Hong Kong rigA4D4J9 or B2YKWW or BNM83J or C4W8H8 or CPDPHH or CW3YFK or D1MM51 or D71N5T or D71N51 or D71N54 or EXFE5C or EXFE59 Just set AoA to alphabetical. You are right that those searches used to be much more common. I always thought it was not a particularly good sign so many people used the ref #. Meaning they have no idea how to keep the images they like for future reference. Or maybe they are just using their own offline lightbox solution. My guess was it started to get worse (=more searches by ref#) when the pop-up zoom boxes disappeared. Before that clients would have 20 pop-up boxes open to move around on their second or third monitor. Maybe even ranking them. At least that was what I used to do with those boxes. It was a really useful feature (on a desktop machine). wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 IDP stated: "Clearly, you don't remember "statistical mathematics 101"! If I've regularly had 50-100 searches per month, by Alamy Ref, over several years and then suddenly get none in a similar period, then that is statistically highly significant - and not down to random chance. Moreover, if even a handful of people are experiencing the same phenomenon, then it makes it almost a dead certainty that it's intentional. As for why it should have been done, you might not agree with it, but I've given a highly plausible reason for Alamy making the changes" ******************************************************************************************************************************************* With the greatest respect, you really aren't commenting on exactly what I said. EDIT: Discussion on minimum sample sizes / the true validity of statistical validity / causal reductionism / generalisation etc etc etc deleted . . . suddenly can't be bothered, although I think Wim has some interesting observations on what may be happening. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 IDP How many images do you have that generate 50-100 searches per month by photo reference number alone? Your profile shows 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Advanced search? See not only clients don't know how to search. ;-) wim edit: sorry forgot to quote: # Marianne edit 2: I'm having this deja vu all over again ;-) Hmmm.. must be age... (mine...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDP Posted November 19, 2015 Author Share Posted November 19, 2015 It could be that it's simply because there are no ref # on the default page anymore. I hope this does not mean we just have lost all those clients that used ref # to select images. Some have found the button for pre-9 Oct page lay out: a quick look through AoA set with 09 Oct as starting date will show quite a bit of ref # still being searched. wim Wim, in my OP, I'd already stated that searches by reference number were still showing in AoA (but often with additional search terms). I don't think that the disappearance from My Measures has anything to do with customer behaviour. With the greatest respect, you really aren't commenting on exactly what I said. EDIT: Discussion on minimum sample sizes / the true validity of statistical validity / causal reductionism / generalisation etc etc etc deleted . . . suddenly can't be bothered, although I think Wim has some interesting observations on what may be happening. dd Dusty Dingo, I'm fully aware of statistical significance and have, on this forum, often pointed out the error of individual contributors looking for trends or patterns in very small numbers. While you're correct that the statistical validity of sample size of contributors could be queried, that's actually irrelevant. The important figure is the volume of data available for analysis. To take an extreme example, there are around 38,000 contributors on Alamy but if I had 20% of all the images, then any data I alone produced would have statistical significance. In my particular case, we're talking about thousands of events occurring over a period of years compared to zero events over a comparative sample period of 40 days. With around 80,000 views per month, my own figures are a reasonable sample size. The fact that this is only my data doesn't make it any less significant, except in the highly unlikely event that my account has been chosen for special treatment - hence the need for verification by only a handful of other contributors. Ian D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 It could be that it's simply because there are no ref # on the default page anymore. I hope this does not mean we just have lost all those clients that used ref # to select images. Some have found the button for pre-9 Oct page lay out: a quick look through AoA set with 09 Oct as starting date will show quite a bit of ref # still being searched. wim Wim, in my OP, I'd already stated that searches by reference number were still showing in AoA (but often with additional search terms). I don't think that the disappearance from My Measures has anything to do with customer behaviour. With the greatest respect, you really aren't commenting on exactly what I said. EDIT: Discussion on minimum sample sizes / the true validity of statistical validity / causal reductionism / generalisation etc etc etc deleted . . . suddenly can't be bothered, although I think Wim has some interesting observations on what may be happening. dd Dusty Dingo, I'm fully aware of statistical significance and have, on this forum, often pointed out the error of individual contributors looking for trends or patterns in very small numbers. While you're correct that the statistical validity of sample size of contributors could be queried, that's actually irrelevant. The important figure is the volume of data available for analysis. To take an extreme example, there are around 38,000 contributors on Alamy but if I had 20% of all the images, then any data I alone produced would have statistical significance. In my particular case, we're talking about thousands of events occurring over a period of years compared to zero events over a comparative sample period of 40 days. With around 80,000 views per month, my own figures are a reasonable sample size. The fact that this is only my data doesn't make it any less significant, except in the highly unlikely event that my account has been chosen for special treatment - hence the need for verification by only a handful of other contributors. Ian D Correct. Before turning photographer I was a Risk Analyst used to using SAS to build statistical programmes to carry out analysis. The volume of lines of data is the critical part and not the number of sub categories you can divide it by (i.e. contributor, day,month and year etc). The number of contributors is important if you are looking to confirm the trend between contributors, but this can only work if the contributor themselves have sufficient lines of data. If a contributor has sufficient data you could easily carry out some simple checks. For instance, 1. Does it happen at all. This would be a simple Y/N answer and once added to the line of data, you can create a table show how many days, weeks or months each year it happens. The results can be used to calculate other statistics. 2. Volume of times it happens each day. As above, can be used to produce weekly, monthly and annual results. 3. How often it happens / is likely to happen. Divide the number of times it happens out of X amount of searches over a previous years data (rolling 12 months) to work out a long term average to compare it to a current week / month etc or to work out the likelihood of it happening. 4. Hell, If you're using SAS you could easily work out how many times it happens to a particular Keyword in order to try and reveal the types of customer carrying out this type of search. Or, whether it's being carried out at a certain time of the month etc etc. Personally, I would say once you have over 10k searches a month you should be able to make some reasonable conclusions and 80k would be more than enough to split the data into Days /Weeks as well as months when working out the probability of the event taking place. Especially when we all have at least 12 months past data to compare the current week / month too. However, this would be grossly overkill to start afresh for something that collectively I think has already been confirmed by a number of people with high vol of searches each month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 It could be that it's simply because there are no ref # on the default page anymore. I hope this does not mean we just have lost all those clients that used ref # to select images. Some have found the button for pre-9 Oct page lay out: a quick look through AoA set with 09 Oct as starting date will show quite a bit of ref # still being searched. wim Wim, in my OP, I'd already stated that searches by reference number were still showing in AoA (but often with additional search terms). I don't think that the disappearance from My Measures has anything to do with customer behaviour. Well if you're right, I should stop worrying about my CTR that is going down. It peaked in August at 0.99 and is currently at 0.71, going down. Oops August is well before October 9. Now I'm really worried. Anyway if the goal is not to skew CTR, than we should all see a significant change in CTR since Oct 9. Otherwise, why bother? Personally I don't think Alamy is too concerned about CTR, to put it mildly. It is or can be a good indicator for us, but that's it. For the moment I'm struggling with what it's been telling me over the last 4 months: 0.99 0.90 0.81 0.71 wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 It could be that it's simply because there are no ref # on the default page anymore. I hope this does not mean we just have lost all those clients that used ref # to select images. Some have found the button for pre-9 Oct page lay out: a quick look through AoA set with 09 Oct as starting date will show quite a bit of ref # still being searched. wim Wim, in my OP, I'd already stated that searches by reference number were still showing in AoA (but often with additional search terms). I don't think that the disappearance from My Measures has anything to do with customer behaviour. Well if you're right, I should stop worrying about my CTR that is going down. It peaked in August at 0.99 and is currently at 0.71, going down. Oops August is well before October 9. Now I'm really worried. Anyway if the goal is not to skew CTR, than we should all see a significant change in CTR since Oct 9. Otherwise, why bother? Personally I don't think Alamy is too concerned about CTR, to put it mildly. It is or can be a good indicator for us, but that's it. For the moment I'm struggling with what it's been telling me over the last 4 months: 0.99 0.90 0.81 0.71 wim My CTR had been improving nicely but has gone into reverse over last couple of months. Probably since the new thumbnails. Also I don't see Alamy Ref searches any more. More importantly sales seem to have held up (but my numbers are so low it can be very volatile). I too suspect that CTR has not meant too much for quite a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 As always with these things, what detriments one, benefits another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 If you do an All Of Alamy search for a random day before August 1st, you find searches for image reference numbers showing up. After that date (roughly - I haven't done exhaustive tests) they disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I do realise that it's human nature to seek (and often "find") patterns and order in even the most random and chaotic of situations, but I simply cannot for the life of me see any logical reason for what has been supposed here. That of course doesn't mean it hasn't occured, but for the life of me I can't see why Alamy would bother. When you think of the variables at play here (tens of millions of images, thousands (?) of potential buyers, an infinity of potential subjects requiring matching images), any consistency in any parameter (sales or zooms or views or searches by any particular term for example) is, if my memory of statistical mathematics 101 holds, more likely a purely random event than a sustainable, repeatable pattern. . . . and . . . with the way the search function is performing of late, I'd not be in a rush to look elsewhere to explain any issues related to search results :-) dd When we hear from a member who can report a search by reference number, I will agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 There's an easy test: go back a couple of months and observe there are no single ref # as a search term. Only in combination with other characters or a second (3rd; 4th; etc) ref #. So Ian is right: those searches are hidden from us in our Pseudonym Summary. Not just since October 9, but for all the way one can look back. Which to all of us bean counters comes as a really terrible shock. ;-) wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.