iStock SEO Testing‏

[rimglow]

A Google search for "an adorable little boy and dog in the sand" shows the iStock image turning up 3rd in the images listed.

[shudderstok]

But titles and descriptions aren't part of the search, so messing with those won't directly affect buyer happiness while using the site.

I beg to differ. Titles and descriptions have always been key in finding an image. It's known as the IPTC. Been in use since the 70's and vital to finding images everywhere. Just sayin.

That said, I think IS has a lot more than SEO problems. GI needs to understand they can't keep screwing everyone over, both buyers and contributors for the sole benefit of themselves.

Also it seems a silly thing to do by Lobo to send out an article on SEO in a matter of fact manner, then a few days or week later send out emails to the select few and ask them if they can use their images to test if this is true and works. - That is kinda dumb and also shows how messed up the company is.

[ShadySue]

I'm not part of this experiment, and if they'd be inserting stupid descriptions like their example of the boy and dog, I'm very glad.

A Google search for "an adorable little boy and dog in the sand" shows the iStock image turning up 3rd in the images listed.

Maybe so. I wonder how many buyers would search on that string?
And we don't know where it was on Google Search before, if you searched for its previous title or description.

One of my files shows top on Google under "Young adult male African Elephant wading in the Chobe River" which is the first sentence of its description, but similarly, I doubt if (m)any buyer(s) would search Google with that search looking for a stock image to licence.

In Google Image Search, I have files at #3, #5, #11 and #12 for "Iceberg in Trinity Bay, Newfoundland"

All it proves is that the title and description should be relevant. It doesn't prove that their stupid story about the 'adorable' boy building a sandcastle and the dog knocking it down has done anything to improve its position.

Added: doesn't Google take into account your previous searches when serving you up results? So what I get and what someone else gets could be very different.

[tickstock]

All it proves is that the title and description should be relevant. It doesn't prove that their stupid story about the 'adorable' boy building a sandcastle and the dog knocking it down has done anything to improve its position.

You sound very angry about this, maybe you should just leave your titles and descriptions alone.  I don't see how trying to get a better search position in Google is in any way harming you? 
BTW there is another image in the series showing the boy building a sandcastle with the dog so it's not so ridiculous if you look at it in context.

[Anchan]

I had also googled "an adorable little boy and dog in the sand". No results on main page. The image was in the first line in "pictures", though. However, it was not the istock one. It was the repost of the image, leading me to page 1 of this very discussion! 

[Jo Ann Snover]

In Google Image Search, I have files at #3, #5, #11 and #12 for "Iceberg in Trinity Bay, Newfoundland"

All it proves is that the title and description should be relevant. It doesn't prove that their stupid story about the 'adorable' boy building a sandcastle and the dog knocking it down has done anything to improve its position.

Added: doesn't Google take into account your previous searches when serving you up results? So what I get and what someone else gets could be very different.

5, 11, 13, 28 are the positions I see for that image search - and I've never done it before - FWIW.

[ShadySue]

In Google Image Search, I have files at #3, #5, #11 and #12 for "Iceberg in Trinity Bay, Newfoundland"

All it proves is that the title and description should be relevant. It doesn't prove that their stupid story about the 'adorable' boy building a sandcastle and the dog knocking it down has done anything to improve its position.

Added: doesn't Google take into account your previous searches when serving you up results? So what I get and what someone else gets could be very different.

5, 11, 13, 28 are the positions I see for that image search - and I've never done it before - FWIW.

I've never searched Google for these images or with that string before either so that's interesting.

[ShadySue]

All it proves is that the title and description should be relevant. It doesn't prove that their stupid story about the 'adorable' boy building a sandcastle and the dog knocking it down has done anything to improve its position.

You sound very angry about this, maybe you should just leave your titles and descriptions alone.  I don't see how trying to get a better search position in Google is in any way harming you? 
BTW there is another image in the series showing the boy building a sandcastle with the dog so it's not so ridiculous if you look at it in context.

Stop getting personal. And don't attribute emotions that you know nothing about. Thank you.

I just wish they would focus on what's important, especially keyword spamming.

The fact that another image shows the sandcastle thing better is totally irrelevant to that particular image.

I was just questioning whether their recent change to the description has done anything to improve that file's position, as I have no idea what the previous description was or how highly it previously ranked on Google.

Also it's unproven by how much improving Google SEO would actually lead to better sales. Maybe we should monitor that file to find out. Improving its SEO might not do harm, unless more people would find images and steal them (removing watermarks or not, as lots of us have examples of usages of watermarked files).

[ShadySue]

I had also googled "an adorable little boy and dog in the sand". No results on main page. The image was in the first line in "pictures", though. However, it was not the istock one. It was the repost of the image, leading me to page 1 of this very discussion! 

Yes, that's exactly what I found.
Clicking on the photo in Google images brought me to this thread, NOT to the iStock page where one could purchase the image.

I've noticed before that msg has very good SEO.

If iS believes that good Google SEO would help sales, they should study FAA, which whatever negative one might have against them, at least has excellent SEO.

[tickstock]

I just wish they would focus on what's important, especially keyword spamming.

The fact that another image shows the sandcastle thing better is totally irrelevant to that particular image.

The image is part of a series.  One image shows the dog and boy building the sandcastle another shows it being destroyed. 

[Shelma1]

I don't know whether this approach will help or not. But it seems to be an iStock problem rather than a title/description problem. When I search "boy dog beach" I get some DT and Getty images up pretty high in the results, but I gave up looking for iStock results.

The question is, who's going to use a different title/description for iStock uploads vs. uploads everywhere else? It just adds another layer of * complexity to their already complex * upload process. I guess it might help exclusives, if it works.

My Symbiostock images usually appear fairly high in google search, alone with my Shutterstock images. But I use the same title/description/keywords everywhere.

("t i m e - s u c k i n g" is a no-no? Weird.)
I guess we'll see.

[ShadySue]

I just wish they would focus on what's important, especially keyword spamming.

The fact that another image shows the sandcastle thing better is totally irrelevant to that particular image.

The image is part of a series.  One image shows the dog and boy building the sandcastle another shows it being destroyed.

The description on the better image is also relevant to the image "Adorable little boy and dog build a sandcastle together and place a feather for the finishing touch - on the coast of Oregon." (I accept that 'adorable' is an American usage, although it grates on me.)
Surely it would make more sense to have the description indicating it was part of a series, and for the links to show thums of the alternate image, rather than just words indicating a 'similar' image, which could mean anything, not necessarily that it was part of a series.
I also question the value of putting 'Oregon' on such a generic image. Someone looking for Oregon wants to see evidence of something recogniseable; and it might put off someone wanting to use a generic beach (or might not, but why take the risk?).

[Lightrecorder]

LMAO ! If I search for an adorable little boy and dog in the sand I get this as first hit http://www.shutterstock.com/s/beach+cute+dog+little/search.html

That is just too funny. Well done IS... hahahaha

[tickstock]

LMAO ! If I search for an adorable little boy and dog in the sand I get this as first hit http://www.shutterstock.com/s/beach+cute+dog+little/search.html

That is just too funny. Well done IS... hahahaha

Not me the first stock image result (3rd overall) is the one from istock.  I'm not sure what your link is supposed to show, it's a Shutterstock search using different keywords and the first image is of a little girl with a dog.

[Lightrecorder]

I don't know whether this approach will help or not. But it seems to be an iStock problem rather than a title/description problem. When I search "boy dog beach" I get some DT and Getty images up pretty high in the results, but I gave up looking for iStock results.

The question is, who's going to use a different title/description for iStock uploads vs. uploads everywhere else? It just adds another layer of * complexity to their already complex * upload process. I guess it might help exclusives, if it works.

My Symbiostock images usually appear fairly high in google search, alone with my Shutterstock images. But I use the same title/description/keywords everywhere.

("t i m e - s u c k i n g" is a no-no? Weird.)
I guess we'll see.

I have a feeling Lobo read this thread http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/new-site-stocktal/ and figured he would tell the bosses to give it a shot, since they have no clue anyway, they went with it. LOL

Everyone creaming over SEO lately, tomorrow its all different again when Google changes their algorithm.

Worst part is, what if all agencies start to demand differentiating titles and descriptions....  brrrrrrr

[Lightrecorder]

LMAO ! If I search for an adorable little boy and dog in the sand I get this as first hit http://www.shutterstock.com/s/beach+cute+dog+little/search.html

That is just too funny. Well done IS... hahahaha

Not me the first stock image result (3rd overall) is the one from istock.  I'm not sure what your link is supposed to show, it's a Shutterstock search using different keywords and the first image is of a little girl with a dog.

You are a bit slow, no? When I search for an Istock image title on Google, the first hit is a link to Shutterstock. Irony. Get it?

[Anchan]

This just shows how much thinking went into selection of examples for that article... If only the author would pick a unique image, not part of the series! Or the other one - with the feather....  Than I would simply read the article through and bin it without second thought. Humbly submitting my work for re-editing - I am not a native speaker after all.

IMHO the testers shot themselves in the leg allowing that slip. Twice - with Lobo deciding to defend the bad example.

[tickstock]

LMAO ! If I search for an adorable little boy and dog in the sand I get this as first hit http://www.shutterstock.com/s/beach+cute+dog+little/search.html

That is just too funny. Well done IS... hahahaha

Not me the first stock image result (3rd overall) is the one from istock.  I'm not sure what your link is supposed to show, it's a Shutterstock search using different keywords and the first image is of a little girl with a dog.

You are a bit slow, no? When I search for an Istock image title on Google, the first hit is a link to Shutterstock. Irony. Get it?

I guess it might be ironic if that were the case, I like others see the istock image first though and your link shows a search on Shutterstock not Google for different keywords than the one you said you searched for.  I must be slow because I don't get why you would show a different search result on Shutterstock to illustrate what a search on Google is.  I wouldn't expect to see an exclusive iStock image show up first on a search at Shutterstock.

[Holmes]

just put...
"free stock photos" in front of your description and you will own Google

[chromaco]

It's interesting that Istock is going after organic customers now. I thought one of the major arguments against self hosting was that serious customers went directly to the agencies and wouldn't bother with the search engines. If google truly is a viable source for customers and you need to redo all of your descriptions anyway, why not do this on your own site, price the images the same price as istock and keep the other 85%? I don't understand why anyone would go to all of this effort for only 15-20%. Especially when super specific search terms like they are describing are as likely to be found on your own site as they are istock, shutterstock or any other agency.

[tickstock]

It's interesting that Istock is going after organic customers now. I thought one of the major arguments against self hosting was that serious customers went directly to the agencies and wouldn't bother with the search engines. If google truly is a viable source for customers and you need to redo all of your descriptions anyway, why not do this on your own site, price the images the same price as istock and keep the other 85%? I don't understand why anyone would go to all of this effort for only 15-20%. Especially when super specific search terms like they are describing are as likely to be found on your own site as they are istock, shutterstock or any other agency.

I think the idea is to bring more eyes to the site not necessarily just for people looking for stock photos.  Some people may never have thought about buying stock before but if the Google results bring them there they might be turned into buyers.  Getting more people looking at the site through SEO is like free advertising.

[Lightrecorder]

It's interesting that Istock is going after organic customers now. I thought one of the major arguments against self hosting was that serious customers went directly to the agencies and wouldn't bother with the search engines. If google truly is a viable source for customers and you need to redo all of your descriptions anyway, why not do this on your own site, price the images the same price as istock and keep the other 85%? I don't understand why anyone would go to all of this effort for only 15-20%. Especially when super specific search terms like they are describing are as likely to be found on your own site as they are istock, shutterstock or any other agency.

For me 2200+ x 80 words = 160,000 words. Ouch

[chromaco]

I totally get why Istock wants to do this. I don't understand why a contributor would do all of this work for them when the results are just as likely to drive customers to the contributors personal website or even another agency that pays a higher percentage.

Lightrecorder - It is a ton of work but why do it for 15%? If you are going to do it at least you should make a higher percentage.

[tickstock]

I totally get why Istock wants to do this. I don't understand why a contributor would do all of this work for them when the results are just as likely to drive customers to the contributors personal website or even another agency that pays a higher percentage.

Lightrecorder - It is a ton of work but why do it for 15%? If you are going to do it at least you should make a higher percentage.

If you are selling the same work on your personal site and on the stock sites you are already competing against yourself.  I guess people that are already doing it have determined that they are are ok with it.

[chromaco]

I totally get why Istock wants to do this. I don't understand why a contributor would do all of this work for them when the results are just as likely to drive customers to the contributors personal website or even another agency that pays a higher percentage.

Lightrecorder - It is a ton of work but why do it for 15%? If you are going to do it at least you should make a higher percentage.

If you are selling the same work on your personal site and on the stock sites you are already competing against yourself.  I guess people that are already doing it have determined that they are are ok with it.

Not if your SEO is better (and isn't that what is being discussed here?), also not if you upload to your own site first or are particular about which images go to which agencies.