Brian Yarvin

Shouldn't this "somebody" be you?

Why didn't I link this earlier? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrianism And a definition I didn't know about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_pedestrianism

No Alan, more like New York to Chicago or even New York to San Francisco.

Wim: Pedestrianism was a nineteenth century spectator sport where people would walk very long distances in record-breaking times and often wearing funny costumes. It was a big deal in its time.

Steve, I'm not sure this is "science," but if your new images don't show up at the top of their searches, they won't accrue many zooms or sales. I've been in this very situation. I could add images by the thousands and they'd go unnoticed. The reason turned out to be obvious, once I started looking, they were buried.

I have at least one pseudo that has never had a single zoom, but in my better performers, the rank of the individual images counts too. Each photo on Alamy carries its own history that effects its placement in searches and I believe that this is what you're seeing. Clearing out fields doesn't delete the history that Alamy stores with it.

Everybody has their own theories about what can raise their rankings and sales. Clearly, some people believe that lots of similars can make your collection appear stronger to the search engine. Many more people believe the opposite and post just one or two from each shoot. Are there rules about this? I think so.

Not many of them are mine though.

Exactly as I had guessed.

I thought that was a picture of you Ian.

I think we need more guidance from Alamy in the States too.

Andre, the dollar per year per image number has been in circulation since the late sixties. It may well go back much further, but I don't. As an urban legend more than half a century old, it has been subject to all sorts of twists and turns. Gross or net? Or even dollars or pounds? (I've heard it every one of those ways.) My own personal belief is that it should be quoted at dollars net the contributing photographer when comparing stats. That way, the intricacies of commission and deduction calculations are left to each agency and their bookkeepers. While I don't think that a board owned by Alamy is the right place to discuss these things, net dollars per year per image is about the only way to properly compare the earning power of a given set of photos. No other numbers tell the story quite as clearly.

Yes, exactly. And in general, those who gave up will find their images sinking to the point where they won't count as competition. And ... I've been working on the theory that I'm only competing against the first page or two of a given search.

I'm not sure this is true in a meaningful way. For example, many who just did the easiest stuff will quit and their work will sink to the bottom (and out of the way).

Interesting idea. For the record, Ed could move to a college or arts town in Pennsylvania only a couple of hours away from the Big Apple, save almost as much money, and get just as many photos.