Comments on: Microstock Agencies: Time to Raise the Bar http://rasmusrasmussen.com/2008/10/10/microstock-agencies-time-to-raise-the-bar/ The Writing Photographer Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:54:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Cheryl http://rasmusrasmussen.com/2008/10/10/microstock-agencies-time-to-raise-the-bar/comment-page-1/#comment-13569 Cheryl Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:22:52 +0000 http://rasmusrasmussen.com/?p=318#comment-13569 We've been hearing for months about this supposed raising of the standards, but I haven't seen it in action yet. I'm talking about my side of iStock, vector illustration, but there are parallels to photography; just because the file is technically sound, doesn't make it good. And there is a difference between funky, primitive drawing and bad drawing. I don't think *that* can be taught on a microstock site. We’ve been hearing for months about this supposed raising of the standards, but I haven’t seen it in action yet. I’m talking about my side of iStock, vector illustration, but there are parallels to photography; just because the file is technically sound, doesn’t make it good. And there is a difference between funky, primitive drawing and bad drawing. I don’t think *that* can be taught on a microstock site.

]]> By: Lee Torrens http://rasmusrasmussen.com/2008/10/10/microstock-agencies-time-to-raise-the-bar/comment-page-1/#comment-12899 Lee Torrens Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:03:37 +0000 http://rasmusrasmussen.com/?p=318#comment-12899 On the sunsets and bugs-on-flowers, I'm totally with you. More so when I consider that you have to deal with it first hand as an inspector! (glad it's you and not me) ;) The 'best match' type algorithms have a critical place in agencies with large portfolios. At agencies other than iStock they help control keyword spam (images with low click-through rates for a keyword appear lower in the results) and can be heavily weighted towards the images that have actually been purchased as a result of appearing in the search results for the same keyword. It's incredible how 'smart' this technology can be. iStock's controlled vocabulary means they have one less thing to gain, so in that context I can totally see your point. Also, one of the things I love about microstock is that it places the emphasis on the photo rather than the photographer (as the traditional market does). If a new photographer creates an awesome stock photo (above his/her usual standard) it's great that they can get encouragement and revenue from seeing that photo sell. Higher entry requirements for the individual photographer make it more difficult for learning photographers to get this feedback directly from the market. And maybe the 'best match' algorithm can can be adjusted to lower the search result positions for all the photos of contributors who submit photos of sunsets!! ;) On the sunsets and bugs-on-flowers, I’m totally with you. More so when I consider that you have to deal with it first hand as an inspector! (glad it’s you and not me) ;)

The ‘best match’ type algorithms have a critical place in agencies with large portfolios. At agencies other than iStock they help control keyword spam (images with low click-through rates for a keyword appear lower in the results) and can be heavily weighted towards the images that have actually been purchased as a result of appearing in the search results for the same keyword. It’s incredible how ’smart’ this technology can be. iStock’s controlled vocabulary means they have one less thing to gain, so in that context I can totally see your point.

Also, one of the things I love about microstock is that it places the emphasis on the photo rather than the photographer (as the traditional market does). If a new photographer creates an awesome stock photo (above his/her usual standard) it’s great that they can get encouragement and revenue from seeing that photo sell. Higher entry requirements for the individual photographer make it more difficult for learning photographers to get this feedback directly from the market.

And maybe the ‘best match’ algorithm can can be adjusted to lower the search result positions for all the photos of contributors who submit photos of sunsets!! ;)

]]> By: Rasmus http://rasmusrasmussen.com/2008/10/10/microstock-agencies-time-to-raise-the-bar/comment-page-1/#comment-12898 Rasmus Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:38:01 +0000 http://rasmusrasmussen.com/?p=318#comment-12898 Oh, I certainly am no opponent to the weird, obscure type of imagery. There is a definite market for it, even if these images will never make the list of most sold. When I talk about raising the bar, I am referring to snapshots and photos that are technically borderline. Usefulness comes in many shapes and sizes, but there are many subjects that are photographed over and over by countless contributors (sunsets, anyone?), where it would be a benefit to everyone if the standards were higher. And I still believe we should cut away the crappy point and shoots. As for search algorithms, they are a pet peeve of mine. I love me some iStockphoto, but the so-called "Best Match" is horrible and should be removed completely. It causes more trouble than it does good - from people who try to abuse it, useless fingerpointing and a whole shitload of crap that lies outside the realm of this post. I detest funky, "smart" search results like that. Give me the option to sort by age, downloads, ratings and all that stuff, but don't pretend that a secret set of criteria (which of course is just a mix of the aforementioned ones) can serve me the best matches to my request. Ugh. Oh, I certainly am no opponent to the weird, obscure type of imagery. There is a definite market for it, even if these images will never make the list of most sold. When I talk about raising the bar, I am referring to snapshots and photos that are technically borderline. Usefulness comes in many shapes and sizes, but there are many subjects that are photographed over and over by countless contributors (sunsets, anyone?), where it would be a benefit to everyone if the standards were higher.

And I still believe we should cut away the crappy point and shoots.

As for search algorithms, they are a pet peeve of mine. I love me some iStockphoto, but the so-called “Best Match” is horrible and should be removed completely. It causes more trouble than it does good – from people who try to abuse it, useless fingerpointing and a whole shitload of crap that lies outside the realm of this post. I detest funky, “smart” search results like that. Give me the option to sort by age, downloads, ratings and all that stuff, but don’t pretend that a secret set of criteria (which of course is just a mix of the aforementioned ones) can serve me the best matches to my request. Ugh.

]]> By: Lee Torrens http://rasmusrasmussen.com/2008/10/10/microstock-agencies-time-to-raise-the-bar/comment-page-1/#comment-12897 Lee Torrens Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:20:24 +0000 http://rasmusrasmussen.com/?p=318#comment-12897 I would go the opposite way and encourage agencies to accept a wider range of quality. Search technology can easily push the best images to the top where the buyers are looking. Most agencies already do this with search algorithms incorporating metrics of both the image's performance and that of the contributor. This enables agencies to fulfill long-tail demand. All those obscure subjects and corners of the world that are not the superstar niches, but make the occasional sale. Amazon.com is super-successful because it can fulfill obscure orders from a massive back catalog. The corner bookstore stocks only the best sellers by necessity. Just like now when you need an obscure or older book you'll instinctively go to Amazon.com where you know you'll find it, image buyers will head to agencies with the largest portfolios (and to an extent the greatest variety) to find those non-superstar images. Or said another way, take it all and let the algorithms sort it out. -Lee I would go the opposite way and encourage agencies to accept a wider range of quality. Search technology can easily push the best images to the top where the buyers are looking. Most agencies already do this with search algorithms incorporating metrics of both the image’s performance and that of the contributor.

This enables agencies to fulfill long-tail demand. All those obscure subjects and corners of the world that are not the superstar niches, but make the occasional sale. Amazon.com is super-successful because it can fulfill obscure orders from a massive back catalog. The corner bookstore stocks only the best sellers by necessity. Just like now when you need an obscure or older book you’ll instinctively go to Amazon.com where you know you’ll find it, image buyers will head to agencies with the largest portfolios (and to an extent the greatest variety) to find those non-superstar images.

Or said another way, take it all and let the algorithms sort it out.

-Lee

]]>