Approved Clips Question

It used to be when clips were approved, they shows up in the search almost immediately. But now it seems to take a few days. Is that a database cache thing now? Will it be fixed or is that just how things are now?

Thanks!

For the moment, it's just how things are - our database has gotten to a size that it doesn't update instantly, and takes about 24 hours to refresh when clips are added from the curatorial process.

Okay, thanks! I appreciate it.

To be more precise, we've separated the db from the search engine. Presently powering it is SOLR (an Apache Full Text Search project).

We've ordered a new server for SOLR that will come up in a few days (in addition to RS big mama). Until then the updates has sometimes been a little bit more sparse than 24h.

We're also contemplating having Sphinx as a lover as it's rumored to be faster and current dataset is starting to get heavy for a SOLR process. Also Sphinx is not written in Java which is a personal bonus since I profoundly hate Java.

We could also shard it (SOLR) in some way, but since the set is so skewed to images that might not be brilliant.

I think it's time to bring up the issue (again) of a Prioritized Review Status. For instance, well-established contributors with large portfolios should be able to go directly to "approved status" without review . Those clips should be reviewed eventually. If a submission is rejected, then that equates out to a "Strike" against them, and after so many strikes, they may lose their direct appoval status. Other mid-level contributors should be on a "fast track" review status. Only new or "low-level" contributors should have the 3-5 week approval wait. Not to hijack the thread, but things do appear to be necessitating such measures, that is, if the number of reviewers does not increase or wait times dramatically decrease. I'm out.

Don't you think that gives the majority a disadvantage when it comes to sales?

The suggestion from MovingImages rewards quality, dedication, hard work, persistence, trust and sales potential. This is not an unusual feature in the stock world. There are other sites that do exactly as he suggested. Other sites also pay a higher commission to artists that have proven quality based on sales; that was not requested. Dedication should mean a lot in the business world. New artists that are dedicated to quality would quickly work their way up the chain and gain the same advantage. Those who contribute the most and the best quality are more valuable on a business basis.
.
I see where new artists and those who contribute on a small basis may feel they are being held back or delayed. There are hundreds of P5 artists that uploaded a few to a few hundred footage and then stop uploading anymore. Is it due to lack of sales or slow review process or dedication, ability or camera equipment? It is a balance. Almost all sites offer different commission rates based on either number of sales or dollar of sales. Is that an advantage also that is not fair? Places like Alamy on the photo side gives priority to those who they submitted the higher quality photos on a regular basis. They have 23 hour approval for the better submitters and significantly longer for those who's quality is not the best. This suggestion has been brought up a few other times over the last few years, good to bring it up as things continue to change.

I think there would some legal liability issues I wouldn't, if I were King of the Forest / Pond5, want to risk, Topics with hot editorial content could (and apparently can) go to the front of the cue. Otherwise, I don't fine the waiting time for review extreme - as compared to someplace like iStockphoto, which is near geologic.

The word quality gets tossed around a lot. There seems to be a disconnect sometimes from the definition of the word to what it means to the buyer for their particular needs. Rather than dictating what someone else is allowed to do why not just leave the policing up to the buyers. Ultimately they are the ones who will decide what they want, when they want it, or do not want. If nothing sells from any given contributor so what. Leave it up because ya never know when someone else will want it.

So policing how approvals are handled by the curators really shouldn't be the sort of thing that any contributor has control over. It gives too many opportunities for abuse of power.

I have to agree that contributors with a proven track record of sales should be able to bypass the normal review process. I also agree that those files should eventually be viewed, but the priority is less critical.

Also, Pond5 does not offer indemnity against lawsuits for copyright violation the way that ShutterStock and iStock do, nor should they. Their policy puts the onus on the buyers and sellers where it should be.

The fact is, Pond5 is once again falling behind on reviews. And that means compared to other sites their collection, while much larger, is older. And in this business a few weeks can be a huge difference.