Jump to content

Peter Stone

Verified
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Peter Stone

  1. I'm finding that Alamy doesn't recognise either my login name or password. The only way I can access the dashboard is to say that I've forgotten my password and then register a new one. It's not a permanent fix though because I've already had to do it twice. I've also received a captcha error notice when no captcha has been displayed - hard to do much about that one! I've tried three different browsers with the same results.
  2. 5 sales for $175 - which makes it a fairly average month. Pleasantly surprised as I feared the worst after the changes at the end of the year.
  3. I don't think 760 images is the least bit pathetic - but then I would say that, wouldn't I. It's often said that you need a large collection of images before you can draw any meaningful conclusions from the stats but in my experience, you can get a fair idea of what's happening. My views and zooms are down 50% on a year ago and after a brilliant December with 12 sales, and an average January with 5 sales, the position this month, at 2 sales so far, doesn't look promising. My goodness, your figures for such a small port are very impressive. I'd give my right arm for that number of sales! I still think it's possible to make reasonable sales with a small portfolio but there's no doubt it's getting harder as the pool of images continues to grow. When I started here, Alamy only had 4.6 million pics so there was a greater chance for your images to be seen. My tactic has always been to upload no similars and not do portrait and landscape versions of shots. I think It's a throwback to all the commercial studio work I've done over the last 35 years where I would put all my energy into producing just one shot for the client. I'm sure it has lost me sales on Alamy but on the other hand, it has probably helped to keep my images from dropping out of sight.
  4. I don't think 760 images is the least bit pathetic - but then I would say that, wouldn't I. It's often said that you need a large collection of images before you can draw any meaningful conclusions from the stats but in my experience, you can get a fair idea of what's happening. My views and zooms are down 50% on a year ago and after a brilliant December with 12 sales, and an average January with 5 sales, the position this month, at 2 sales so far, doesn't look promising. Very good figures for 717 images Peter! Manage Images and the search engine are clearly not working as they should be but sales so far in Feb. seem less affected by all this mess - but they tend to reflect what happened about 2-4 months before... Kumar (the Doc one) Thank you Kumar - but I really must get my act together and upload a few more. As my school reports used to say "Could try harder."
  5. I don't think 760 images is the least bit pathetic - but then I would say that, wouldn't I. It's often said that you need a large collection of images before you can draw any meaningful conclusions from the stats but in my experience, you can get a fair idea of what's happening. My views and zooms are down 50% on a year ago and after a brilliant December with 12 sales, and an average January with 5 sales, the position this month, at 2 sales so far, doesn't look promising.
  6. Not just your machine - happening to me too. Tried in Firefox and Chrome - can't save changes.
  7. You deserve a medal - that's above and beyond the call of duty! I can only do about 15 pages before my eyes stop registering the images. If you type Cntrl F (or Cmd F on a Mac) and get the search box up and enter the image ref your looking for it will find it if it's on the current page. Much easier on the eyes. Works in Chrome, and I expect other browsers too. Best to set 120 images per page too, to speed it up. Why didn't I think of that?! Thank you.
  8. You deserve a medal - that's above and beyond the call of duty! I can only do about 15 pages before my eyes stop registering the images.
  9. Thanks also from me Kumar. It confirms what I've concluded from my own tests - the search engine needs looking at again and quickly.
  10. Half way through the month and 2 sales - I average around 5 per month - so about what I'd expect. CTR is holding up but views and zooms are down 50% on last year so I anticipate a fall in sales over the next few months.
  11. Yes please. There seem to be winners and losers under the new system as well as contributors who are both winners and losers - i.e. some of their images appear near the top of a search and others near the bottom. I fall into the latter category. I'm clearly delighted that many of my images do well in searches but there are quite a few that are buried. My current views and zooms are approx 50% down on this time last year. I understood the old system where we all started off with median rank. Those who sold well, rose in the ranks and those who didn't sell well tended to fall behind. It was a bit of a blunt instrument but at least we knew where we were. We understood that if we took well composed, well lit pictures and understood the type of subject matter that was in demand, we had every chance of making good sales. If we were successful, the reward was that we would rise through the ranks so that our images were usually returned high up and with consistency in a search. Now, as has been observed in other posts, the result is a lottery for many contributors. I understand Alamy's reluctance to provide precise details on its search algorithm but I think a broad explanation would be helpful. Despite Alamy's insistence that it is so, it's clearly not enough to take good pictures and keyword them well - there is some other mechanism at work here, of which a photographer's rank now seems to play little part.
  12. The agency I was once contributing to housed hundreds of thousands of transparencies - mostly originals but also dupes. When the collection was closed (because Alamy - and others - were making a huge impact on the digital picture market) the originals were split up and stuffed into clear sheets by summer job students. The last time I went in to be paid I saw these students picking up the sheets upside down and originals dropping on the floor - in between the floorboards. I imagine these gems will still be lying down there so DM me and we'll go in together with crowbars and make some money. Richard. In a former life, I was a designer which entailed buying images and I spent (wasted) many hours looking through thousands of images in trays in London picture libraries. It always amazed me that you could just wander off with any number of transparencies, many of which were originals. Transparencies sometimes came back from scanning houses covered in a light oil but there was always the potential for them to be seriously damaged and it was a relief when I returned them to the agency intact. Rather how I feel when returning a hire car.
  13. When doing a search using the square filter a large number of images are returned that are clearly landscape (only landscape, not portrait). This may not be a problem for a buyer because they're at the squarer end of rectangular and could be cropped to square in many cases. But it seems that when searching using the landscape filter, these same pictures don't appear. So it would seem that if your landscape images are at the squarer end of rectangular, they might not appear in a search where the filter has been set to landscape. Has anyone noticed this happening before the new search mechanism kicked in?
  14. You know what? Look for mole molehill and see what comes up as picture n°2 You see a mole in a molehill? I don't! I see a skull Mine sits in the back despite having a good ranking. Where's the logic? page 1 picture n°2 versus mine on page 4 of 6 Cheers, Philippe He has a high ranking which rewards his keyword spamming? It must be Anyway, I have mole molehill in both tags, supertags AND in the caption. The skull picture hasn't (at least not in the caption) Cheers, Philippe Just had a closer look- do you know Paul Sterry? He's been a wildlife specialist in the UK for years. I've got one of his covers on my desk. Quite a good rank I expect. It's a SKULL !! Why does a skull appear when looking for a molehill? What's the use in assigning a supertag to molehill if - apparently - an image that hasn't got that supertag jumps over it. Where's the logic? And I also have a good ranking. My images "used" to appear on the first pages. So frustrating to see this happening Cheers, Philippe The skull image does have the tags "mole" and "molehill" which would explain why it appears in a search for molehill. It doesn't explain though why you, with good rank, would appear so low down in such a search. But then, under the new algorithm, anything is possible and nothing is predictable. How do we know Philippe has good rank? As an agency like with a individual contributor every pseudo has it's own rank. Maybe the pseudo with the mole has a rank that's not that good. wim We don't for sure - we only know what he tells us but I think we all know to some extent how well we rank don't we? I felt I knew how I ranked when we were under the old system. I confirmed it by making frequent searches using the kinds of keywords that I felt people would use.
  15. You know what? Look for mole molehill and see what comes up as picture n°2 You see a mole in a molehill? I don't! I see a skull Mine sits in the back despite having a good ranking. Where's the logic? page 1 picture n°2 versus mine on page 4 of 6 Cheers, Philippe He has a high ranking which rewards his keyword spamming? It must be Anyway, I have mole molehill in both tags, supertags AND in the caption. The skull picture hasn't (at least not in the caption) Cheers, Philippe Just had a closer look- do you know Paul Sterry? He's been a wildlife specialist in the UK for years. I've got one of his covers on my desk. Quite a good rank I expect. It's a SKULL !! Why does a skull appear when looking for a molehill? What's the use in assigning a supertag to molehill if - apparently - an image that hasn't got that supertag jumps over it. Where's the logic? And I also have a good ranking. My images "used" to appear on the first pages. So frustrating to see this happening Cheers, Philippe The skull image does have the tags "mole" and "molehill" which would explain why it appears in a search for molehill. It doesn't explain though why you, with good rank, would appear so low down in such a search. But then, under the new algorithm, anything is possible and nothing is predictable.
  16. Eugh...just when you thought it was safe to go out.
  17. It's good news for me - some of my key images back to where they were before Big Bang.
  18. you can't see all the keywords I see all mine in the same search - all 39 of them.
  19. In an attempt to see how I can best use keywords to help my images surface near the top, I've been carrying out random searches and looking at the keywords of images that appear first. The result is quite surprising. For example, a search for "tate modern" returns a picture in first place where the word "modern" appears only once, not as a keyword but in the caption. There are only eight tags in total - and they are all single words. So much for poor discoverability. I'm in no hurry to flesh out my keywords - in fact it's more likely that I will start a wholesale purge.
  20. You won't see a change in the images shown in the central box but if you look at the bar on the left, you will see your submissions listed in date order - just click on one of those boxes.
  21. I've worked on a small number from my earliest submissions. Partly because my approach to keywording has evolved over the years and it was a good excuse to revisit some early images. But partly to see what changes in keywording could do to the position of certain images. I took one particular image and made several changes over several days and discovered that changing keywords, creating supertags with multiple words, increasing tags till the bar turns green etc makes little difference. Based purely on my own experience, I think it possible that every image has been assigned a rank, or weighted in some way, and fiddling with keywords is unlikely to achieve much - assuming that your existing keywords are relevant. This could possibly explain inconsistencies in search results. When a photographer's rank was the determinant, search results were much more predictable. It was possible to see a correlation between rank and history of sales and the message was clear - produce top class pictures and you will climb the ranks. Nowadays I have absolutely no idea what affects the position of images in searches.
  22. Totally agree. And the "good news" to counter your "bad news" is according to Alamy's new blog on keywords: http://www.alamy.com/blog/tagging-images-on-alamy .. it doesn't actually matter from a perspective of what the search engine does whether you have one tag reading "Read Bull Air Race" or four tags reading "Red", "Bull", "Air", and "Race". Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't having 'on' or suchlike as a supertag (from Southend, on, sea for example) damage my CTR if it frequently comes up in searches for 'Man on horse', 'Man on the moon' or whatever? "on" - 15,582,761 images. "southend on sea" - 6,072 images. "southend sea" - 6,447 images.
  23. I've got 2 stars and I've been submitting since 2006 with one failure 9 or 10 years ago. Sometimes Quality Control must need to exercise judgement over whether an image should pass or fail. Perhaps it's not only fails that influence a contributor's rank - perhaps a history of marginal passes is also taken into account. You often see photographers saying that their images sailed through QC but we actually have no way of knowing how close any of us is to a fail.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.