| Author |
Message |
apotterdd
Joined: 10 Apr 2009
Posts: 6994
Location: Trying to get my latinum back from Quark
|
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:12 am
|  |
I still don't see the relevant sort button on IE 9.0.1 or in Firefox 3.6.18.
Has it still not rolled out completely yet or is there a glitch keeping it from showing up across certain areas or browsers? |
|
algol
Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 608
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:26 am
| |
| aynia wrote: |
....
Surely if someone searches for something... it is relevant for them and they want the choice of oldest, most popular or newest.
Relevant is something that is inbuilt. A yes. It should be there.
....
|
I was thinking something similar. Surely if an image is served up in answer to a search it should be relevant anyway? What would be the point in serving up irrelevant search results? |
|
aynia
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 2435
Location: The Land of the Vikings
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:12 pm
| |
The number of times an image has been downloaded does not necessarily make it relevant! You can never know what goes on in the minds of a buyer.. or another person.
SS is mainly subscription based which means if you want one photo you can't actually buy it... you have to get 10 minimum.
So what if you need only one image, and you put in the keyword butterfly.
You see 5 butterflies that are kind of cool... or even a girl doing the butterfly stroke swimming...
So you download them.
They are not what you need... so you continue your search.
So what I'm saying is relevant is not about downloads.. it is a myth. It doesn't exist. It's about how many downloads..... and that is not right.
I wonder if this relevant thing has something to do with all the disappearing images in people's ports.
It is the craziest thing I have ever heard of, because I do not believe you can define relevant.
If I search for hunter and select relevant I get too many dogs and too many deer ... I even get an image of lots of hats.. .and of eyes.
Come on... It is almost the same when I search using the most popular.
SS has the option of excluding keywords. This option should be promoted. It is invaluable. For example if I put in hunter.. and I get a too many photos of the neighbourhood cat... I can exclude the word cat or animal .. etc.
That is better than most relevant. It just should be promoted more. Perhaps some buyers don't realise they can exclude a certain crazy keyword. Like when you search for butterfly.. you don't want a moth.. and vice versa. Cats and dogs also come to mind. |
|
sdbower
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 64
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:50 pm
| |
This needs some major work before it's permanently introduced. I used it to search a number of my photos using the key words you say are most often used when the photo is downloaded. My photo of a "record turntable" is shown as "most popular" and has been for quite some time (months). When I use the word "turntable" (the word most often used to find my photo based upon your newly introduced Darkroom program) and the "relevant" setting, my photo doesn't show up until the 16th page. To me this isn't "relevant" and does the customer a disservice and represents a step backwords. I can give you several other examples if you like but I suggest you do a lot more work on this program before you make it "permanent" |
|
mhjerpe
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 9
Location: Sweden
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:02 am
| |
The relevant button dose't show in Chrome for me.. in IE8 it shows.. it it cached stuff ? |
|
jens61er
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 32
Location: Denmark
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:05 am
| |
| mhjerpe wrote: | | The relevant button dose't show in Chrome for me.. in IE8 it shows.. it it cached stuff ? |
I guess it has to do with cache, because the relevant button shows in Chrome here. |
|
toots7777
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 4527
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:24 am
| |
I'm on firefox 5 and I don't see relevant option either. Just tried in IE, not sure which version, which I hardly ever use and no relevant option there either, so nothing to do with cache. |
|
jens61er
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 32
Location: Denmark
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:45 am
| |
| toots7777 wrote: | | I'm on firefox 5 and I don't see relevant option either. Just tried in IE, not sure which version, which I hardly ever use and no relevant option there either, so nothing to do with cache. |
Strange!
I see it in Firefox, IE and Chrome when search results are shown. |
|
toots7777
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 4527
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:50 am
| |
Hmm, wonder if it's an area thing then. |
|
fmcginn
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Posts: 1
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:47 am
| |
Great! This serves two functions well: allows the client to see fresh, relevant images and rewards images that are both great pics and well keyworded with no spamming. Bravo! |
|
soctober
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 990
Location: www.foto-melange.com
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:03 am
| |
dont see it at all |
|
musicphoto
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
Posts: 164
Location: Denver, Colorado
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:13 pm
| |
This seems to be having a serious negative impact on downloads of new images, and if this works how it is explained, then it could prevent new images from ever appearing in a relevant search at all since they will never be seen or downloaded in the first place.
Could SS please give us an official explanation of the criteria used to determine relevance of an image? |
|
luba
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 467
Location: South Africa
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:32 am
| |
How does the system know that the keywords are relevant to the image? sorry if its a silly question |
|
ezoom
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Posts: 47
Location: Stockholm
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:07 am
| |
Why not give the photographer the opportunity to prioritize the,say 5 most important keywords
or maybe give the keywords in the headline a higher significance. |
|
rhombur
Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 6
Location: Villach, Austria
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:11 am
| |
| Quote: | | Why not give the photographer the opportunity to prioritize the,say 5 most important keywords |
This is done at other places, and I do not like that idea. I often feel that I finally gave priority to the wrong keywords without having a chance to do any correction.
However, a general problem of the keywords is the translation from other languages into English (I assume English is used most frequently here). It is basically a good idea since it saves me a lot of time to re-keyword anything from german to english, but often the results are, hm, somewhat questionable - and will push me back in terms of that 'relevant' search.
Which does not change the fact that the idea is basically one of the better ones. |
|
| |
|
Log in
