Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

Given that buyer searches are subject-specific, I would think that the "Arterra method" gives more realistic/useful results.

 

However, The BHZ method is still probably a good way of finding out where one sits in the big picture. "BHZ" also has a nice ring to it.

and can give you a useful idea of whether you are moving up or down over a period of time

 

 

Unfortunately it doesn't even do that any more.

 

At this re-rank, my BHZ position dropped significantly. But my position in most of my real-life searches for keywords that might actually be used by customers went up. If higher-ranking togs had contributed to those subjects I would have gone down. If lower-ranking ones had contributed they would have been below me anyway so my position would be unchanged. So I can only think of two reasons for the upward move: either a number of high-ranking contributors had pulled all their images on a wide range of subjects across the board, or my rank had gone up.

 

If I had used BHZ as an indicator then I would have concluded that it had gone down. So I'm afraid that for me, BHZ no longer has any useful value whatsoever.

 

Alan

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add some figures to my post above:

 

My BHZ position is 764 out of 3258, i.e. I'm in the top 24%.

 

My position in one search for a pair of keywords that a customer would actually use is 6 out of 5592, i.e. I'm in the top 0.1%.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I can only think of two reasons ..."

 

or a third: the Alamy seach algorithm has changed

 

 

Yes, that's possible. But I would have expected something like that to balance itself out over a lot of different subjects and keyword combinations. Not necessarily of course.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add some figures to my post above:

 

My BHZ position is 764 out of 3258, i.e. I'm in the top 24%.

 

My position in one search for a pair of keywords that a customer would actually use is 6 out of 5592, i.e. I'm in the top 0.1%.

 

Alan

You can't compare a single word search such as BHZ with a search for a pair of keywords. Word order and proximity distorts the results significantly. Only a single word search will give you an idea of your rank.

 

Pearl

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just to add some figures to my post above:

 

My BHZ position is 764 out of 3258, i.e. I'm in the top 24%.

 

My position in one search for a pair of keywords that a customer would actually use is 6 out of 5592, i.e. I'm in the top 0.1%.

 

Alan

You can't compare a single word search such as BHZ with a search for a pair of keywords. Word order and proximity distorts the results significantly. Only a single word search will give you an idea of your rank.

 

 

I was just using that particular search as an example of the very wide discrepancy. All my single-word searches have resulted in an upward movement too.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just to add some figures to my post above:

 

My BHZ position is 764 out of 3258, i.e. I'm in the top 24%.

 

My position in one search for a pair of keywords that a customer would actually use is 6 out of 5592, i.e. I'm in the top 0.1%.

 

Alan

You can't compare a single word search such as BHZ with a search for a pair of keywords. Word order and proximity distorts the results significantly. Only a single word search will give you an idea of your rank.

 

Pearl

 

 

Pearl is absolutely right. It's impossible to assess rank from multiple keywords, as you might be the only one to have the words in that order and proximity - and order and proximity do seem to have increased in relevance. You can actually test it yourself by changing the order of your keywords to something slightly illogical eg from "giraffe, green, grass" to "green, giraffe, grass". If you did a search for a green giraffe (??), you'd probably appear top of the search because yours appears to be the most relevant image. It's an extreme example but I hope it illustrates my point.
 
Even real world one word searches are influenced by other factors, not least that the returned search order (or dynamic ranking) seems to reflect the $$ you've made in the last 300 days when that subject or word string was searched. The beauty of BHZ is that nobody is ever going to have made a sale with that term and so the playing field is level.
 
All I can say is that I know a number of the people who show a high rank in BHZ and most have excellent sales. In my own case, it directly reflects most real world one word searches, apart from where a lower ranked pseudo jumps way above my top pseudonym because it's had recent sales for that search term.
 
Ian D
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is that it doesn't work for me, and so the assumption must be that it may not work for some others either.

 

As an indicator of relative rank:

 

1. BHZ shows me in the top 24%

 

2. Other searches (including single-word searches) consistently show me in the top 5-10%.

 

As an indicator of relative direction after a re-rank:

 

1. BHZ goes down.

 

2. Most other searches (including single-word searches) go up.

 

So on neither count does it give a true indication. Given that my reason for being here is to get my photos seen and hopefully licensed, I'm likely to pay much more attention to searches that are relevant to what customers are looking for.

 

If it works for you, fine. It patently doesn't work for me.

 

Alan

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Inchiquin said:  "All I'm saying is that it doesn't work for me, and so the assumption must be that it may not work for some others either.


 


As an indicator of relative rank:


 


1. BHZ shows me in the top 24%


 


2. Other searches (including single-word searches) consistently show me in the top 5-10%."


 


I am sure that part is true Alan, but I think that at least can be explained by the fact that only the enthusiasts on Alamy do the BHZ thing. Which puts you in the top 24% of the enthusiasts. Given that there are almost certainly a large number of photographers whose collections are vegetating in the depths of Alamy and are not actively managing their collections, I would assume you would be rather higher placed overall.


 


Kumar


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is that it doesn't work for me, and so the assumption must be that it may not work for some others either.

 

As an indicator of relative rank:

 

1. BHZ shows me in the top 24%

 

2. Other searches (including single-word searches) consistently show me in the top 5-10%.

 

As an indicator of relative direction after a re-rank:

 

1. BHZ goes down.

 

2. Most other searches (including single-word searches) go up.

 

So on neither count does it give a true indication. Given that my reason for being here is to get my photos seen and hopefully licensed, I'm likely to pay much more attention to searches that are relevant to what customers are looking for.

 

If it works for you, fine. It patently doesn't worWk for me.

 

Alan

Alan,

 

I would guess that the difference comes from having a different pool of photographers who you're competing against. To take an example, if most of your collection were of railway stations in the UK, then any test search would probably have something to do with this. The pool of photographers would be much narrower than even for BHZ and you might be the only one of a handful specialising in that subject. Consequently you could expect your rank in that group to be much higher. Given the specialisation, there could also be a history of sales for a search term which would be reflected in the results. Although your subject matter clearly isn't that narrow, I do note that a large percentage of your collection is from the UK and around 20% from Yorkshire.

 

If a contributor hasn't got a broad range of locations and subjects, then I'm inclined to agree that real world one word searches will give a more accurate indication of your sales potential. Philippe, with his wildlife collection is a case in point. I would, however, suggest that if you were to go to New York and take a picture of the Statue of Liberty, and then do a search on that, your BHZ rank would be a more accurate reflection.

 

I think I might just pop over to Sowerby Bridge to grab some shots - it seems to be missing from my collection!!

 

Ian D

Edited by IDP
Link to post
Share on other sites

Inchiquin said:  "All I'm saying is that it doesn't work for me, and so the assumption must be that it may not work for some others either.

 

As an indicator of relative rank:

 

1. BHZ shows me in the top 24%

 

2. Other searches (including single-word searches) consistently show me in the top 5-10%."

 

I am sure that part is true Alan, but I think that at least can be explained by the fact that only the enthusiasts on Alamy do the BHZ thing. Which puts you in the top 24% of the enthusiasts. Given that there are almost certainly a large number of photographers whose collections are vegetating in the depths of Alamy and are not actively managing their collections, I would assume you would be rather higher placed overall.

 

Kumar

Good point, Kumar. However, for all those missing from the bottom end, there will also be successful contributors, such as large agencies, missing from the top end.

 

Ian D

 

PS. You certainly seem to be travelling the world since you gave up medicine!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Inchiquin said:  "All I'm saying is that it doesn't work for me, and so the assumption must be that it may not work for some others either.

 

As an indicator of relative rank:

 

1. BHZ shows me in the top 24%

 

2. Other searches (including single-word searches) consistently show me in the top 5-10%."

 

I am sure that part is true Alan, but I think that at least can be explained by the fact that only the enthusiasts on Alamy do the BHZ thing. Which puts you in the top 24% of the enthusiasts. Given that there are almost certainly a large number of photographers whose collections are vegetating in the depths of Alamy and are not actively managing their collections, I would assume you would be rather higher placed overall.

 

Kumar

 

Further to that and Kumar's point, it's a reasonable assumption that the majority of people playing BHZ follow the rules and put BHZ only in essential keywords. However, real world searches would have lots of image where the search words only appear in comprehensive. So real world search would have a lot more images at the tail end than BHZ. 

 

In other words, it's logical to expect a better performance in real world searches than in BHZ 

Edited by DHill
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Inchiquin said:  "All I'm saying is that it doesn't work for me, and so the assumption must be that it may not work for some others either.

 

As an indicator of relative rank:

 

1. BHZ shows me in the top 24%

 

2. Other searches (including single-word searches) consistently show me in the top 5-10%."

 

I am sure that part is true Alan, but I think that at least can be explained by the fact that only the enthusiasts on Alamy do the BHZ thing. Which puts you in the top 24% of the enthusiasts. Given that there are almost certainly a large number of photographers whose collections are vegetating in the depths of Alamy and are not actively managing their collections, I would assume you would be rather higher placed overall.

 

Kumar

Good point, Kumar. However, for all those missing from the bottom end, there will also be successful contributors, such as large agencies, missing from the top end.

 

Ian D

 

PS. You certainly seem to be travelling the world since you gave up medicine!

 

Am doing my best to do so Ian :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all your comments about the reasons why BHZ results differ from others. But all this does it to prove my point that if I want to know how my photos will perform in searches that relate to those photos, BHZ-watching is a pointless sport!

 

Alan

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think I might just pop over to Sowerby Bridge to grab some shots - it seems to be missing from my collection!!

 

 

No need, Ian. I've got it covered ;)

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all your comments about the reasons why BHZ results differ from others. But all this does it to prove my point that if I want to know how my photos will perform in searches that relate to those photos, BHZ-watching is a pointless sport!

 

Alan

Actually, Alan, I did end up agreeing with you - but you might have missed it given my verbosity!

 

As a peace offering, I'll give Sowerby Bridge a miss - unless, of course, it's a lovely sunny day and I fancy a pint by the canal!

 

Ian D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all your comments about the reasons why BHZ results differ from others. But all this does it to prove my point that if I want to know how my photos will perform in searches that relate to those photos, BHZ-watching is a pointless sport!

 

Alan

 

I'll tell you (and so will e.g. Redsnapper) that when you see your images sinking like a stone, you'll be mighty glad there's BHZ to figure out what on earth has just hit you.

And for that to be useful, you do need to check your place in the BHZ at least once every re-rank.

 

wim  (still struggling with the current hit)

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As a peace offering, I'll give Sowerby Bridge a miss - unless, of course, it's a lovely sunny day and I fancy a pint by the canal!

 

I'll happily join you for a pint.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with all your comments about the reasons why BHZ results differ from others. But all this does it to prove my point that if I want to know how my photos will perform in searches that relate to those photos, BHZ-watching is a pointless sport!

 

Alan

 

 

I'll tell you (and so will e.g. Redsnapper) that when you see your images sinking like a stone, you'll be mighty glad there's BHZ to figure out what on earth has just hit you.

And for that to be useful, you do need to check your place in the BHZ at least once every re-rank.

 

wim  (still struggling with the current hit)

Just to clarify, I was agreeing with Alan that, for him and contributors like Philippe (with less generalist or more specialist collections) BHZ probably isn't the best measure of individual ranking.

 

However, irrespective of this it is, as Wim points out, an invaluable tool for assessing changes after a re-rank. There have been mistakes in the past which have only come to light through monitoring BHZ (Keith - Redsnapper - is a case in point). For this alone, it's worth keeping an eye on.

 

Ian D

 

and Alan, I might take you up on the pint!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't play the BHZ game. But I ran a check on about 10 of my images, using one word most of the time, and found my image on the first page at least 7 out of ten times. One, a location...St. Croix, US Virgin Islands.... Gave me a bunch on the first page. I'm happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have images with logos which are included as part of the picture. If the image is marked as no release and as RM then it appears to be OK.

 

Allan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I stopped caring about bhz as a sensible measure when I spotted this in my "Your images" search results a few months ago  :-

 

bhz 1 1 0 0 0.00 180 0 0.00

 

 

Can't get my head round why mine would have shown up within the first two pages of search results (assuming 90 per page) in someone searching on "bhz" when I'm always usually somewhere way down around page 18 or so on a normal search of "bhz".

 

As Alamy says ... bhz position really is irrelvant.

 

 

This is ignoring the burning question of why someone (who's searching is recorded by Alamy) would be searching on "bhz" in the first place.

 

:-)

 

 

 

Carol

Edited by Carol Carpenter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.