Jon Lewis Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Hi All At first I noticed low views about 10 days ago Thought it was Bank Holiday Syndrome but have just done what Keith (Hope your over the food poisoning now )Morris suggested and for known searches I have dropped a whopping 50 pages at 120 per page yes thats 6000 images . Am going to do more investigation as I think I had a couple of images disappear like Ian did but thought it was my fault for having to rush out on a job and not concentrating on the search properly. I might as well give up now whats happened Alamy???? regards Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reimar Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I think this goes back to the "re-rank" at the end of March. I had said I doubted whether that was a real re-rank because of the strange results. A change in the search algorithm seems a more likely explanation for the result. The upshot was that my top BHZ psuedo hardly moved, nor did my "B" images psuedo (which usually jumps down dramatically after a real re-rank). Most surprising, my crappy "C" images psuedo jumped from the last page (were it's been for years) way up to page 17. Unheard of for me. This suggests to me that the revised algorithm does indeed favor crappy images with low rank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Lewis Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Hi Reimar My BHZ position hasn't moved which I thought odd as every time I upload it sinks down but not this month in the last 30 days I have put 87 through QC and my BHZ hasn't changed normally if 10 go through it drops. But hay what do I know I only press the button Im not a systems analyst . Lets see what happens on Tuesday after the Bank Holiday. Regards Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSnapper Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 this is what i am seeing, and find it reproducible over a wide range of searches: page 1 + 2 : a mixture of often random images, many of low quality, with a significant amount of 'clumping' of similars in many cases. Pseudo rank playing a low part in which images are shown. page 3 onwards: pseudo rank kicks in again it looks to me as if the new algorithm is designed to throw up a different mix of images on page 1+2 for any search you can think of, and then the 'old' algorithm takes over for pages 3 and deeper... km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie5 Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 The algorithm change would explain why I am getting so many zooms. I was averaging around 20 per month for the last year and am at 45 at this time. My sales volume for last year was up 128% but revenue was down due to lower prices. Bhz ranking is really poor too. So far the zooms haven't translated into sales. I did just have a sale for $5.44 through an agency in Serbia so I get a whopping $1.63 for Worldwide, Editorial website use, any size, 5 year term. That's almost stealing and really just a token fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDP Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 this is what i am seeing, and find it reproducible over a wide range of searches: page 1 + 2 : a mixture of often random images, many of low quality, with a significant amount of 'clumping' of similars in many cases. Pseudo rank playing a low part in which images are shown. page 3 onwards: pseudo rank kicks in again it looks to me as if the new algorithm is designed to throw up a different mix of images on page 1+2 for any search you can think of, and then the 'old' algorithm takes over for pages 3 and deeper... km Sorry, Keith, but you're making assumptions. How do you know that all the images appearing on the first couple of pages aren't from high ranked contributors? They may not be brilliant shots but the photographers may have a high AR. There was undoubtedly a tweak to the algorithm back on March 30th, but it occurred at the same time as the re-rank and it's very easy to conflate the two. There was a fundamental change to one part of the search which did result in a lot of images being dramatically impacted - but that was a small minority (although it might have affected particular contributors more than others). I've done quite a lot of testing and can see no indication that rank plays a lesser role than before - although accurate keywording is now more important than ever and can override rank to a certain extent. To show that rank is still important, I'll take an example from your part of the world. I visited Aberystwyth for a couple of hours in 2013 and despite some pretty awful weather, I still took half a dozen shots. I put 5 of them up on Alamy and, to be frank, they're pretty unimpressive (although one of them has sold a couple of times!) and there's far better material available from other contributors. However, all 5 shots appear in the first two rows on a search for "Aberystwyth". That's solely down to rank and keywording. If you're not appearing on the first few pages, I'd hazard a guess that it might simply be that your rank has taken a hit. Ian D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 22, 2015 Author Share Posted May 22, 2015 I'm not sure I see all of the changes in search results that others have mentioned, but I shall defer to their expertise. On a positive note, my first sale of the month ($90) just showed up. Better late than never. It's an image that gets plentiful zooms and has leased numerous times. So hopefully there is still time for the slow month to speed up... Re possible algorithm change: Don't these periodic "stirrings of the pot" usually settle down after awhile, and things return to a semblance of what they were? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 It seems the position of keywords might be playing a bigger part. Search for 'statue London' then 'London statue' and the results are very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 22, 2015 Author Share Posted May 22, 2015 It seems the position of keywords might be playing a bigger part. Search for 'statue London' then 'London statue' and the results are very different. That's something I did notice. However, hasn't this always been the case -- i.e. different order of same search words = different search results? For instance, If I do a "Relevant" search using "canada vancouver," I have a big clump of images coming up at the top of page one. However, if I use "vancouver canada," my images have seemingly disappeared into a black hole. Not sure that this is something new, or is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 The algorithm change would explain why I am getting so many zooms. I was averaging around 20 per month for the last year and am at 45 at this time. My sales volume for last year was up 128% but revenue was down due to lower prices. Bhz ranking is really poor too. So far the zooms haven't translated into sales. I did just have a sale for $5.44 through an agency in Serbia so I get a whopping $1.63 for Worldwide, Editorial website use, any size, 5 year term. That's almost stealing and really just a token fee. I too had one of those Serbia licences come flooding in this morning as well ! Luckily, my other sales so far this month have been reasonable although zooms seem to be pretty static at the minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSnapper Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 "If you're not appearing on the first few pages, I'd hazard a guess that it might simply be that your rank has taken a hit." i'm on the first two pages with a smattering of images...but only really kick in from p3 onwards.... my rank remains high the search has changed, but it impact is different for different types of contributors. km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 The algorithm change would explain why I am getting so many zooms. I was averaging around 20 per month for the last year and am at 45 at this time. My sales volume for last year was up 128% but revenue was down due to lower prices. Bhz ranking is really poor too. So far the zooms haven't translated into sales. I did just have a sale for $5.44 through an agency in Serbia so I get a whopping $1.63 for Worldwide, Editorial website use, any size, 5 year term. That's almost stealing and really just a token fee. I too had one of those Serbia licences come flooding in this morning as well ! I had a similar Czech licence. The image is now spreading all over for this extremely small amount. I deselected the area, don't know when it will take effect, though. I have had three other decent sales this month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reimar Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Hi Reimar My BHZ position hasn't moved which I thought odd as every time I upload it sinks down but not this month in the last 30 days I have put 87 through QC and my BHZ hasn't changed normally if 10 go through it drops. But hay what do I know I only press the button Im not a systems analyst . Lets see what happens on Tuesday after the Bank Holiday. Regards Jon I've never seen BHZ position change because of uploads. We've had our Victoria Day in Canada. I doubt Memorial Day or a "Bank Holiday" will have an effect on search results or rank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 "the search has changed, but it impact is different for different types of contributors" One of the results of basing search results on ranking is that, because it can take a while to acquire a good ranking, a lot of new work by new contributors gets lost behind older work. I notice that because I am both, with a bunch of old work which has been hogging a good position for several years, and newer, better, distributed work not so well placed (which is how I now contribute to Alamy). At G I have loads of sales from this same work, but here it seems to be stuck and not selling. Since a huge chunk of the Alamy collection is now from distributing agencies and aggregators, and will also be at G and C, this will put Alamy at a competitive disadvantage, and some agencies might even pull out. If recent changes to the algorithm are partly in order to sort this problem out, then I am thoroughly behind them. However, if I were a direct contributor earning five figures I might take a different line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vpics Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I also wonder if news shooters are punished. I find that I'm less selective when covering news because you cover different angles and you include pics like set up shots at photocalls that are part of the news coverage to give the news guys a selection of images to choose from. So you end up with 30 shots instead of 15, but those that you have included are essential, but realistically will never be zoomed because Sally Smith or "idiot boards" containing branding won't get anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ventura Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Sales have picked up in the last few days and now I am almost at my average for a month! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I also wonder if news shooters are punished. I find that I'm less selective when covering news because you cover different angles and you include pics like set up shots at photocalls that are part of the news coverage to give the news guys a selection of images to choose from. So you end up with 30 shots instead of 15, but those that you have included are essential, but realistically will never be zoomed because Sally Smith or "idiot boards" containing branding won't get anywhere. Definitely if you leave them there on your main pseudonym. My sports pseudonym is way down in comparison to the others. I have now taken a different approach. I never sold any news anyway so just upload the same as I would if I was doing to add to my main collection. The situation described by many on this thread does highlight the need not be to dependent on one income source. I have had two sources which have been hit this year by a change in some algorythm or policy which has negatively influenced how my work is found and therefore my income. If I hadn't have taken action a couple of years ago to mitigate the over-emphasis I had on a couple of agents I would be really stuffed now. I thought the same thing. All my news pics are under a separate psudo. And yes, it has a lower ranking than the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Frankly, dont shoot me, but I think the whole thing of rank the way it has been done is hogwash. In a way I can understand it, so that searchers get to see the best stuff without having to search through many pages. Yet, many of us have some great images that are just as good as the highly ranked contributors. But many times, those great images aren't seen. We spend money on equipment, spend time shooting, buy the latest and greatest software, sit in front of the computer for hours on end developing and key wording, with few rewards. So to my way of thinking, a high rank should get you a few images on page 1 with a search term. Not half the page. Let the rest of the page and the next two or three be shared by us lesser ranked photographers, and give us a chance. We just may sell enough to become a highly ranked contributor one day and earn our few images on the first page. And if sales start rolling in, that encourages us to work even harder, contribute more, yada, yada. As it is, we have little chance. Time after time I've read reports in these threads where someone is checking out and not uploading much anymore because of the "what's the use" syndrome. Just my humble opinion, written by someone who has some great images, too. Not saying they all are, but hey, I'll bet you have some bummers in your port, too. Okay, now you can shoot me. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Betty, I fear that with the stew pot now so chock-full of ingredients, the best way to get images seen is to upload subjects that have fewer competitors. That has been my experience anyway. No stirring of the pot is going to help much now IMO. I suppose the "New" search tab was an attempt to temporarily bypass the ranking system, and it does do that. Perhaps a "Random" tag would also help bring hidden treasures to the surface. I don't know enough about this kind of stuff to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Frankly, dont shoot me, but I think the whole thing of rank the way it has been done is hogwash. In a way I can understand it, so that searchers get to see the best stuff without having to search through many pages. Yet, many of us have some great images that are just as good as the highly ranked contributors. But many times, those great images aren't seen. We spend money on equipment, spend time shooting, buy the latest and greatest software, sit in front of the computer for hours on end developing and key wording, with few rewards. So to my way of thinking, a high rank should get you a few images on page 1 with a search term. Not half the page. Let the rest of the page and the next two or three be shared by us lesser ranked photographers, and give us a chance. We just may sell enough to become a highly ranked contributor one day and earn our few images on the first page. And if sales start rolling in, that encourages us to work even harder, contribute more, yada, yada. As it is, we have little chance. Time after time I've read reports in these threads where someone is checking out and not uploading much anymore because of the "what's the use" syndrome. Just my humble opinion, written by someone who has some great images, too. Not saying they all are, but hey, I'll bet you have some bummers in your port, too. Okay, now you can shoot me. Betty Put just your best images in a separate pseudo Betty then that will have a better chance of gaining a high rank in time. That is what I did years ago and it has been worthwhile for me. Many of my ordinary images languish in lower pseudos but my better ones come up near the front. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Frankly, dont shoot me, but I think the whole thing of rank the way it has been done is hogwash. In a way I can understand it, so that searchers get to see the best stuff without having to search through many pages. Yet, many of us have some great images that are just as good as the highly ranked contributors. But many times, those great images aren't seen. We spend money on equipment, spend time shooting, buy the latest and greatest software, sit in front of the computer for hours on end developing and key wording, with few rewards. So to my way of thinking, a high rank should get you a few images on page 1 with a search term. Not half the page. Let the rest of the page and the next two or three be shared by us lesser ranked photographers, and give us a chance. We just may sell enough to become a highly ranked contributor one day and earn our few images on the first page. And if sales start rolling in, that encourages us to work even harder, contribute more, yada, yada. As it is, we have little chance. Time after time I've read reports in these threads where someone is checking out and not uploading much anymore because of the "what's the use" syndrome. Just my humble opinion, written by someone who has some great images, too. Not saying they all are, but hey, I'll bet you have some bummers in your port, too. Okay, now you can shoot me. Betty Put just your best images in a separate pseudo Betty then that will have a better chance of gaining a high rank in time. That it what I did years ago and it has been worthwhile for me. Many of my ordinary images languish in lower pseudos but my better ones come up near the front. Pearl I do have a couple of pseudos with the better images, but the funny thing is the one that I put most in, a hodgepodge, has the best CTR. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I have several pseudos but the one with the best CTR last month was the one where I keep images awaiting deletion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I have several pseudos but the one with the best CTR last month was the one where I keep images awaiting deletion. Likewise but I don't take much notice of CTR, it is fairly meaningless IMO. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I have several pseudos but the one with the best CTR last month was the one where I keep images awaiting deletion. Likewise but I don't take much notice of CTR, it is fairly meaningless IMO. Pearl And the same for me as well. With most if not all keywords removed btw. Maybe someone has searched for deleted and zoomed all reults? ;-) 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.