Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

i'm a newbie in Alamy but have some skills about the concept of CTR.

We all know it's basically a "# of Zooms / # of Views" kind of thing, right? Higher CTRs mean usually more Sales (not a math relationship btw).

As all math ratios, the more Views we have the worst CTR we're gonna expect from our pictures.

Views are the result of a combination of multiple Keywords and math says the more Keywords the more combinations, so # of Views.

for i.e. i had Views for the search term "Miami" alone of pictures i did of a Miami beach gay party which is NOT what i wanted since "Miami" keyword alone DOES NOT full describe my picture, therefore i wrongly addressed a potential buyer to my party image.

Someone who looked for "Miami" probably wanted some downtown Miami images or may be Miami skylines, not a private swimming pool party which could have been photographed everywhere.

Then looking at this great tool which is "Your Images" or AoA i could easily come to the conclusion i should MINIMIZE the # of Views to increase the CTR and hopefully MAXIMIZE the # of Sales.

So, am i right if i say it's better to use a minimal set of keywords to keep low the # of proper combinations?

That should reduce consistently our # of Views preventing buyers from the bad thing also known as keyword spamming.

 

What do you think and how do you keyword this way? Thx in advance :) I'm sorry English is not my mother language...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keyword succinctly and as far as I can see most of my sales come from quite narrow searches. The rest  I ignore.

I haven't noticed a relationship between CTR and sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CTR is only part of the equation, sales and in particular, high value sales, probably play a part. I'd love to see the algorithm, but then pigs might fly  :rolleyes:

 

You need views in order to sell.  In my view it's worth sacrificing some degree of CTR in order to maximise the exposure of your work to customers. So, for example, I always add a location to the keywords if it has any bearing on the possible use of a photo, and accept the inevitable hit.  Actually people rarely look through every shot that you have from a particular place, and similarly they normally search for more that just a location, so it's not as destructive as you might think.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the OP doesn't mind but it's kind of related to CTR. After a news image joins the regular stock, do you rework keywords such as removing (Pseudonym/Alamy Live News) as that can give false search returns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My recent analysis is that CTR seems to have little, if any, impact on where images appear in searches. I have several pseudonyms whose CTR varies from 0.08 to well over 1.0 and images from them appear close together on some searches. That is my quick assessment, other people may well find different results, the only people who know (Alamy) are not saying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the OP doesn't mind but it's kind of related to CTR. After a news image joins the regular stock, do you rework keywords such as removing (Pseudonym/Alamy Live News) as that can give false search returns?

Yes, especially the description. The keywords are also changed to be better for general stock rather than very specific to one incident/occasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

i'm a newbie in Alamy but have some skills about the concept of CTR.

We all know it's basically a "# of Zooms / # of Views" kind of thing, right? Higher CTRs mean usually more Sales (not a math relationship btw).

As all math ratios, the more Views we have the worst CTR we're gonna expect from our pictures.

Views are the result of a combination of multiple Keywords and math says the more Keywords the more combinations, so # of Views.

for i.e. i had Views for the search term "Miami" alone of pictures i did of a Miami beach gay party which is NOT what i wanted since "Miami" keyword alone DOES NOT full describe my picture, therefore i wrongly addressed a potential buyer to my party image.

Someone who looked for "Miami" probably wanted some downtown Miami images or may be Miami skylines, not a private swimming pool party which could have been photographed everywhere.

Then looking at this great tool which is "Your Images" or AoA i could easily come to the conclusion i should MINIMIZE the # of Views to increase the CTR and hopefully MAXIMIZE the # of Sales.

So, am i right if i say it's better to use a minimal set of keywords to keep low the # of proper combinations?

That should reduce consistently our # of Views preventing buyers from the bad thing also known as keyword spamming.

 

What do you think and how do you keyword this way? Thx in advance :) I'm sorry English is not my mother language...

 

No just don't use Miami too prominently in your keywords. So not in Essential or Main, but only in Comprehensive. Use really important keywords in Main and the most important keywords in Essential.

 

Alamy says about CTR:

 

What is “Your CTR” ?

CTR stands for “Click Through Rate” which is the number of zooms divided by the number of views, multiplied by 100.

And if you take your amount of zooms and divide it by your number of views, you'll see that indeed that's all there is to it. No secret formula.

 

wim

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keywording is not the problem. You have way too many almost identical images.

Also ask yourself the very important question "who could use this image? To illustrate what?"  :mellow:

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

I agree that the number of repetitive images is way too high, probably the most extreme case I've seen here so far, but I'm surprised that you didn't point out poor keywording as well, Philippe.

 

 

OT, you should consider improving your keywording. Only include relevant keywords. E.g., don't include glasses as keyword if your model doesn't wear any. Don't include red if your model wears a white dress and there's not the smallest patch of red color in the picture.

Edited by chrumu
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would use in your case gay party in the essential keywords and miami in one of the other categories.

In the end you need to be seen to sell so its importants to have views.

If a buyer wants something more specific he will use more keywords, say, miami skyline or downtown, if he types only miami than he might be willing to see a party, who knows?

I had some hits for aerial in my images in a balloon in cappadocia, if the guy searched only for aerial than he will get mine and several other images. If he only wanted, say, aerial views of the loire valley he would have searched for that.

Use keywords that are relevant, use the three fields according to relevance and let the buyers decide

Of course, avoid spam stuff like blue for sky, you know the drill.

Edited by Alexandre Fagundes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image FJK0NB: Nature, Jumping, Sitting, Happy...really??

 

Glamour images are very poor sellers here, you might want to give them a chance as RF...but even in that case I believe you're wasting your time.

Kids playing outdoors will do much better.

Cheers

Ca

Edited by CarloBo
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing it's down to language difficulties and copying lists of keywords. Even translating words could throw up some mistakes that these people would be unaware of.

 

 

...and thanks for the answer above Michael. (Yes, especially the description. The keywords are also changed to be better for general stock rather than very specific to one incident/occasion.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image xxxxxx Nature, Jumping, Sitting, Happy...really??

 

Glamour images are very poor sellers here, you might want to give them a chance as RF...but even in that case I believe you're wasting your time.

Kids playing outdoors will do much better.

Cheers

Ca

 

It's probably just me, but I reckong identifying an image then criticising that exact image in public (here) is very, very poor form.

 

I mean, it's not like someone couldn't post an image of . . . just plucking this out of the air mind you . . . say a young woman, head and shoulders . . . with cut-and-past keywords indicating she's standing near a fence . . . but . . . ummmm . . . she's not, but the keywords were obviously copied from other images where she WAS standing by a fence . . . hey, it happens eh? :-)

 

EDIT: Totally irrelevant to the main point of my post, but . . . who said glamour shots are very poor sellers? I know one contributor from a little while ago now who apparently did rather well from glamour . . .

 

dd

Edited by dustydingo
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Image xxxxxx Nature, Jumping, Sitting, Happy...really??

 

Glamour images are very poor sellers here, you might want to give them a chance as RF...but even in that case I believe you're wasting your time.

Kids playing outdoors will do much better.

Cheers

Ca

 

It's probably just me, but I reckong identifying an image then criticising that exact image in public (here) is very, very poor form.

 

I mean, it's not like someone couldn't post an image of . . . just plucking this out of the air mind you . . . say a young woman, head and shoulders . . . with cut-and-past keywords indicating she's standing near a fence . . . but . . . ummmm . . . she's not, but the keywords were obviously copied from other images where she WAS standing by a fence . . . hey, it happens eh? :-)

 

EDIT: Totally irrelevant to the main point of my post, but . . . who said glamour shots are very poor sellers? I know one contributor from a little while ago now who apparently did rather well from glamour . . .

 

dd

 

Thanks for the red arrow mate, I was just trying to be helpful.

 

Alamy consider glamour as unsuitable material, not me.

Cheers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Image xxxxxx Nature, Jumping, Sitting, Happy...really??

 

Glamour images are very poor sellers here, you might want to give them a chance as RF...but even in that case I believe you're wasting your time.

Kids playing outdoors will do much better.

Cheers

Ca

It's probably just me, but I reckong identifying an image then criticising that exact image in public (here) is very, very poor form.

 

I mean, it's not like someone couldn't post an image of . . . just plucking this out of the air mind you . . . say a young woman, head and shoulders . . . with cut-and-past keywords indicating she's standing near a fence . . . but . . . ummmm . . . she's not, but the keywords were obviously copied from other images where she WAS standing by a fence . . . hey, it happens eh? :-)

 

EDIT: Totally irrelevant to the main point of my post, but . . . who said glamour shots are very poor sellers? I know one contributor from a little while ago now who apparently did rather well from glamour . . .

 

dd

 

Thanks for the red arrow mate, I was just trying to be helpful.

 

Alamy consider glamour as unsuitable material, not me.

Cheers.

 

You also need to be mindful that it's also very poor form to make accusations, even if it's just about the coward arrows.

 

I do not dish out red arrows. Alamy see who do, and I can assure you, they don't see me doing it.

 

EDIT: and just for accuracy sake . . . you didn't say glamour was unsuitable, you said it was a very poor seller here . . . again, who said it's a very poor seller?

 

dd

Edited by dustydingo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Image xxxxxx Nature, Jumping, Sitting, Happy...really??

 

Glamour images are very poor sellers here, you might want to give them a chance as RF...but even in that case I believe you're wasting your time.

Kids playing outdoors will do much better.

Cheers

Ca

It's probably just me, but I reckong identifying an image then criticising that exact image in public (here) is very, very poor form.

 

I mean, it's not like someone couldn't post an image of . . . just plucking this out of the air mind you . . . say a young woman, head and shoulders . . . with cut-and-past keywords indicating she's standing near a fence . . . but . . . ummmm . . . she's not, but the keywords were obviously copied from other images where she WAS standing by a fence . . . hey, it happens eh? :-)

 

EDIT: Totally irrelevant to the main point of my post, but . . . who said glamour shots are very poor sellers? I know one contributor from a little while ago now who apparently did rather well from glamour . . .

 

dd

 

Thanks for the red arrow mate, I was just trying to be helpful.

 

Alamy consider glamour as unsuitable material, not me.

Cheers.

 

You also need to be mindful that it's also very poor form to make accusations, even if it's just about the coward arrows.

 

I do not dish out red arrows. Alamy see who do, and I can assure you, they don't see me doing it.

 

EDIT: and just for accuracy sake . . . you didn't say glamour was unsuitable, you said it was a very poor seller here . . . again, who said it's a very poor seller?

 

dd

 

Sorry I might have seen wrong with red arrows but you are accusing others of using poor forms just because they are direct.

Shall we make a poll and see how many time we have sold glamour shots and how many times street signs?

Bye!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Image xxxxxx Nature, Jumping, Sitting, Happy...really??

 

Glamour images are very poor sellers here, you might want to give them a chance as RF...but even in that case I believe you're wasting your time.

Kids playing outdoors will do much better.

Cheers

Ca

It's probably just me, but I reckong identifying an image then criticising that exact image in public (here) is very, very poor form.

 

I mean, it's not like someone couldn't post an image of . . . just plucking this out of the air mind you . . . say a young woman, head and shoulders . . . with cut-and-past keywords indicating she's standing near a fence . . . but . . . ummmm . . . she's not, but the keywords were obviously copied from other images where she WAS standing by a fence . . . hey, it happens eh? :-)

 

EDIT: Totally irrelevant to the main point of my post, but . . . who said glamour shots are very poor sellers? I know one contributor from a little while ago now who apparently did rather well from glamour . . .

 

dd

 

Thanks for the red arrow mate, I was just trying to be helpful.

 

Alamy consider glamour as unsuitable material, not me.

Cheers.

 

You also need to be mindful that it's also very poor form to make accusations, even if it's just about the coward arrows.

 

I do not dish out red arrows. Alamy see who do, and I can assure you, they don't see me doing it.

 

EDIT: and just for accuracy sake . . . you didn't say glamour was unsuitable, you said it was a very poor seller here . . . again, who said it's a very poor seller?

 

dd

 

Sorry I might have seen wrong with red arrows but you are accusing others of using poor forms just because they are direct.

Shall we make a poll and see how many time we have sold glamour shots and how many times street signs?

Bye!

 

 

I'm seriously not interested in playing silly games. You made an assertion, you back it up . . . or not, it's of no consequence to me.

 

I accuse no one of anything . . .  but I do express an opinion . . . I'll repeat it, verbatim: "It's probably just me, but I reckon identifying an image then criticising that exact image in public (here) is very, very poor form".

 

All I feel inclined to add is this:

 

. . . the phrase "stones in glass houses" returns just 5 images. There's obviously an opportunity there . . .

 

dd

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


 

 

 

 

I accuse no one of anything . . .  but I do express an opinion . . . I'll repeat it, verbatim: "It's probably just me, but I reckon identifying an image then criticising that exact image in public (here) is very, very poor form".

 

All I feel inclined to add is this:

 

. . . the phrase "stones in glass houses" returns just 5 images. There's obviously an opportunity there . . .

 

dd

 

I have a good understanding of the English language, you, au contraire, have a bad understanding of poor forms...I do express an opinion too.

I've given a couple of (what I believe) helpful advices based on my experiences and on Alamy guidelines (if some content is not suitable

there's a good chance it doesn't sell, right?)

Your only contribution was to express your obsession with bad forms.

Bye again!

Edited by CarloBo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some guys here are completely out of my thread (or out of head if my english is clearer now).

you better leave please, i didn't ask a port critique thanks for undestanding

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right, like Alamy we don't "edit for content" on the forum. It's a professional courtesy not to comment qualitatively on a contributor's images, except regarding QC.  This isn't a camera club and it keeps things civil.

What you decide to submit is between you and Alamy.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you better leave please, i didn't ask a port critique thanks for undestanding

Although you didn't ask for a critique but you have been given some really good advice by the other posters and especially by Philippe (Arterra). I would strongly recommend you put their suggestions in place. They will help improve your Alamy performance.

Edited by Armstrong
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading here and also other thread comments, i came to the point that "similars" is not only negative but could be a resource.

First of all, we should clarify if "similars" refer to "in a row" or meaning a more generic "similars-in-a-whole-port".

I agree that 10 quite similar images in a row could hurt a potential buyer and negatively reflect to the seller.

BTW i also see some contributors selling quite similar images after a timelapse, let's say months or may be years.

In that case, similars are not noticed by buyers in a "new" search but may be noticed only after looking the seller's whole port.

I know a contributor on SS who does thousands of similar images and does great not only because SS is a more RF stock oriented site but also because this seller built strong trust relationships with buyers.

In few words, buyers buy from him just for his name and because they know which image topics he covers.

Since i live in Florence, Italy i could sell thousands of similars just because i shoot outside in this city.

These are two very different cases in my opinion since the first one (similars-in-a-row) is a negative way to work for contributors, while the second approach (similars-in-a-whole-port) is a very useful way indeed.

In  fact, coming back to my original thread if a buyer uses so many keywords (let's say more than 3/4 words) to find images similars are a great marketing stuff for a seller because of the focus he/she obtains.

CTR in that case would be higher because of the high attention to a specific topic:"miami beach swimming pool party" i'm happy to publicize 20 similar images to be quite sure that this buyer would grab at least 2 or 3 of mine.

The more specific is a search, the more similars i could sell potentially.

Otherwise, in the second case CTR would be lower because buyers that don't like let's say "parties" it's quite useless for me as a contributor to show them 20 images in a row of the same location,same weather, same degree and style of shooting (similars).

So, summarizing all i said:

1) Do similars ONLY for those topics which sell (may be a better analyze from the contributor should be done after some years and 1000/2000 quite different images in our port)

2) Do NOT make similars until point 1) is accomplished

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Similar' means in a portfolio. Not in a row.

 

The reason that similars are discouraged is that for every view you get that doesn't result in a sale or a zoom your ranking suffers long term.

 

I see that you've had more images that have been accepted and on sale since you last posted. Your keywords are still harming your potential sales - you are penalising yourself.

 

FK2H3J / FK2J38 / FK2J27 / FK2J2T and many more in that series: There is no farmhouse or road in these photos.

 

I mean this helpfully but honestly instead of getting into complex detail of CTR etc I would implement the advice you have already been given on the forum. Also do a forum search for threads which have a critique.

 

In summary:

More variety of subjects.

Less similars

Accurate keywords (not ones that have been bulk copy and pasted).

Edited by Armstrong
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

'Similar' means in a portfolio. Not in a row.

 

The reason that similars are discouraged is that for every view you get that doesn't get a sale or a zoom your ranking suffers long term.

 

I see that you've had more images that have been accepted and on sale since you last posted. Your keywords are still harming your potential sales - you are penalising yourself.

FK2H3J / FK2J38 / FK2J27 / FK2J2T and many more in that series: There is no farmhouse or road in these photos.

 

I mean this helpfully but honestly instead of getting into complex detail of CTR etc I would implement the advice you have already been given on the forum. Also do a forum search for threads which have a critique.

 

In summary:

More variety of subjects.

Less similarsAccurate keywords (not ones that have been bulk copy and pasted).

 

+1

 

Apparently, the given advice falls on deaf ears once more. Why do we even bother to give tips :unsure:

 

Cheers,

Philippe

Look at it like this, Philippe. Once we honestly try to help a new contributor, but advice is challenged or ignored, the best course of action is to quit trying, allow their port to sink into oblivion, while we maximize our opportunities by continuing to listen to best advice. We can only try so hard to help before realizing we're beating our heads against a brick wall.

 

What a lot of new contributors don't seem to get is that the agency they came from is not this agency. Where the way one approaches what works here may be 180 degrees from what worked elsewhere.

Betty

Edited to add: I suspect why some new contributors who come from other agencies fight so hard against the "similar" advice is because they realize their port of 5000 (example) images might shrink to 2000 if they cull those similars.

Edited by Betty LaRue
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone correct me if I am mistaken (it has happened before  :) ) but a view on many of the micros is the same as a zoom here on Alamy. Are some of the new members that are coming from Microstock misreading their MI by thinking that the views means someone actually clicked on their image?  

 

Jill

Share this post


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.