Jon Lewis Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 Arrrrrrrg its reverted back again whats happening?? Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Yep, back to what it has been recently. I didn't think the change would be quite so shortlived. Perhaps someone pressed the wrong button when they meant to switch on the kettle. Interesting, though, to discover how quickly the search engine algorithms can be switched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 A "do you feel lucky" function" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Stone Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Eugh...just when you thought it was safe to go out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Side by side testing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Lewis Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 The Alamy Hamster [Cricetina] must be exhausted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broad Norfolk Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I'm back up a page!! Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gillis Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Back on page 1 Why so it is, be interesting to see if it stays that way into tomorrow! Didn't even make it through the day, now page 12 ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultanpepa Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Wish I had been smart enough to see the revert. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Yeah yeah, all test searches are good again. I hope Alamy is not trying to elevate my blood pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Dickson Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I did a search for the term "dog" when the system had reverted to the old system. On Page 1 in the first two rows was a picture of a squeezy mustard bottle (presumably for hot dogs). Also on page 1 were numerous fire hydrants and even a picture dog excrement. All of this is irrelevant to picture buyers who would expect to see 100 images of dogs. If I look at it now it has reverted to the new search engine there are 99 pictures of dogs on Page 1 and 1 picture of 3 chewable dog bones which to me is the only irrelevant picture in the search. The new search engine looks to be designed for buyers, and it looks like it is picking out relevant pictures. I am 100% sure that the order is not random and that rank comes into it, it is just trial and error process to see how to get up the rankings as high as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I did a search for the term "dog" when the system had reverted to the old system. On Page 1 in the first two rows was a picture of a squeezy mustard bottle (presumably for hot dogs). Also on page 1 were numerous fire hydrants and even a picture dog excrement. All of this is irrelevant to picture buyers who would expect to see 100 images of dogs. If I look at it now it has reverted to the new search engine there are 99 pictures of dogs on Page 1 and 1 picture of 3 chewable dog bones which to me is the only irrelevant picture in the search. The new search engine looks to be designed for buyers, and it looks like it is picking out relevant pictures. I am 100% sure that the order is not random and that rank comes into it, it is just trial and error process to see how to get up the rankings as high as possible. Perhaps simply to keyword for what is actually in the picture? That seems to be working for me at the moment, whether it will result in more sales only time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultanpepa Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I did a search for the term "dog" when the system had reverted to the old system. On Page 1 in the first two rows was a picture of a squeezy mustard bottle (presumably for hot dogs). Also on page 1 were numerous fire hydrants and even a picture dog excrement. All of this is irrelevant to picture buyers who would expect to see 100 images of dogs. If I look at it now it has reverted to the new search engine there are 99 pictures of dogs on Page 1 and 1 picture of 3 chewable dog bones which to me is the only irrelevant picture in the search. The new search engine looks to be designed for buyers, and it looks like it is picking out relevant pictures. I am 100% sure that the order is not random and that rank comes into it, it is just trial and error process to see how to get up the rankings as high as possible. Perhaps simply to keyword for what is actually in the picture? That seems to be working for me at the moment, whether it will result in more sales only time will tell. So how would you keyword or tag an image of a dog biscuit without it appearing in searches for "dog". Sometimes it just can't be helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 So how would you keyword or tag an image of a dog biscuit without it appearing in searches for "dog". Sometimes it just can't be helped. "Dog biscuit" as a tag and omit "dog" as a tag. It will force "dog" down the search order, or so we're told. But no, you can't prevent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I did a search for the term "dog" when the system had reverted to the old system. On Page 1 in the first two rows was a picture of a squeezy mustard bottle (presumably for hot dogs). Also on page 1 were numerous fire hydrants and even a picture dog excrement. All of this is irrelevant to picture buyers who would expect to see 100 images of dogs. If I look at it now it has reverted to the new search engine there are 99 pictures of dogs on Page 1 and 1 picture of 3 chewable dog bones which to me is the only irrelevant picture in the search. The new search engine looks to be designed for buyers, and it looks like it is picking out relevant pictures. I am 100% sure that the order is not random and that rank comes into it, it is just trial and error process to see how to get up the rankings as high as possible. You know what? Look for mole molehill and see what comes up as picture n°2 You see a mole in a molehill? I don't! I see a skull Mine sits in the back despite having a good ranking. Where's the logic? page 1 picture n°2 versus mine on page 4 of 6 Cheers, Philippe He has a high ranking which rewards his keyword spamming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I did a search for the term "dog" when the system had reverted to the old system. On Page 1 in the first two rows was a picture of a squeezy mustard bottle (presumably for hot dogs). Also on page 1 were numerous fire hydrants and even a picture dog excrement. All of this is irrelevant to picture buyers who would expect to see 100 images of dogs. If I look at it now it has reverted to the new search engine there are 99 pictures of dogs on Page 1 and 1 picture of 3 chewable dog bones which to me is the only irrelevant picture in the search. The new search engine looks to be designed for buyers, and it looks like it is picking out relevant pictures. I am 100% sure that the order is not random and that rank comes into it, it is just trial and error process to see how to get up the rankings as high as possible. You know what? Look for mole molehill and see what comes up as picture n°2 You see a mole in a molehill? I don't! I see a skull Mine sits in the back despite having a good ranking. Where's the logic? page 1 picture n°2 versus mine on page 4 of 6 Cheers, Philippe He has a high ranking which rewards his keyword spamming? It must be Anyway, I have mole molehill in both tags, supertags AND in the caption. The skull picture hasn't (at least not in the caption) Cheers, Philippe Just had a closer look- do you know Paul Sterry? He's been a wildlife specialist in the UK for years. I've got one of his covers on my desk. Quite a good rank I expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I don't think you can say it definitely hasn't been imported as a supertag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Not sure what's going on, my ranking has improved further (Page 5 to Page 4), but will it last? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Stone Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I did a search for the term "dog" when the system had reverted to the old system. On Page 1 in the first two rows was a picture of a squeezy mustard bottle (presumably for hot dogs). Also on page 1 were numerous fire hydrants and even a picture dog excrement. All of this is irrelevant to picture buyers who would expect to see 100 images of dogs. If I look at it now it has reverted to the new search engine there are 99 pictures of dogs on Page 1 and 1 picture of 3 chewable dog bones which to me is the only irrelevant picture in the search. The new search engine looks to be designed for buyers, and it looks like it is picking out relevant pictures. I am 100% sure that the order is not random and that rank comes into it, it is just trial and error process to see how to get up the rankings as high as possible. You know what? Look for mole molehill and see what comes up as picture n°2 You see a mole in a molehill? I don't! I see a skull Mine sits in the back despite having a good ranking. Where's the logic? page 1 picture n°2 versus mine on page 4 of 6 Cheers, Philippe He has a high ranking which rewards his keyword spamming? It must be Anyway, I have mole molehill in both tags, supertags AND in the caption. The skull picture hasn't (at least not in the caption) Cheers, Philippe Just had a closer look- do you know Paul Sterry? He's been a wildlife specialist in the UK for years. I've got one of his covers on my desk. Quite a good rank I expect. It's a SKULL !! Why does a skull appear when looking for a molehill? What's the use in assigning a supertag to molehill if - apparently - an image that hasn't got that supertag jumps over it. Where's the logic? And I also have a good ranking. My images "used" to appear on the first pages. So frustrating to see this happening Cheers, Philippe The skull image does have the tags "mole" and "molehill" which would explain why it appears in a search for molehill. It doesn't explain though why you, with good rank, would appear so low down in such a search. But then, under the new algorithm, anything is possible and nothing is predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I did a search for the term "dog" when the system had reverted to the old system. On Page 1 in the first two rows was a picture of a squeezy mustard bottle (presumably for hot dogs). Also on page 1 were numerous fire hydrants and even a picture dog excrement. All of this is irrelevant to picture buyers who would expect to see 100 images of dogs. If I look at it now it has reverted to the new search engine there are 99 pictures of dogs on Page 1 and 1 picture of 3 chewable dog bones which to me is the only irrelevant picture in the search. The new search engine looks to be designed for buyers, and it looks like it is picking out relevant pictures. I am 100% sure that the order is not random and that rank comes into it, it is just trial and error process to see how to get up the rankings as high as possible. You know what? Look for mole molehill and see what comes up as picture n°2 You see a mole in a molehill? I don't! I see a skull Mine sits in the back despite having a good ranking. Where's the logic? page 1 picture n°2 versus mine on page 4 of 6 Cheers, Philippe He has a high ranking which rewards his keyword spamming? It must be Anyway, I have mole molehill in both tags, supertags AND in the caption. The skull picture hasn't (at least not in the caption) Cheers, Philippe Just had a closer look- do you know Paul Sterry? He's been a wildlife specialist in the UK for years. I've got one of his covers on my desk. Quite a good rank I expect. It's a SKULL !! Why does a skull appear when looking for a molehill? What's the use in assigning a supertag to molehill if - apparently - an image that hasn't got that supertag jumps over it. Where's the logic? And I also have a good ranking. My images "used" to appear on the first pages. So frustrating to see this happening Cheers, Philippe The skull image does have the tags "mole" and "molehill" which would explain why it appears in a search for molehill. It doesn't explain though why you, with good rank, would appear so low down in such a search. But then, under the new algorithm, anything is possible and nothing is predictable. How do we know Philippe has good rank? As an agency like with a individual contributor every pseudo has it's own rank. Maybe the pseudo with the mole has a rank that's not that good. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Ashmore Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I did a search for the term "dog" when the system had reverted to the old system. On Page 1 in the first two rows was a picture of a squeezy mustard bottle (presumably for hot dogs). Also on page 1 were numerous fire hydrants and even a picture dog excrement. All of this is irrelevant to picture buyers who would expect to see 100 images of dogs. If I look at it now it has reverted to the new search engine there are 99 pictures of dogs on Page 1 and 1 picture of 3 chewable dog bones which to me is the only irrelevant picture in the search. The new search engine looks to be designed for buyers, and it looks like it is picking out relevant pictures. I am 100% sure that the order is not random and that rank comes into it, it is just trial and error process to see how to get up the rankings as high as possible. You know what? Look for mole molehill and see what comes up as picture n°2 You see a mole in a molehill? I don't! I see a skull Mine sits in the back despite having a good ranking. Where's the logic? page 1 picture n°2 versus mine on page 4 of 6 Cheers, Philippe He has a high ranking which rewards his keyword spamming? It must be Anyway, I have mole molehill in both tags, supertags AND in the caption. The skull picture hasn't (at least not in the caption) Cheers, Philippe Just had a closer look- do you know Paul Sterry? He's been a wildlife specialist in the UK for years. I've got one of his covers on my desk. Quite a good rank I expect. It's a SKULL !! Why does a skull appear when looking for a molehill? What's the use in assigning a supertag to molehill if - apparently - an image that hasn't got that supertag jumps over it. Where's the logic? And I also have a good ranking. My images "used" to appear on the first pages. So frustrating to see this happening Cheers, Philippe The skull image does have the tags "mole" and "molehill" which would explain why it appears in a search for molehill. It doesn't explain though why you, with good rank, would appear so low down in such a search. But then, under the new algorithm, anything is possible and nothing is predictable. Personally, I'm surprised this little guy doesn't make page 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 No re rank. I am still in the same position. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 IT looks like the database update has reverted to what it was yesterday. I had 17 images for Nuremberg under my main pseudo but removed some to another pseudo yesterday. After today's update the change was reflected but now it's back to 17. Not sure what's going on. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Stone Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I did a search for the term "dog" when the system had reverted to the old system. On Page 1 in the first two rows was a picture of a squeezy mustard bottle (presumably for hot dogs). Also on page 1 were numerous fire hydrants and even a picture dog excrement. All of this is irrelevant to picture buyers who would expect to see 100 images of dogs. If I look at it now it has reverted to the new search engine there are 99 pictures of dogs on Page 1 and 1 picture of 3 chewable dog bones which to me is the only irrelevant picture in the search. The new search engine looks to be designed for buyers, and it looks like it is picking out relevant pictures. I am 100% sure that the order is not random and that rank comes into it, it is just trial and error process to see how to get up the rankings as high as possible. You know what? Look for mole molehill and see what comes up as picture n°2 You see a mole in a molehill? I don't! I see a skull Mine sits in the back despite having a good ranking. Where's the logic? page 1 picture n°2 versus mine on page 4 of 6 Cheers, Philippe He has a high ranking which rewards his keyword spamming? It must be Anyway, I have mole molehill in both tags, supertags AND in the caption. The skull picture hasn't (at least not in the caption) Cheers, Philippe Just had a closer look- do you know Paul Sterry? He's been a wildlife specialist in the UK for years. I've got one of his covers on my desk. Quite a good rank I expect. It's a SKULL !! Why does a skull appear when looking for a molehill? What's the use in assigning a supertag to molehill if - apparently - an image that hasn't got that supertag jumps over it. Where's the logic? And I also have a good ranking. My images "used" to appear on the first pages. So frustrating to see this happening Cheers, Philippe The skull image does have the tags "mole" and "molehill" which would explain why it appears in a search for molehill. It doesn't explain though why you, with good rank, would appear so low down in such a search. But then, under the new algorithm, anything is possible and nothing is predictable. How do we know Philippe has good rank? As an agency like with a individual contributor every pseudo has it's own rank. Maybe the pseudo with the mole has a rank that's not that good. wim We don't for sure - we only know what he tells us but I think we all know to some extent how well we rank don't we? I felt I knew how I ranked when we were under the old system. I confirmed it by making frequent searches using the kinds of keywords that I felt people would use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.