Editorial collection

[Marianne]

 

This photo of a caldera in Iceland, which has tiny unrecognizable people on top, is neither in the editorial collection nor in creative. I haven't marked it "editorial only" since the people are tiny dots and even blown up could not be recognized, so no need to restrict it. It's been licensed before for high $$ and, I think, is one of my best from that trip. So, now do I restrict it to "editorial only" so it shows up somewhere, do I remove the people and resubmit it? I think the figures give it a sense of scale but unless it is printed fairly large you won't even see them. Maybe just do both? Is that okay since it'd be two different versions? Thoughts? Alamy, want to chime in?

[Harry Harrison]

4 hours ago, Marianne said:

 

 

This photo of a caldera in Iceland, which has tiny unrecognizable people on top, is neither in the editorial collection nor in creative.

If I search on the Alamy ref it comes up in Creative /  Uncut. So not Editorial but not selected for Ultimate, Vital or Foundation.

[Harry Harrison]

14 hours ago, gvallee said:

 

If you are referring to my post, Alamy was not commenting there. The Alamy contributor was reporting the result to his query to Alamy. 

Thanks for the clarification

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

If I search on the Alamy ref it comes up in Creative /  Uncut. So not Editorial but not selected for Ultimate, Vital or Foundation.

 

i think the big issue will be Are clients looking for "Editorial" images?    If someone searches for "Caldera Iceland" with no filter this is actually the top image.  Would they then filter to lose it?  

 

bigger issue is if they have a cookie with restriction from prior search and don't get to see it.  

[Harry Harrison]

6 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

If someone searches for "

No consolation for Marianne but this is actually an interesting example, as you say this is the top image out of 2766 when searching for "Caldera Iceland" in All images (Photographs) but if you search in All Creative it is not one of the first 3 'taster' images that are displayed for 'Uncut' which lists Ultimate (2), Vital (871), Uncut (1737) & Foundation (0), 2610 in total for All Creative. Switch to Editorial and there are 142 results, again in Photographs.

 

However if you scroll down this screen to see All Results (i.e. in Creative) you'll see it in position 15 out of 2610.

 

Clicking on "See all Uncut images for 'Caldera Iceland'" does not actually do this as we know, it displays the 2700 results for All Creative and again Marianne's image is in position 15. Not bad, but not the top spot. But it is now showing 2700 results in Creative filtered for All Images, not just Photographs.

 

I have no other filters in place now but this is a problem as well. A few days ago I persevered and managed to enter a Custom Date range, it wasn't easy as I have already described. I hadn't noticed a day later that this was still in place and affecting all the searches I was doing.

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

7 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

Would they then filter to lose it?  

At the moment if I was a picture buyer wanting to find the images that I was accustomed to finding on Alamy I would stick to searching in All Images and bypass the new features, it would be a lot quicker as well.

[CarloBo]

On 30/06/2022 at 18:28, geogphotos said:

How would anybody know that to find the vast majority of Editorial images you have to search ALL rather than EDITORIAL?

 

 

I  raised this issue in an other thread (now locked) but apparently I wasn't able to explain  it properly given that  I was the only one

concerned about how our secondary editorial photos are returned by the SE.

Any answer from Alamy?

[Steve F]

1 minute ago, CarloBo said:

I  raised this issue in an other thread (now locked) but apparently I wasn't able to explain  it properly given that  I was the only one

concerned about how our secondary editorial photos are returned by the SE.

Any answer from Alamy?

 

Does this mean I need to tick the majority of my images as editorial now??? Alamy?

[NYCat]

I am really hoping buyers are searching ALL. The results in Editorial are abominable. Sometimes literally the same image showing up twice. Really the SAME image with the same reference number. Though, when I checked "Homer Alaska" just now, lots of VERY similar but the identical one isn't showing at all today. A HUGE number of sea otters. Probably not what someone wants when searching for Homer, Alaska. Just the luck of the draw I guess. What a mess.

 

Paulette

Edited July 4, 2022 by NYCat

[Inchiquin]

On 03/07/2022 at 19:56, Marianne said:

 

This photo of a caldera in Iceland, which has tiny unrecognizable people on top, is neither in the editorial collection nor in creative. I haven't marked it "editorial only" since the people are tiny dots and even blown up could not be recognized, so no need to restrict it. It's been licensed before for high $$ and, I think, is one of my best from that trip. So, now do I restrict it to "editorial only" so it shows up somewhere, do I remove the people and resubmit it? I think the figures give it a sense of scale but unless it is printed fairly large you won't even see them. Maybe just do both? Is that okay since it'd be two different versions? Thoughts? Alamy, want to chime in?

 

 

I have thousands that fall into the same bracket Marianne. That's why I'm so incensed by these changes.

 

 

On 04/07/2022 at 01:52, meanderingemu said:

 

i think the big issue will be Are clients looking for "Editorial" images?    If someone searches for "Caldera Iceland" with no filter this is actually the top image.  Would they then filter to lose it?  

 

 

The even bigger issue is what do clients understand by the word 'editorial'? It clearly means something different to Alamy today than it did a month ago.

 

Alam

[Harry Harrison]

I don't know if this is ominous or not, or just work in progress, but it is almost as if Alamy (PA) want to disown their editorial heritage. There is no mention of Editorial on their snazzy home page and the Editorial search tab looks like more of an afterthought, and unlike the new category searches cannot be bookmarked.

 

I think existing clients looking for their normal 'Editorial style' images will simply search 'All images' but the worry is that new clients won't come looking for editorial style images on Alamy, it's as if they are being discouraged from doing so.

 

I think the problem might go away if this new 'Editorial' search could be renamed as currently if you don't find editorial style (secondary editorial) images there you might give up and go elsewhere. The anonymous Alamy source suggested that it was meant for NSE (News, Sports & Entertainment) & Archive, so more like lapsed Live News, and I think it would be better if the title reflected that.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Harry Harrison

[Marianne]

My total CTR is at 0.08, an all time low, and the CTR is my main pseudo is still 0, an absolute low.  Views are down and I'm frustrated that an image of mine (mentioned above) that has sold before isn't in any category, yet as @meanderingemu mentions, if you do a simple two-word search in "all" it comes out on top. So a good image is lost as a result of all this fiddling with the search engine. 

 

Alamy's decision to give their core editorial images short shrift is very frustrating for so many reasons. I've stopped contributing new work to the 2 big name agencies out there that license editorial work because of the way they treat contributors, preferring to add them to Alamy, even if it means missing out on sales, but if my photos end up in limbo here, why bother? I actually shot some editorial photos over the weekend intending to upload them exclusively here. Now I don't even see a reason to process them. 

 

If they must do this re-branding with so many categories, why not name editorial images "Core?" - with marketing language to the effect that we've been known as the go-to place for hard to find images suitable for articles and books since we first came on the scene 20 years ago and play it up like the creative categories instead of abandoning these images so essential to Alamy's success? Given PA's editorial roots, abandoning this huge segment of the Alamy picture library is incomprehensible. 

 

I am well aware how not being in one of the highly touted new categories can hurt - when Alamy first dreamed up the "Creative" category years ago and my images landed there, I saw a big jump in sales and if some of my images made it into the new Ultimate collection, I'd probably be singing a different tune (though I'd still be annoyed about all my editorial images most of which are exclusive to Alamy, whether or not I've marked them as such). I shudder as I await a big drop in sales now. Surprisingly, some of my images are in Uncut which seems like a confusing name (as they are not all that random and sadly, not the least bit subversive). Worst of all, many, like my Iceland caldera, seem to have no home anymore.

 

My best license to date here, $450, was for an image marked as "editorial only" that was licensed for advertising several years ago (presumably the client cleared permissions or took their chances). So limiting searches this way doesn't help anyone IMHO. Hopefully the new categories won't stop people from searching "all."

[John Mitchell]

Unfortunately, a lot of people in the marketing world are now in love with meaningless terms like "Ultimate," "Uncut," etc. I'm sure that experienced editorial photo buyers will see through all this silliness. The question of course is will they be able to find the images that they are looking for in the current mishmash.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by John Mitchell

[Marianne]

I did more searches and found that my cut out illustrations isolated on white specifically so they can be used in composites are in the "uncut" collection - which makes sense since they are pretty quirky, but they are not yet in the "foundation" collection where they also belong. 

 

I have to stop obsessing over this and work on processing fine art which gives me a better return on my time. 

[Marianne]

My first red arrow - unless it's Alamy getting mad at me for speaking my mind (only kidding) - I'm pretty surprised. Not sure why anyone would disagree with what I said enough to make them angry. If I said something controversial I wouldn't be surprised but I'd like them to explain why the down vote? I welcome a good discussion. 

 

Thanks to those who've given me a green arrow in response there. 

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Marianne said:

My first red arrow - unless it's Alamy getting mad at me for speaking my mind (only kidding) - I'm pretty surprised. Not sure why anyone would disagree with what I said enough to make them angry. If I said something controversial I wouldn't be surprised but I'd like them to explain why the down vote? I welcome a good discussion. 

 

Thanks to those who've given me a green arrow in response there. 

 

you made the no-no of mentioning a positive (a licence of $450), some people don't like when people mention some good things about Alamy 😉 

[Harry Harrison]

3 hours ago, Marianne said:

Worst of all, many, like my Iceland caldera, seem to have no home anymore.

You should definitely report that to Alamy telling them which ones, or at least reference numbers of some of those that are missing. The new search sometimes seems to fail altogether and report that no images are found when repeating the same search finds them but I did manage to do a contributor search on your surname and 'Iceland' and found 3 in Editorial and 16 in Uncut. Of course if they are in different pseudos I wouldn't find them this way.

 

Images are not placed in Uncut, it is where they remain if not separated out into Vital, Ultimate, Foundation or Editorial. They definitely shouldn't appear in more than one of these either as has been reported. Since Alamy seem to be ignoring any issues reported on here I suppose they need to be contacted directly.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Harry Harrison

[wilkopix]

On 30/06/2022 at 17:28, geogphotos said:

Searching just for EDITORIAL excludes virtually all of my Editorial images. 

 

How would anybody know that to find the vast majority of Editorial images you have to search ALL rather than EDITORIAL?

Same here .. most of my images I would class as editorial (not news) .. seeing as a lot of my sales on Alamy are to newspapers, magazines etc etc they now seem to be lost. Some appear in 'All' and some are in 'Creative' plus there doesn't seem to be much difference between the sections of 'Creative' such as 'Vital', 'Uncut', 'Ultimate' etc .. well, other than the fact my images now appear to be very hard to find .. the future isn't looking too good for me at Alamy!

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, wilkopix said:

Same here .. most of my images I would class as editorial (not news) .. seeing as a lot of my sales on Alamy are to newspapers, magazines etc etc they now seem to be lost. Some appear in 'All' and some are in 'Creative' plus there doesn't seem to be much difference between the sections of 'Creative' such as 'Vital', 'Uncut', 'Ultimate' etc .. well, other than the fact my images now appear to be very hard to find .. the future isn't looking too good for me at Alamy!

 

Mine seem to be coming up mainly in "All" or in "Uncut," whatever that is. As others have mentioned, most second editorial buyers will probably be sticking to the "All" filter, so hopefully things will turn out better than we expect. 🤞

Edited July 9, 2022 by John Mitchell

[Harry Harrison]

Alamy suggested themselves, or at least implied, that if buyers searched in All nothing would have changed for them:

 

"To do this we've adapted how users can navigate the site and in essence we've added on four additional options for customers to refine their searches within the collection, while still retaining the traditional way of searching for those who wish to search as before. A way to see them is like having one of four additional filters added which can be applied when searching for images."

 

I'm not really able to tell if that is true or not but I know a lot of you have a good idea what page your images come up on for particular searches, or there is BHZ I suppose. 

 

The trouble is that the Home Page encourages the buyer towards the Ultimate, Vital, Uncut & Foundation collection searches, and the descriptions for those are so vague and confusing, or just plain marketing-speak, that the buyer might not bother with the 'All' search after they've gone a few rounds trying to find anything in those.

[John Mitchell]

13 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Alamy suggested themselves, or at least implied, that if buyers searched in All nothing would have changed for them:

 

"To do this we've adapted how users can navigate the site and in essence we've added on four additional options for customers to refine their searches within the collection, while still retaining the traditional way of searching for those who wish to search as before. A way to see them is like having one of four additional filters added which can be applied when searching for images."

 

I'm not really able to tell if that is true or not but I know a lot of you have a good idea what page your images come up on for particular searches, or there is BHZ I suppose. 

 

The trouble is that the Home Page encourages the buyer towards the Ultimate, Vital, Uncut & Foundation collection searches, and the descriptions for those are so vague and confusing, or just plain marketing-speak, that the buyer might not bother with the 'All' search after they've gone a few rounds trying to find anything in those.

 

Another huge problem (IMHO) with the homepage is the placement of the search box in the middle of the annoying, flashing image display. I almost start hallucinating when trying to enter search terms. It's bound to turn a lot of customers off, especially new ones. Surely anyone who designs Web pages would realize something so basic. Or am I missing something?

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by John Mitchell

[Harry Harrison]

2 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

Another huge problem (IMHO) with the homepage is the placement of the search box in the middle of the annoying, flashing image display

It's sheer psychological torture obviously, like something out of the Ipcress File. After 30 seconds it stops and turns to a comparatively soothing plain electric green. That's the point at which I would confess, just so they wouldn't inflict it on me again.

[John Mitchell]

2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

It's sheer psychological torture obviously, like something out of the Ipcress File. After 30 seconds it stops and turns to a comparatively soothing plain electric green. That's the point at which I would confess, just so they wouldn't inflict it on me again.

 

I've yet to stick around for 30 seconds for fear of tossing my cookies or passing out. 😵

[NYCat]

I’ve been saying that the homepage makes me sick for a long long time. They seem to not care. 

 

Paulette

[spacecadet]

11 hours ago, NYCat said:

I’ve been saying that the homepage makes me sick for a long long time. They seem to not care. 

 

Paulette

Well it is aimed more at buyers and it's easy to avoid- I have all my bookmarks set up so I only see it if it's talked about here and I go deliberately. I admit there's more incentive to stay away now.

Edited July 10, 2022 by spacecadet