pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Keyword wiki - is it possible to complain?  (Read 18715 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 15, 2007, 20:33 »
0
I have just received an email saying:

Quote
This is just to let you know that some of your keywords have been modified. The keyword wiki allows members to suggest changes to an image's keywords. Our team agreed with the suggestion in this case. The keyword change was to your file 'Bowl of granola'.

The list of words that were added to your list:
Isolated On White (Isolated), Copy Space (Composition), Grained (Textured)

The list of words that were removed from your list:
Corn Flakes (Cereal), low cal (Un-placed Synonyms), Low (Descriptive Position), Inch (Imperial), Unhealthy Eating (Food And Drink), Corn (Vegetable), flakes (Un-placed Synonyms), Oatmeal (Oat), Macro (Close-up), Horizontal (Composition)


"Grained texture"?  Did they remove "Corn Flakes" and "Oatmeal", which are there?  "Corn" and "flakes" separately I understand and agree (it must have been a split from "corn flakes" that I haven't corrected well).  "Low" and "Unhealthy eating" come from "Low fat", which was also split.  "Low cal" I suggested long ago to be added to the CV.  And isn't that a "Macro" shot?  I use horizontal/vertical in all my images.  I can't figure out how "inch" got there, I suppose it was some other combined keyword "xxx in yyy" which was also split.

Any experiences in sending Scout a message (and wait wait wait) about this?

Regards,
Adelaide


« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2007, 23:45 »
0
Well you contact the admin 'keywords', who's real name is Jordan I believe, if you are going to complain. However, I don't think Jordan will over rule this one. It's not corn flakes or oatmeal. The photo doesn't show low (position), unhealthy eating, corn, or macro. Nor is it a horizontal composition.

Disclaimer: I didn't wiki your file (nor would I for such nit-picky things).

Edited to say, do you think that the removed keywords will actually hurt your sales of that photo? Someone who's looking for oatmeal probably wants a photo of oatmeal, not a bowl of granola. Just a thought
« Last Edit: August 15, 2007, 23:49 by yingyang0 »

« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2007, 03:58 »
0
I agree completely with yingyang0, I don't think that you have a case to get those keywords put back.

« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2007, 16:34 »
0
Well, I eat that granola everyday, and I know there are "corn flakes" and "oatmeal" in there.

Other words, as I said, were originally composed words - I think I didn't make it clear (despite the "I understand and agree") that I wasn't complaining about those, only explaining why they were there, so you wouldn't think I was spamming.  But I don't agree with you about "macro" and "horizontal".

I often email Jordan when I see problems in CV, unfortunately I don't see keywords I suggest being added, even valid ones.  Can't you imagine someone typing "low fat food"? But "low fat" isn't in CV.  You can find some images in the search, but if you see their keywords, you will see "low" and "fat" separately.  It's hard to imagine a salad with "fat" as a valid keyword.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2007, 18:06 »
0
Well I'm a honey bunches of oats man myself, and I'm sure that there are corn flakes and oatmeal in there. However, from the clients and istock's point of view a search for corn flakes or oatmeal should not return your image because that's not what they're looking for. If they're looking for cereal in general or specifically for granola, then yours will still turn up (I'm assuming you have that as a keyword). However, someone that types in oatmeal or corn flakes is not looking for a photo of granola. I really feel that the changes won't have an effect on your sales of that photo (and that's what it is all about).

As for low fat food, the CV does contain healthy eating (and low fat maps to healthy eating, i.e. a search for "low fat" returns the same result as "healthy eating").
« Last Edit: August 16, 2007, 18:07 by yingyang0 »

« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2007, 20:09 »
0
As for low fat food, the CV does contain healthy eating (and low fat maps to healthy eating, i.e. a search for "low fat" returns the same result as "healthy eating").

True, but you'll only get there if you enter the search phrase in quotation marks - a more intuitive search using low fat or low calorie would have found her image, whereas now it won't.

« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2007, 20:39 »
0
As for low fat food, the CV does contain healthy eating (and low fat maps to healthy eating, i.e. a search for "low fat" returns the same result as "healthy eating").

True, but you'll only get there if you enter the search phrase in quotation marks - a more intuitive search using low fat or low calorie would have found her image, whereas now it won't.
The "beta" search returned the same result without quotation marks. Just thought I'd point out the value of the beta search tool.

« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2008, 21:54 »
0


Keyword "rose (temperate flower)" was removed.   ???

Also "copy space" and rosebud, plus some stretches such as passion and valentine's day, which however appear in many many images, so mine get in disadvantage.

I opened a contact ticket, but it takes so long...

Regards,
Adelaide

DanP68

« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2008, 23:44 »
0
It's just another one of iStock's "great ideas."  Turning the community against each other.  And you can tell the admin isn't actually looking at the picture, they are just hitting "okay."  I mean, why would they remove the word "rose" when it's a freaking rose?  I also guarantee you there are a lot more independent contributors being wiki'd than there are exclusives.

I have to say that every time I see this stuff, I get a little more sick of microstock.  It seems like kindergarten run amok.  I cannot imagine this stuff goes on in the RM world.

« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2008, 09:22 »
0
It's just another one of iStock's "great ideas."  Turning the community against each other.  And you can tell the admin isn't actually looking at the picture, they are just hitting "okay."  I mean, why would they remove the word "rose" when it's a freaking rose?  I also guarantee you there are a lot more independent contributors being wiki'd than there are exclusives.

I have to say that every time I see this stuff, I get a little more sick of microstock.  It seems like kindergarten run amok.  I cannot imagine this stuff goes on in the RM world.

Well said!  The management of the micro sites seems to becoming more and more amateurish. It's especially true when it comes to how they interact with their contributors.  They treat us like children.  I'm assuming this doesn't happen to exclusives or at least to the same degree as it happens to the rest of us peons.

« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2008, 09:38 »
0
I had the word children taken out of what was my best selling image of a group of children.  I put it straight back in as I didn't want to waste days of sales while they sorted it out.  If there had of been any doubt about the keyword then I would have sent off to 'keywords' to get it put back  but if I was asked to give a priority order to my keywords on that image my first word would be children.

« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2008, 09:43 »
0
So who is it that's reviewing these images and changing the keywords?  Is anyone allowed to do it?  How can they get away with removing the word children from an image of children?  What if someone is doing that to a best selling image to reduce competition of their own images?  Is there no way to complain without waiting weeks?  Sounds to me like they're allowing the fox into the chicken coop!

« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2008, 10:33 »
0


Keyword "rose (temperate flower)" was removed.   ???

Also "copy space" and rosebud, plus some stretches such as passion and valentine's day, which however appear in many many images, so mine get in disadvantage.

I opened a contact ticket, but it takes so long...

Regards,
Adelaide


This is ridicolus. A rose is a rose. And even Valentines Day seems to be ok for me. You would not be able to shoot "a" Valentines Day, same like "Easter" or "Spring" What most of our images show are synonymes for these things. Of course an easter-bunny "is"  not easter. But it symbolizes easter as well as a rose means "love"

And it is not the case , that every buyer always exactly types in the keyword for what he is looking for. He might just play around to get the right idea. Let's say he wants to created a valentines card and is not yet sure if it should show a heart, two people or a rose or whatever. So he might search for "Valentines Day" and will end up with a photo that shows a rose and a bottle of champagne that perfectly illustrates what he wants to express. An image, that he would never have found if it wouldn't have the keyword "Valentines Day"

Of course, keyword spamming is not ok, but beeing too picky is just time consuming and doesn't do any good.

Sorry for my english...  :)
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 10:35 by Anegada »

tan510jomast

« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2008, 10:42 »
0
Well you contact the admin 'keywords', who's real name is Jordan I believe, if you are going to complain. However, I don't think Jordan will over rule this one. It's not corn flakes or oatmeal. ...


as much as i think that is a good image you have there, (congrats),
i have to agree with yingyang0.
when i first started, i uploaded to some sites a product shot of the indian specialty dish " chicken korma" , and learning from  other published product shots there, i added extraneous words like they did ( ingredient, spice, herb, sauce, indian, garlic,etc).
i later realise that was irrelevant and accounts for keyword spamming.
also, i got lots of views but no sales. perharps many were expecting
to find an indian  ;D
  a lesson to myself, just because someone who has been there longest
does wrong and keyword spam, does not make it right, or even beneficial, for a newbie to ape.
 sometimes, less is more.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 10:52 by tan510jomast »

« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2008, 10:48 »
0
Somebody took my picture of a dog sitting on grass (nothing else in the shot) - took out the word "dog" (ok??)
and replaced it with "mixed breed"

The dog is one of those Chihauhau/Pomeranian crosses.  What if you don't know what kind of dog you want?

Search dog and see what comes up.


tan510jomast

« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2008, 10:59 »
0
Somebody took my picture of a dog sitting on grass (nothing else in the shot) - took out the word "dog" (ok??)
and replaced it with "mixed breed"

The dog is one of those Chihauhau/Pomeranian crosses.  What if you don't know what kind of dog you want?

Search dog and see what comes up.



once again, allow me to make an educated guess, PenelopeB  ;)
i think the reviewer found dog to be too general.

i did lots of spamming in my early days, and still find that all i got was lots of views no sales. but the ones i went back in to edit to 7 or 8 keywords, now are recording sales with numbers like these:
2 sales, 5 views.  1 sale 2 views. 1 sub, 2 sales , 7 views.

so there is some sense to not mislead the visitors. the danger here is
that these might stop coming to your site if there were too many false alarms. if you know what i mean.

cheers. let's hope for better sales with more accurate keywording...
for all of us.


« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2008, 11:08 »
0
Somebody took my picture of a dog sitting on grass (nothing else in the shot) - took out the word "dog" (ok??)
and replaced it with "mixed breed"

The dog is one of those Chihauhau/Pomeranian crosses.  What if you don't know what kind of dog you want?

Search dog and see what comes up.



once again, allow me to make an educated guess, PenelopeB  ;)
i think the reviewer found dog to be too general.


Too general?  I don't agree with that statement at all.  What if a designer just needs a picture of a dog - no specific breed.  Wouldn't they search on the term "dog?" 

vonkara

« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2008, 11:09 »
0
Wow, it's going crazy out there.

Recently I haved images rejected for keywords and just re-uploaded it whitout the keywords they wasn't want. That was never happened before, but it's ok. Now if they review even the old pictures? At least they make the change for us! But then it could be a bad thing also.

« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2008, 11:23 »
0
Somebody took my picture of a dog sitting on grass (nothing else in the shot) - took out the word "dog" (ok??)
and replaced it with "mixed breed"

The dog is one of those Chihauhau/Pomeranian crosses.  What if you don't know what kind of dog you want?

Search dog and see what comes up.



once again, allow me to make an educated guess, PenelopeB  ;)
i think the reviewer found dog to be too general.

i did lots of spamming in my early days, and still find that all i got was lots of views no sales. but the ones i went back in to edit to 7 or 8 keywords, now are recording sales with numbers like these:
2 sales, 5 views.  1 sale 2 views. 1 sub, 2 sales , 7 views.


Are you saying that calling a dog a dog is spamming????  So I could not call a woman a woman, or a tree a tree?

Ok... i'm done here - bye bye!

jsnover

« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2008, 12:05 »
0
Somebody took my picture of a dog sitting on grass (nothing else in the shot) - took out the word "dog" (ok??)
and replaced it with "mixed breed"

The dog is one of those Chihauhau/Pomeranian crosses.  What if you don't know what kind of dog you want?

Search dog and see what comes up.

Of course it's great to have the breed, but having the keyword dog is essential. If I search for black dog or brown dog or small dog because I don't care about mixed breed or specific breed, why should I not get useful results.

I used to advocate going through the process to get the keywords added back in (although that never worked) but honestly at this point I think that just adding in the ones that make obvious sense is the only thing to do.

tan510jomast

« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2008, 12:41 »
0
I am sure many of us have had our keywords or even description and category omitted by a reviewer.
But vonkara is right, it's getting more usual these days.
Oh well, I guess the best thing to do is to give the reviewers the benefit of the doubt. After all, they're the editors.
Me? I just keeping shooting and keep submitting.

« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2008, 12:54 »
0
I am sure many of us have had our keywords or even description and category omitted by a reviewer.
But vonkara is right, it's getting more usual these days.
Oh well, I guess the best thing to do is to give the reviewers the benefit of the doubt. After all, they're the editors.
Me? I just keeping shooting and keep submitting.
Just shooting and submitting may be not enough nowadays. I think the market for images is oversaturated already and only people with PS skills and talented illustrators can hope to make real money from microstock.  I think also that people with established portfolios may not be loosing much due to oversaturation since customers return. 

« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2008, 13:48 »
0
This keyword thing is getting ridiculous.  I have an email from IS that these terms were removed from an aerial view of Manhattan:

Paris Metro Train (Subway Train), Paris Metro Sign (Subway Sign), Subway Station (Station), Chaos (Concepts)

Well yes, that makes perfect sense to remove those words since it isn't Paris or anything to do with a subway!  What I'd like to know is how those words got on my image in the first place!  I don't keyword spam - never have, never will.  I've never even been to Paris!!

jsnover

« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2008, 15:15 »
0
I think the way that you can get some oddball terms on your images - that you didn't put there - is when they change the CV.

I believe they have the option when they add terms to have them on or off by default. So you enter metro which at the time you enter it maps to Subway Station. Later they add the two Paris terms and turn them on by default. You then end up with a spammed image that they spammed for you.

Sometimes the default on is good - when they changed how the various Isolated and Isolated on White terms mapped in the early CV days. A number of us screamed that we didn't want to have to in and hand edit hundreds of isolated files that we'd already edited to "disambiguate" them.

If the promised batch editing tools had ever been made available, this sort of thing would be easy to fix. Note to contributors (be nice if they could target those contributors with files that contain those keywords - that's the sort of database stuff computers are made for). Batch edit the files to fix up your files and all's done in minutes...

« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2008, 19:18 »
0
I opened a contact ticket, but it takes so long...
No. Contact the user Keywords at iStock. He's take care of it and as long as you don't modify the file he'll be able to see which keyword admin is responsible for such a silly mistake.

DanP68

« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2008, 19:52 »
0

once again, allow me to make an educated guess, PenelopeB  ;)
i think the reviewer found dog to be too general.


I thought you said were going to make an "educated" guess. 

No, there are no reviewers checking this stuff.  They are just hitting "okay" and accepting the word of the wiki warrior.  Which means if I decide to identify images which compete with my best sellers, all I have to do is wiki their most important keywords and they will be removed, effectively killing the image.

Another huge mistake.  Instead of stopping spam, they have created a new way for people to get an unfair edge...by killing off competing images.

Meanwhile Shutterstock and Dreamstime sales keep motoring along.  At least a few companies have their eye on the ball.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 19:57 by DanP68 »

« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2008, 21:47 »
0
Just to clarify, this isn't a new image, someone "wiki'ed" it.  I have done that too.  I once did a search for "red satin background" to see how one of my images was doing in the search (it used to sell well, then it stalled), and I found many blue or green satin or materials that were obviously NOT satin.  try that search and even at the first page you find wrong images.  THAT is spamming!

The dog example is also so stupid!  A dog is a dog, even if you don't know what breed.  The breed just adds information, what is good.

Yingyang, are you sure I should email the keyword staff about this? I've contacted them in the past to suggest additions or corrections to the CV.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2008, 07:49 »
0
Yingyang, are you sure I should email the keyword staff about this? I've contacted them in the past to suggest additions or corrections to the CV.

Regards,
Adelaide
Yes. I've done it every time one of the keywording staff has made a big mistake (like taking the keyword monkey away from a photo of a monkey). Keywords, I forget his real name, needs to know when images are done incorrectly so he can education the person that was making the mistakes. Also, don't add the keywords back in because the iStock system only logs the last person that modified the file so if you do then Keywords won't be able to find out who edited your file.

« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2008, 07:54 »
0
In the past I've had pretty quick responses by emailing Jordan (that's the real name of the istock admin, Keywords) - I've had keywords removed in error restored pretty quickly. He's been a bit slower replying to emails recently though. If you add back the keywords yourself, he can't backtrack and work out who was responsible for removing the keywords incorrectly, so it's better to do it that way (or that's what he told me anyway).

lisafx

« Reply #29 on: July 10, 2008, 09:59 »
0
I think the way that you can get some oddball terms on your images - that you didn't put there - is when they change the CV.


Another way you can get oddball terms added to your images is when some idiot wiki's them.  I just had an image of chinese egg rolls come through the wiki with the term "asian food" removed and the term "fried egg" added!  No kidding.  They added "fried egg" to a picture of egg rolls. 

I would say literally half the wiki'd files I get back have some similar type of craziness.  The number of problems seems to defy the odds of mere mistakes slipping through the cracks.  The wiki started off as a great idea but seems to have degenerated into a free-for-all with no apparent oversight.   

tan510jomast

« Reply #30 on: July 10, 2008, 10:10 »
0

once again, allow me to make an educated guess, PenelopeB  ;)
i think the reviewer found dog to be too general.


I thought you said were going to make an "educated" guess. 

No, there are no reviewers checking this stuff.  They are just hitting "okay" and accepting the word of the wiki warrior.  Which means if I decide to identify images which compete with my best sellers, all I have to do is wiki their most important keywords and they will be removed, effectively killing the image.

Another huge mistake.  Instead of stopping spam, they have created a new way for people to get an unfair edge...by killing off competing images.


my misunderstanding then, DanP68.
i thought it was the reviewer checking off your keyword
like at times, a BigStock does during review.

If , as you informed me, that it is actually
some other contributor(s) "wiki"-ing my keywords,
then this is absurd.

 as you say, they now have the power to kill off their competition.
a gross misuse, i agree.
cheers for telling me .

tan510jomast

« Reply #31 on: July 10, 2008, 10:16 »
0
 ??? sorry , over reactive keyboard ;D
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 10:35 by tan510jomast »

GWB

« Reply #32 on: July 10, 2008, 10:46 »
0
I think the way that you can get some oddball terms on your images - that you didn't put there - is when they change the CV.


Another way you can get oddball terms added to your images is when some idiot wiki's them.  I just had an image of chinese egg rolls come through the wiki with the term "asian food" removed and the term "fried egg" added!  No kidding.  They added "fried egg" to a picture of egg rolls. 

I would say literally half the wiki'd files I get back have some similar type of craziness.  The number of problems seems to defy the odds of mere mistakes slipping through the cracks.  The wiki started off as a great idea but seems to have degenerated into a free-for-all with no apparent oversight.   


I can relate Lisa.  I just had a keyword correction on a picture of some sushi rolls.  They are wrapped in rice, which is clearly visible, but they removed "rice" from keywords.   What got me me was the two the words they added--  "nobody" and "entrée."   I kid you not.

I have no idea what language that last word belongs to!  lol

G~

lisafx

« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2008, 11:09 »
0

...What got me me was the two the words they added--  "nobody" and "entrée."   I kid you not.

I have no idea what language that last word belongs to!  lol

G~


LOL!  I would love to see a thread on the dumbest wiki results.  You deserve some sort of prize for that one!   

GWB

« Reply #34 on: July 10, 2008, 11:43 »
0

...What got me me was the two the words they added--  "nobody" and "entrée."   I kid you not.

I have no idea what language that last word belongs to!  lol

G~


LOL!  I would love to see a thread on the dumbest wiki results.  You deserve some sort of prize for that one!   

Indeed!  I'm sure it would be a good read.  :)

vonkara

« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2008, 12:51 »
0
Some jokers are abusing right now. I hope the IS staff will make them stop shortly

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2008, 13:00 »
0

Another way you can get oddball terms added to your images is when some idiot wiki's them. 

So, a "widiot"?   ;D

tan510jomast

« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2008, 14:12 »
0
Some jokers are abusing right now. I hope the IS staff will make them stop shortly

just curious as i never look at the wiki-whatnot...
do you have to log in to wiki someone's keywords?
if so, then it won't be too difficult for IS to find the "widiot(s)" who is (are)
abusing it.

DanP68

« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2008, 16:06 »
0
It's clearly being abused.  This is just another under-handed way for people with bad intentions to mess with your portfolio.  And iStock opened the door for them to do it.

lisafx

« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2008, 17:14 »
0

So, a "widiot"?   ;D

Good one!  :D

BTW, hope nobody thinks my frustration is directed at everyone who wikis.  Lots of folks took it seriously and did a fair and reasonable job at it.  It's just the boneheads and overzealous that I object to...

« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2008, 19:28 »
0
As far as I understand, you can not just "wiki" someone's image, it goes through some reviewer before changes are accepted.  So there is someone approving these incorrect changes.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2008, 20:04 »
0
I may be confused here, but I use Controlled Vocabulary in Lightroom. 

When I put something in Mixed Breed, it gets added to:

Mixed Breed, Dog, Pet, Animal

Is this a case of not understanding how CV works?  Mixed Breed is a keyword IN dog.  You get both.   Someone did you a favor by moving it down 2 levels.

I'm bad with Istock so they may not use it the "right" way - but this is how CV is intended to work.

« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2008, 20:38 »
0
I may be confused here, but I use Controlled Vocabulary in Lightroom. 

When I put something in Mixed Breed, it gets added to:

Mixed Breed, Dog, Pet, Animal

Is this a case of not understanding how CV works?  Mixed Breed is a keyword IN dog.  You get both.   Someone did you a favor by moving it down 2 levels.

We're talking about IS's CV - is it the same as Lightroom's?

Anyway, in that dog example, "dog" was removed, the breed was added.  Therefore someone looking for "dog", not for a specific breed, won't find this image.  The same goes for my case, in which "rose" was removed, so it won't show in a search for roses.  Given that it is a photo of a rose - no stretch here - this removal was not only bad for my image's performance, but it's also totally inappropriate.

Regards,
Adelaide

tan510jomast

« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2008, 20:47 »
0
So let's get something clear here.
It's not that you are against being helped with your keywords,
but who ask them to come in and correct your keywords
unsolicited, right?

If it were a reviewer who did that at the time of submission, I can accept that. But , like most of you here who is pissed off, I think it's because
some wise ass wikidiot just poke the nose into where no one asked them, right?

So the big question is to ask these noseypuckers, "Oi, who died and made you ... the King (Queen) Wikidiot? STAY AWAY FROM OUR KEYWORDS.
If we want your help, we'll ask for it..."   ::)
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 20:51 by tan510jomast »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2008, 20:56 »
0
Hmmm, I like Wikidiot too.

« Reply #45 on: July 10, 2008, 21:42 »
0
BTW, hope nobody thinks my frustration is directed at everyone who wikis.  Lots of folks took it seriously and did a fair and reasonable job at it.  It's just the boneheads and overzealous that I object to...
I took it seriously until I realized it was futile. I never wiki'ed anyones file that could be in competition with mine. Instead I wiki'ed like crazy where I had tried to find a photo and couldn't because people had spammed the topic to death. For instance, gambling photos. When I had tried to purchase a photo of Las Vegas all I got was pages and pages of isolated dice, playing cards, and the welcome to las vegas sign. After a while I realized that the wiki system was futile because images were being approved with spam faster than anyone could stop them.

« Reply #46 on: July 10, 2008, 21:51 »
0
We're talking about IS's CV - is it the same as Lightroom's?

Anyway, in that dog example, "dog" was removed, the breed was added.  Therefore someone looking for "dog", not for a specific breed, won't find this image.  The same goes for my case, in which "rose" was removed, so it won't show in a search for roses.

I think it's the same.  You wouldn't SEE the keyword dog, but it should be there as upper levels of the heirarchy.  Otherwise there's no sense to using controlled vocabulary.  That's EXACTLY what it is - a heirarchy so that ALL "chihuahua" photos are in dog.  ALL dog photos are in pet.  ALL pet photos are in animal.  I'm pretty certain that's how it works, meaning the person did the dog photographer a favor.  What was added when rose was removed?  Something more specific or nothing?  Nothing = error. 

As far as CV - this is the way it should work.  Let me find an example...

« Reply #47 on: July 10, 2008, 22:15 »
0
The iStock CV does not work that way, ie, search for dog and anything under dog comes back.  The Getty one does though.

« Reply #48 on: July 11, 2008, 03:17 »
0
So are you saying that if I put in 'group of people' and then check 'large group of people' that my image would only be found by somebody that puts in 'large group of people' but not by somebody that puts in 'group of people'?  I always assumed that it would be found on both as if not the image would be found in a lot less searches and would be seriously disadvantaged by checking any of the boxes.

The iStock CV does not work that way, ie, search for dog and anything under dog comes back.  The Getty one does though.

« Reply #49 on: July 11, 2008, 15:34 »
0
No, it shouldn't come up.

« Reply #50 on: July 11, 2008, 18:19 »
0
It's not that you are against being helped with your keywords, but who ask them to come in and correct your keywords unsolicited, right?

If it were a reviewer who did that at the time of submission, I can accept that. But , like most of you here who is pissed off, I think it's because
some wise ass wikidiot just poke the nose into where no one asked them, right?


No.  Anyone may suggest corrections, and I'm fine with that.  My complaint is about IS staff (reviewers or whoever) accept wrong suggestions, or accept deletion of widely used stretches.

What was added when rose was removed?  Something more specific or nothing?  Nothing = error.


Added keywords:
right: Nobody (Image), Studio Shot (Indoors), Front View (Viewpoint),
wrong: Focus On Foreground (Selective Focus) -> focus is on the rose, which is not on the foreground but rather more midway into the image
wrong: Series (Composition) -> unless it refers to a series of images, this image had just one flower

About IS' CV, as far as I know, although Brazil is under South America, if I don't explicitly type both keywords (or type S.A. and under it pick also Brazil), if one searching for South America won't find images with only "Brazil" as a keyword.

Do these searches:
"south america" beach
brazil beach

and see that this image appears only in the second list.


Why it has Brazil in it beats me, but that's another thing.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #51 on: July 11, 2008, 23:55 »
0
Then it's not Controlled Vocabulary. 

Controlled Vocabulary is a heirarchical keywording system.  Which means *by definition* that keywords are embedded deeper & deeper into a heirarchy.  lol 

I'm going to have to email IS about this or something. 

If you search chihuahua, yes you should get chihuahua photos only.  I'm saying the other way around - if you search dog, you SHOULD get all those chihuahua photos TOO.  Let's put it this way:

If your keywords are animal, pet, dog and you search chihuahua, you SHOULD find your image.  That's *what* Controlled Vocabulary is.  It's not some random "way" of doing keywording that Istock made up.  It's a brand name.  http://www.controlledvocabulary.com  That's what they do - heirarchies. lol

SJ - you're exclusive?  Why don't YOU email this to Istock and see what they say?  They'll get back to you about 8 times faster than they will me.

« Reply #52 on: July 12, 2008, 09:02 »
0
Here's the thread where we discussed this once:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=44189&messageid=643393

You're welcome :)

lisafx

« Reply #53 on: July 12, 2008, 09:40 »
0
That thread seems to cover the issue alright. 

More than a year and a half later and the searches still aren't cleaned up enough to enable that feature?   How sad.....

« Reply #54 on: July 12, 2008, 10:30 »
0
So basically I'm right it works that way and you are right it doesn't on Istock because of keyword spammers.  LOL  Very cool.  I love microstock.  Yep, I'd add dog back to that image. lol

« Reply #55 on: July 12, 2008, 15:23 »
0
So basically I'm right it works that way and you are right it doesn't on Istock because of keyword spammers.  LOL  Very cool.  I love microstock.  Yep, I'd add dog back to that image. lol

I don't remember ever reading in their explanations when CV was introduced that it would work that way.  That would be a smart thing in many cases (like with "Brazil", not having to add "South America" and "Latin America", or the dog/chihuahua example).  But then I have to keyword for other sites, so I would have to add the parent terms anyway.

Regards,
Adelaide


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
5612 Views
Last post July 08, 2012, 12:08
by cascoly
21 Replies
7440 Views
Last post May 16, 2011, 07:37
by lagereek
13 Replies
6167 Views
Last post July 25, 2012, 21:08
by Suljo
10 Replies
4866 Views
Last post November 22, 2013, 19:19
by eZeePics
32 Replies
9015 Views
Last post May 06, 2014, 18:08
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors