Dreamstime-Admin Action on Keywords

[tab62]

Hi MSG Folks,

I just got a message that one of my photos has inappropriate keywords - 'Sore Back' on this particular photo-

Here is the photo in question

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-sore-muscles-image23195659


Yet this one is fine

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-pregnant-woman-home-office-sore-back-image5943850

If I don't remove the keywords I risk action against me.  Your thoughts?

Thanks

T

[digitalexpressionimages]

I recently had 2 keyword flags: one of a happy dog leaping into the air with the title "happy dog" and the flagged keyword was "happy". The other was a photographic illustration of a woman with fire for hair. The flagged keyword was "hair".

I did go to the trouble of finding several other similar images that also use the keyword hair, to build a case just in case, but I ignored both flags.

There's some rumours, on MSG even, that the admins don't take action on flags. I don't know but if keyword flags make sense I take action myself, when they don't I do nothing. No problems so far.

[tab62]

Thanks. I did send off an email to the support folks as well. Heck, I had the model put one hand on her back - let's see sore muscles are okay for shoulders, legs and arms but not for the back? I understand they have some program where folks get $.02 for each photo they find with inappropriate keywords? Thanks T

[red]

Don't sweat it. Some images are flagged simply because someone clicks on a wrong button. If you feel you must, you can leave a comment as to why you chose the words in question. I wouldn't bother. When flagged the person is sent an automated message and then the image goes into a looooooonnnng queue. It will be eventually reviewed by a keymaster. The image is not disabled. The reviews are very lenient and only penalize for obvious wrong words (the word cat on a pic of a dog, peach for an apple, isolated for a still life on a fabric background, etc.).

[Tomboy2290]

If you are certain the keywords are relevant just ignore it. I have had flags on images like a pink rose where the flagged keywords were pink and rose and Christmas on Christmas ornaments. Not sure if it just people trying to make trouble or pushing a wrong button.

If the keywords are wrong or borderline simply change them yourself for peace of mind.

[red]

I might add "aching" to the keywords (my aching back, possible searcher looking for "woman with aching back"). I'm not sure how the word "worker" fits in as she isn't working at anything in the photo. She might have an aching back from laying on the couch all day eating potato chips.

[tab62]

LOL! Good keyword replacement! Thanks T

[WarrenPrice]

Hi MSG Folks,

I just got a message that one of my photos has inappropriate keywords - 'Sore Back' on this particular photo-

Here is the photo in question

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-sore-muscles-image23195659


Yet this one is fine

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-pregnant-woman-home-office-sore-back-image5943850

If I don't remove the keywords I risk action against me.  Your thoughts?

Thanks

T

My thoughts on this subject got me banned from DT Forum.   

[fotografer]

I get flags all the time on good keywords and usually it is somebody with no port so is almost definitely a buyer that clicks it by mistake. If the keyword is correct then there is nothing to worry about.

[tab62]

agree- just got a reply back from the service folks- they told me all is well.  Guess once in a while you will get someone that feels the keyword is not correct... Thanks T

[m@m]

I get flags all the time on good keywords and usually it is somebody with no port so is almost definitely a buyer that clicks it by mistake. If the keyword is correct then there is nothing to worry about.

+1

[Karimala]

I get flags all the time on good keywords and usually it is somebody with no port so is almost definitely a buyer that clicks it by mistake. If the keyword is correct then there is nothing to worry about.

+1

+2.  I just send the person a note explaining why my keywords are appropriate.  My response stays with the photo for future reference and just in case DT checks on them.

[BaldricksTrousers]

I get flags all the time on good keywords and usually it is somebody with no port so is almost definitely a buyer that clicks it by mistake. If the keyword is correct then there is nothing to worry about.

+1

+2.  I just send the person a note explaining why my keywords are appropriate.  My response stays with the photo for future reference and just in case DT checks on them.

I hardly ever get complaints, so maybe some of you have more "inventive" keywords. I did a quick check on just two of your files, one was fine and the other one, of an isolated red jelly, included the keywords "peaches" "pears" and "kids", none of which appeared in the picture.

[Tryingmybest]

I believe most of those flags you'll get are from people trying to add your image to their lightbox or other nice deed. DT needs to put the flag button somewhere else. I get lots of them: A picture of rocks flagged for using the word "rocks" 

[WarrenPrice]

I believe most of those flags you'll get are from people trying to add your image to their lightbox or other nice deed. DT needs to put the flag button somewhere else. I get lots of them: A picture of rocks flagged for using the word "rocks" 

I've seen this many times but don't understand how the keyword is expressed if the button is selected accidentally?
 

[lisafx]

I've seen this many times but don't understand how the keyword is expressed if the button is selected accidentally?
 

Whatever keyword(s) they searched on will automatically be the ones expressed when they hit the flag button.

[red]

Yes. The button is tied to the search terms, which is part of the problem. If you search for a red apple and hit the flag button instead of the add to lightbox button it is flagged for the words red and apple.

[qwerty]

I flagged some images one time and got hassled by the person who then in retailiation reported a number of my images for keywords that were correct.

I'll never be doing that again.

Improving the keywords on images is a great idea and to get the community to do it is the cheapest but I think this implementation is terrible. The keyword flag button isn't clear what it does and like others have said some people think they are rewarding the image by flagging it.

[Mantis]

I get flags all the time on good keywords and usually it is somebody with no port so is almost definitely a buyer that clicks it by mistake. If the keyword is correct then there is nothing to worry about.

+1

+2.  I just send the person a note explaining why my keywords are appropriate.  My response stays with the photo for future reference and just in case DT checks on them.

DT pays people to find bad keywords. I forget the exact amount, like a penny, and if the accuser is deemed right by DT then they get paid.  They have been doing this for a while.  The person can have an account but no files because they simply sign up.

[BaldricksTrousers]

One problem I am seeing, looking at people's keywords, is that they are imagining what situation something might apply to rather than what it is. So a hand holding a passport might get: arriving, departing, airport, flying, cruise, railway, cruise ship, railway station, aircraft none of which is actually present in the photo.

I didn't realise that the "complained about" keyword was simply the one that was searched on. That's bound to upset people if the complaint is really about others that were not the chosen search term. However, I don't believe the theory that people are frequently pressing the wrong button on certain portfolios. If you get a lot of keyword complaints it probably says something about your approach to keywording.

[red]

Yes, it has been stated multiple times that keywords should not indicate a possible action but only what is represented in the image. First time reviewers are sometimes lax in letting keywords slip through but keywords can be added or subtracted at any time by the contributor so they are not frozen. At one time there was a lot of images with the word "nude" and/or "sex"in them that had nothing to do with what was in the photo - some contributors thought that would get their images looked at by more people. Dumb. They were rooted out and sent packing but it still goes on. When an image is put into the bad keyword queue because of a flag report, whether it is a mistake or not, all keywords are reviewed again by a keymaster and other words (not just the ones that were in the search) can be removed at their discretion (the keymaster's). That is a good thing. However, the queue is so long that it sometimes takes a year or longer for the images to be re-reviewed for bad words.

[sgoodwin4813]

Yes. The button is tied to the search terms, which is part of the problem. If you search for a red apple and hit the flag button instead of the add to lightbox button it is flagged for the words red and apple.

That explains a lot - thanks.  I've had images flagged for keywords twice and both times the "offending" keyword was fine.  One was an underwater picture taken at the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, flagged for the keyword "Australia".  I forget the other one.  Both times the flagger had no images in their portfolio, so I thought they were someone out to get a keyword-reporting bonus.  However, with your information it seems more likely they were a buyer who just hit the wrong button - makes more sense.  I responded with a note both times and never heard anything back.  I try to be careful with my keywords but occasionally get a bad one in there, especially if copying from a similar image, but so far haven't been flagged for one that really was bad.

[fotografer]

Yes. The button is tied to the search terms, which is part of the problem. If you search for a red apple and hit the flag button instead of the add to lightbox button it is flagged for the words red and apple.

That explains a lot - thanks.  I've had images flagged for keywords twice and both times the "offending" keyword was fine.  One was an underwater picture taken at the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, flagged for the keyword "Australia".  I forget the other one.  Both times the flagger had no images in their portfolio, so I thought they were someone out to get a keyword-reporting bonus.  However, with your information it seems more likely they were a buyer who just hit the wrong button - makes more sense.  I responded with a note both times and never heard anything back.  I try to be careful with my keywords but occasionally get a bad one in there, especially if copying from a similar image, but so far haven't been flagged for one that really was bad.

Most of my flags are from buyers - no uploads after joining the site a while ago.  Some people insult people that flag them but they could be shooting themselves in the foot if it is a buyer.  Also if somebody does a search of for instance a red apple and a green apple comes up the flag will show on both words although only one word is incorrect. 
 I sometimes flag when I see a search screwed up by a serial spammers.  I once flagged dozens of christmas images messing up a valentines's day search.   I can assure you that I couldn't care less about the couple of cents that you get but just don't want the buyers leaving the site in frustration.

[Karimala]

I get flags all the time on good keywords and usually it is somebody with no port so is almost definitely a buyer that clicks it by mistake. If the keyword is correct then there is nothing to worry about.

+1

+2.  I just send the person a note explaining why my keywords are appropriate.  My response stays with the photo for future reference and just in case DT checks on them.

I hardly ever get complaints, so maybe some of you have more "inventive" keywords. I did a quick check on just two of your files, one was fine and the other one, of an isolated red jelly, included the keywords "peaches" "pears" and "kids", none of which appeared in the picture.

So kind of you to check my keywords.  LOL  There's peaches and pears inside the Jello, and Jello is a kids' food.    

I don't receive many complaints either, but most seem to involve issues where two or more words can be used to describe something, like "kids' food" or "visually impaired" or when someone thinks a combination of words means something entirely different than what I mean when choosing the keywords.  

I have an image of two medical cannabis edibles that was flagged for the words "chocolate" and "bar."  The flagger was correct in that there isn't a chocolate bar in sight, but the two edibles are a chocolate brownie and a 7-layer bar in wrappers that identify them as such!  



This image was flagged for "impaired," which is part of the phrase "visually impaired person" and is obviously depicted in the image.  What other kind of person uses a white cane, eh?  And aren't blind people "impaired" or have "impaired vision?"  I've been the mother of a blind person for over 30 years, so by now you'd think I'd know what I'm talking about.    LOL



Update: Posted before reading about the search terms being flagged.

[WarrenPrice]

Yes. The button is tied to the search terms, which is part of the problem. If you search for a red apple and hit the flag button instead of the add to lightbox button it is flagged for the words red and apple.

That explains a lot - thanks.  I've had images flagged for keywords twice and both times the "offending" keyword was fine.  One was an underwater picture taken at the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, flagged for the keyword "Australia".  I forget the other one.  Both times the flagger had no images in their portfolio, so I thought they were someone out to get a keyword-reporting bonus.  However, with your information it seems more likely they were a buyer who just hit the wrong button - makes more sense.  I responded with a note both times and never heard anything back.  I try to be careful with my keywords but occasionally get a bad one in there, especially if copying from a similar image, but so far haven't been flagged for one that really was bad.

Most of my flags are from buyers - no uploads after joining the site a while ago.  Some people insult people that flag them but they could be shooting themselves in the foot if it is a buyer.  Also if somebody does a search of for instance a red apple and a green apple comes up the flag will show on both words although only one word is incorrect. 
 I sometimes flag when I see a search screwed up by a serial spammers.  I once flagged dozens of christmas images messing up a valentines's day search.   I can assure you that I couldn't care less about the couple of cents that you get but just don't want the buyers leaving the site in frustration.

Keywording, at best, is less than perfect.  Easter is a Holiday; Christmas is a Holiday.  A search for "Easter Holiday" is likely to return ALL holidays ... if they are properly keyworded with "Holiday." 
Calling this Spam is the cause of much of our disagreements. 
And, I have noticed that many of us are much more eager to criticize others than review our own shortcomings.

Does anyone really expect a resolution to the constant bickering over keywords?

And, yes, I realize much of the criticism comes from buyers.  Insulting them isn't smart.  But, isn't it the agencies job to act as go-between -- without insulting the buyer or the contributor?

[BaldricksTrousers]

So kind of you to check my keywords.  LOL  There's peaches and pears inside the Jello, and Jello is a kids' food.    

Well, you presented yourself as someone with good keywords who was getting wrongful complaints, which is pretty much an open invitation for people to check.

I could see no sign of the peaches or pears, if they are as invisible as I think they are it would be like putting "DNA, mitochondria, blood" etc. on any picture of a person, because we all contain those things. Put yourself in the mind of someone searching for peaches and pears, your red jelly could well turn up high up in that two-term search, will that meet their reaquirements?

As for "kids" (apart from them really being young goats), I think you missed the more accurate description of our yough "child, children, boys, girls" and, in any case, I still like jelly, so perhaps you should add "man, 50s, British, English" to it. See the problem? My keywords aren't perfect, either, especially on my older images.

I do understand the reasoning behind your keywords but, honestly, many of your images contain spam even though you think that the terms are a reasonable extension of the subject.  And that is probably why you get a pile of complaints. Of course, you could also be targetted by someone who sees a chance to harvest a good trawl of pennies by singling you out because dubious words are so easy to find.

Bear in mind, also, that getting images viewed without sales is likely to demote your overall search ranking, so any gain in accidental sales from spam is likely to be countered by the loss of search position for your whole portfolio.

[WarrenPrice]

So kind of you to check my keywords.  LOL  There's peaches and pears inside the Jello, and Jello is a kids' food.    

Well, you presented yourself as someone with good keywords who was getting wrongful complaints, which is pretty much an open invitation for people to check.

I could see no sign of the peaches or pears, if they are as invisible as I think they are it would be like putting "DNA, mitochondria, blood" etc. on any picture of a person, because we all contain those things. Put yourself in the mind of someone searching for peaches and pears, your red jelly could well turn up high up in that two-term search, will that meet their reaquirements?

As for "kids" (apart from them really being young goats), I think you missed the more accurate description of our yough "child, children, boys, girls" and, in any case, I still like jelly, so perhaps you should add "man, 50s, British, English" to it. See the problem? My keywords aren't perfect, either, especially on my older images.

I do understand the reasoning behind your keywords but, honestly, many of your images contain spam even though you think that the terms are a reasonable extension of the subject.  And that is probably why you get a pile of complaints. Of course, you could also be targetted by someone who sees a chance to harvest a good trawl of pennies by singling you out because dubious words are so easy to find.

Bear in mind, also, that getting images viewed without sales is likely to demote your overall search ranking, so any gain in accidental sales from spam is likely to be countered by the loss of search position for your whole portfolio.

You come across as the expert in this field, Paul.  Are you sure that your port is perfect?

[BaldricksTrousers]

Does anyone really expect a resolution to the constant bickering over keywords?

Hopefully we are not bickering. I'm just trying to explain the way the agencies tell us they want keywords done, which is less inventive than some people seem to think.

@ Karimala - if you notice, I said my portfolio is NOT perfect and that my older images are much worse than more recent ones but I haven't got time to go through them all. For a long time I have tried to stick to the rules as best as I can.

[WarrenPrice]

Does anyone really expect a resolution to the constant bickering over keywords?

Hopefully we are not bickering. I'm just trying to explain the way the agencies tell us they want keywords done, which is less inventive than some people seem to think.

@ Karimala - if you notice, I said my portfolio is NOT perfect and that my older images are much worse than more recent ones but I haven't got time to go through them all. For a long time I have tried to stick to the rules as best as I can.

My response to this (the part in bold) is what got me banned from DT.

You don't have time to mind your own business but find time to mess with others.

People in glass house should not throw stones.

[pancaketom]

Probably 3/4 of my images that get reported for spam are for the main keywords - like "lake" for a picture of a lake. I am guessing these are instances where a buyer hit the wrong button (report image instead of lightbox or zoom or something). Every once in a while there is one that just doesn't belong that I somehow stuck in there. It happens, we all do it. I fix it when I see it. We also have all seen portfolios with blatant multiple serial spamming - I think the sites should drop the boom on them.

The other problem is for sites like DT that split multiple keywords into single words. For example a picture of someone climbing at smith rock that contains the keyword "smith rock" but does not contain a smith. If it is something that would look really spammy I try to include the phrase in the description but not always.

I think all sites could greatly improve their searches by having someone go through the most popular searches and lowering the placement (by lowering the keyword weighting? or however their black magic works) for all the images that obviously don't belong on the first 3 or 4 pages of returns - maybe more for the most common search terms. While tedious, this would probably greatly improve the appearance of the searches quite quickly I think. There is nothing worse than seeing most of the images on the first page having nothing to do with the search terms.

[fotografer]

Keywording, at best, is less than perfect.  Easter is a Holiday; Christmas is a Holiday.  A search for "Easter Holiday" is likely to return ALL holidays ... if they are properly keyworded with "Holiday." 
Calling this Spam is the cause of much of our disagreements. 
And, I have noticed that many of us are much more eager to criticize others than review our own shortcomings.

Yes  agree with your examples but Christmas trees are never valentines day by any stretch of the imagination.

[BaldricksTrousers]

-

You don't have time to mind your own business but find time to mess with others.

People in glass house should not throw stones.

It seems to me that you have trouble discening the difference between offering helpful advice (such as that extra views without sales may not help your search ranking) and "messing" with the business of others. It's not as if I'm spending my time reporting other people's keywords when I should be working on my own, I've never been a "wiki warrior".

It seems to me that if people want to come and talk about keyword accuracy there is plenty of room for discussion in the spirit of sharing experience. Or should we just spend all our time as a mutual admiration group, regardless of the facts?

[Tryingmybest]

I've seen this many times but don't understand how the keyword is expressed if the button is selected accidentally?
 

Whatever keyword(s) they searched on will automatically be the ones expressed when they hit the flag button.

Exactly. Design flaw. Hopefully they'll fix it. I sent them a message about it once. And don't even try posting on their forum about the subject. It will be deleted. Send your message directly to them.

[leaf]

whenever I get a 'reported keywords' I usually respond to the note with reasoning why the keywords are in there.  Sometimes it isn't clear to the spam reporter.  Even if it is obvious I just write a note like. 

I have the words 'sore back' because this is an image of a model looking as though she has a sore back.  Perhaps you reported this by mistake?

.. unless of course the reporter is right

[Karimala]

Does anyone really expect a resolution to the constant bickering over keywords?

Hopefully we are not bickering. I'm just trying to explain the way the agencies tell us they want keywords done, which is less inventive than some people seem to think.

@ Karimala - if you notice, I said my portfolio is NOT perfect and that my older images are much worse than more recent ones but I haven't got time to go through them all. For a long time I have tried to stick to the rules as best as I can.

Why is everyone picking on me?  What did I do?  

Just kidding.  It's fine.  

I've just had some relevant keywords flagged, which I illustrated with photos in a following post.  That's all I was trying to say originally.  By no means am I an expert on keywording...too many differing opinions for anyone to be an expert.  The trick is understanding the various ways people search.  Some use only a handful of keywords, while others use a very precise description as their keywords, like "Middle" "aged" "Asian" "man" in his "40's" "wearing" a "casual" "blue" "linen" "suit" "holding" a "red" "fountain" "ink" "pen" with his "toes" "putting" or "inserting" it "inside" a "keyhole" or some crazy thing.  I know a few buyers like that.

Using my Jello photo as an example, someone might want an image of Jello with fruit, or specifically peaches and pears, inside.  Mine fits the bill.  FYI -- you can see the fruit through the Jello at larger sizes...kinda hard to see at the small size, because the Jello is fairly thick.  

What would be helpful is if the micros allowed phrasing, so I could add "kids food" as one word instead of "kids" and "food."  That way the Jello wouldn't show up when people are searching for children or goats.

[BaldricksTrousers]

What would be helpful is if the micros allowed phrasing, so I could add "kids food" as one word instead of "kids" and "food."  That way the Jello wouldn't show up when people are searching for children or goats.

Yes it would. It is problematic that some do and some don't. Istock has them, but often in a very weird way (once they've been mashed through its CA). SS seems to, but DT splits everything and list's it in alphabetical order. It also doesn't recognise anything with an apostrophe in it, splitting it into two "words" and I think SS does the same. Alamy doesn't have an automatic singular/plural condensation, I still haven't worked out which micros do or don't.

The only rational way to upload to multiple sites is to keyword and then send identical files all over, so the fact that they read keywords differently is a significant issue.

[Mantis]

I think we should form a keyword union

[Karimala]

What would be helpful is if the micros allowed phrasing, so I could add "kids food" as one word instead of "kids" and "food."  That way the Jello wouldn't show up when people are searching for children or goats.

Yes it would. It is problematic that some do and some don't. Istock has them, but often in a very weird way (once they've been mashed through its CA). SS seems to, but DT splits everything and list's it in alphabetical order. It also doesn't recognise anything with an apostrophe in it, splitting it into two "words" and I think SS does the same. Alamy doesn't have an automatic singular/plural condensation, I still haven't worked out which micros do or don't.

The only rational way to upload to multiple sites is to keyword and then send identical files all over, so the fact that they read keywords differently is a significant issue.

That's what I do.  No way am I keywording for each individual agency.  I make sure the first seven keywords are the most important (Fotolia, ease of copy/paste at Alamy), and then I include every spelling/hyphenation/apostrophe/plural variation I can think up to ensure my images are found in the worst search engines.  I also make sure to add different meanings for the same word: restaurant, cafe, bistro, diner, eatery...vintage, antique, retro, old, fashioned, old-fashioned, "old fashioned"...you get the idea.  Those 50 keywords add up quickly.   

[lisafx]

If you get a lot of keyword complaints it probably says something about your approach to keywording.

Not necessarily.  Depending on what you are defining as "a lot", it could just say something about your portfolio size, and the frequency with which you show up in searches.  The larger and more visible the port, the more likely to get keyword flags, especially since there are so many people erroneously flagging images. 

I think you are making the assumption that because you aren't getting keyword flags that anyone who is must be guilty of bad, or at least "creative" keywording.  That would only make sense if the keywords being flagged were iffy ones or conceptual ones.  Not things like "apple" for a picture of an apple, which is the type of thing that people are complaining about. 

[lisafx]

Probably 3/4 of my images that get reported for spam are for the main keywords - like "lake" for a picture of a lake. I am guessing these are instances where a buyer hit the wrong button (report image instead of lightbox or zoom or something). Every once in a while there is one that just doesn't belong that I somehow stuck in there. It happens, we all do it. I fix it when I see it. We also have all seen portfolios with blatant multiple serial spamming - I think the sites should drop the boom on them.

So true!  I don't get a huge number of keyword flags, but a couple a month and the vast majority of the time they are flagged for the most obvious keywords in the image, and frequently from non-native English speakers, who may just be confused. 

Once in a blue moon I get one on a file where the term is actually not applicable to the image - the kind where you keyword a whole series of a dog and forget to take "leash" out of the one image where the leash isn't visible. 

[BaldricksTrousers]

If you get a lot of keyword complaints it probably says something about your approach to keywording.

Not necessarily.  Depending on what you are defining as "a lot", it could just say something about your portfolio size, and the frequency with which you show up in searches.  The larger and more visible the port, the more likely to get keyword flags, especially since there are so many people erroneously flagging images. 

I think you are making the assumption that because you aren't getting keyword flags that anyone who is must be guilty of bad, or at least "creative" keywording.  That would only make sense if the keywords being flagged were iffy ones or conceptual ones.  Not things like "apple" for a picture of an apple, which is the type of thing that people are complaining about. 

Well, yes, I am making that assumption, but as you  know I've got several thousand images there and must turn up reasonably well in searches - it looks as if I have probably had more than a million views - but I think I've had fewer than 20 keyword objections in eight years. So how does a largish, reasonably high exposure portfolio get what I think everyone would agree is very few objections, while other people are saying they get a lot of them?

What has been said about the original search term automatically being flagged, rather than the objector indicating which term they object to, could play a part in this.

It seems implausible that people are accidentally clicking the wrong button on other people's portfolios but not on mine, given the number of views I've had.

[Karimala]

Just for the record...I didn't say I receive a lot of flags for poor keywording.  Out of 2,300 images, I've only had 13 flags in the five years since the keyword reporting system was initiated.

[lisafx]

I think I've had fewer than 20 keyword objections in eight years. So how does a largish, reasonably high exposure portfolio get what I think everyone would agree is very few objections, while other people are saying they get a lot of them?

I get your point about not having a lot of flags, but it isn't 8 years.  The program was introduced in July of 07, so it's 5 years. 

Out of curiosity, did you find each and every one of the keyword objections you did get at DT to be reasonable?

Also, when Istock had the wiki program, did you get any unreasonable wikis?  I know I did, and so did a lot of other people.  Which suggests to me that some people will flag or wiki images that don't have keyword spam, for a variety of reasons already suggested in this thread.   

If you have never had any unreasonable keyword objections, then I can certainly see how you would be skeptical that they are happening.  In my case, I don't get a whole lot of keyflags, but I've had enough stupid ones to be able to take other people at their word when they say they are getting them. 
 

[BaldricksTrousers]

I think I've had fewer than 20 keyword objections in eight years. So how does a largish, reasonably high exposure portfolio get what I think everyone would agree is very few objections, while other people are saying they get a lot of them?

I get your point about not having a lot of flags, but it isn't 8 years.  The program was introduced in July of 07, so it's 5 years. 

Out of curiosity, did you find each and every one of the keyword objections you did get at DT to be reasonable?

Also, when Istock had the wiki program, did you get any unreasonable wikis?  I know I did, and so did a lot of other people.  Which suggests to me that some people will flag or wiki images that don't have keyword spam, for a variety of reasons already suggested in this thread.   

If you have never had any unreasonable keyword objections, then I can certainly see how you would be skeptical that they are happening.  In my case, I don't get a whole lot of keyflags, but I've had enough stupid ones to be able to take other people at their word when they say they are getting them. 
 

I can't remember the details of each case. I do recall several times when I had (reluctantly) to admit the flag was correct.  I also remember a couple where I thought it was stupid (but that could just have been because of the search term showing up rather than the actual objection, I don't know). I had one particularly stupid one on iStock where some bright spark of a "wiki warrior" decided that parsley was cilantro and admin agreed and changed it, there was also a bunch which I thought were vindictive, stripping references to Christmas out of high-selling pictures of roast turkey dinners. However, iStock is a bit different, since they campaigned to get people to complain and some thought it was virtuous to hunt around looking for things to lodge complaints about and you never see what they've done until after Admin approves it (and you're then banned from changing it).

I certainly don't doubt that people are being honest when they say that their flags are stupid, I just wonder if their perception of proper keywording matches the micros' guidelines. For example, I have seen a picture of a camel in a zoo with temperate vegetation behind it and keywords including Arabia, Saudi, Kuwait, Sahara, Egypt etc. which I'm sure the shooter thought were appropriate but which weren't, doubly so given that the camel had two humps and originated in Central Asia.  Long, long ago, Istock wouldn't even allow me a similar keyword list on a camel (one hump) standing on a sand dune in Qatar with nothing but sand dunes visible, on the grounds the camel couldn't be in different countries and someone might know the dune wasn't in Egypt or Kuwait.