Deleting Images

[Ed Rooney]

A good idea, or a bad idea? And why?  

[John Mitchell]

Probably a good idea, but I'm usually too superstitious to do it. The chances of an image licensing greatly decrease if you delete it.

[John Mitchell]

If they are either not very good or unlikely to sell for other reasons, they'll just be adding to your views, which of course will harm your CTR if they aren't zoomed. What I usually do with such images is to move them to another pseudonym that I don't care about, so at least they're still available and have a chance to sell, but won't harm the CTR of my main pseudonym (if they're in search results but not zoomed). I still delete really poor images though as I don't want anyone associating my name with some of the rubbish I used to submit. 

 

Geoff.

 

Doesn't having a "rubbish" pseudo negatively affect your "average" (i.e. overall) CTR?

[John Mitchell]

 

 

If they are either not very good or unlikely to sell for other reasons, they'll just be adding to your views, which of course will harm your CTR if they aren't zoomed. What I usually do with such images is to move them to another pseudonym that I don't care about, so at least they're still available and have a chance to sell, but won't harm the CTR of my main pseudonym (if they're in search results but not zoomed). I still delete really poor images though as I don't want anyone associating my name with some of the rubbish I used to submit. 

 

Geoff.

 

Doesn't having a "rubbish" pseudo negatively affect your "average" (i.e. overall) CTR?

 

 

 

Yes, but that number has no affect on anything else, at least as far as I am aware. Each pseudo CTR and rank is calculated independently, so I am not sure why that average is even quoted as it serves no real purpose.

 

Geoff.

 

 

As I said, I'm superstitious, especially when it comes to statistics. Consequently, I think I'd delete before creating a dormant (or dead) pseudo.

[Bill Kuta]

I started with Alamy in 2004 with self-scanned slide images, and went through one or more periods where I emphasized increasing numbers of images over anything else. So a couple of years ago, I finally deleted a couple hundred images that were just plain not good or unique enough in various aspects. Also finally spent the time to finish cleaning up my remaining "more details required" images from the first Great Rejiggering of the input process. Also spent time cleaning up my early over-enthusiastic keywording. Those three factors definitely increased my standing here.

[Marianne]

I deleted a couple hundred at one point over the space of about a year. I edit very tightly in most cases, but less so with news images where speed is important, so I sometimes cull them later on and of course deleted some stuff from when I started out in 2008 (lots of new/weather stuff lately plus some oldies I should've uploaded long ago). These days, I'm working toward meeting my goal of 1000 images (50 to go!), but still do some culling from time to time, and try to work on cutting keywords too - when I started I used up all 800+ characters in Comprehensive Keywords -"over-enthusiastic" and then some - & I still have many pix to fix - and of course from time to time I find duplicates since I'll go through old shoots and process additional photos or re-process old ones. I also find that all my Live News images end up in my main pseudo which I really want to keep for US travel and lifestyle, so I need to move those around and try to keep things tight.

 

I have a separate pseudo for deleted images where I put in gobbledy-gook too so it doesn't bring up old doubles or other stuff to bring down CTR. 

[Joseph Clemson]

I've never got over the over fact that my best ever sale on Alamy, a tidy three figure sum, was an unremarkable photograph of a nondescript piece of architecture in an unimportant Lancashire town far from any tourists or big business interests. The image has, I think, only ever been viewed a handful of times in the four years since I uploaded it. It could easily have been a candidate for deletion, were I of that frame of mind. With the advent of that sale I became convinced that I don't know with any certainty at all which of my images may bring in the next tidy sum, so as sure as eggs is eggs, I'm not going to start deleting any unless there is a compelling reason.

 

I have occasionally seen the opinion stated here and on other forums that images should be strong candidates for deletion if they haven't sold inside a year or two (or even six months, I recall seeing once). I fail to comprehend how anybody can think like that, given that there is no direct cost to the contributor in having our images online once they have been taken and processed and, even at Alamy, no certain correlation between the ownership of a large portfolio (if properly keyworded) and poor placement in search results. 

 

I would always dissuade contributors from uploading massive numbers of similars and badly keywording those images which they do upload, but deleting images on the grounds of perceived usefulness or age seems a foolish thing to do.

[spacecadet]

My latest sale was an image nearly 6 years old, although uploaded only 4 years ago. It was still one of only 3 results for the search. The other two were even older. So I'm with Joseph- edit tightly, but if it goes up, it usually stays up, especially if it's in a category that does well for me.

[John Mitchell]

 

 

As I said, I'm superstitious, especially when it comes to statistics. Consequently, I think I'd delete before creating a dormant (or dead) pseudo.

 

 

 

I took your comment about being superstitious as meaning you would think the image may have sold the day after deleting. So that's why I suggested using a different pseudo so ensure it's still available.

 

I have a "no so good" pseudo as well as one only for images in the delete pile.

 

Geoff.

 

 

I was being a bit facetious. I've got my collection divided into two pseudos, based mainly on content. Perhaps at some point I'll do some deleting. As it is, things don't seem broken, so I don't think it would help to try to fix them. Interesting conversation, though. I would certainly not delete images solely on the basis of age as my older images are what keep me afloat on Alamy.

[Betty LaRue]

A couple of years ago, I had already culled and deleted some images. The early, poorly developed and no real concept to them ones.

Second batch up for deletion, I had a sale of one of them. I was ashamed of it, but somebody obviously liked it. I contacted Alamy and requested them removed from deletion.

I've been a bit timid about doing that since.

[Ed Rooney]

So like with a lot of things in this stock-eat-stock world we inhabit, there is more than one logical point of view on deleting images. 

 

I have in mind that when I get a bit over the 3,000 mark, I may trim a few subject here and there. There are many reasons for this, some seemingly practical, others entirely emotional. I have a bunch of what I feel are good images of St. Peter's Basilica and Piazza in Rome. I was staying with a friend who lives just outside the square, so I could pick my times of day. But . . . I have never had a single sale or zoom on any of those pictures. Now is that an emotional reason or a practical one?

 

I've been doing okay, a bit better each month, and my CTR is higher than it's ever been. Still, I grind my teeth and spit out a hard line of Romano curses when I think of the Mother of Churches. 

 

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

Edo

[Betty LaRue]

Edo, if they are well-taken images, and I can't imagine anything of yours isn't, why not leave them? Or do they have views, bringing down CTR? But....your CTR is good....leave them.

If I deleted everything over 4 years old that has never been zoomed, my port would be a shadow of itself.

Funny, though, periodically, not often, one of those images sell. And I'm happy it was still on board.