SEO - how did you fare?

[bunhill]

They seem to be asking people to build descriptions using words which would be the keywords if they were not stuck with the legacy CV. In this context the CV seems increasingly convoluted -  being based on thinking from a pre Google era. I strongly suspect (guess) that the CV, whilst not being a flexible or SEO friendly solution, also creates considerable unnecessary loads.

It might be better to look at the possibility of introducing free text keywording for new content and see if they cannot see a way to run that alongside the legacy CV.

[Uncle Pete]

As far as my images and income is concerned this "PP link being broken" is a good thing. I don't want 28c sales when I'm getting $1 to $2 and up DLS for the same images on IS. I'd guess for everyone who gets six times more DLs on ThinkStock, it might be different?

Descriptions: I already have them, accurate, describing what's in the image. They were already searched by Search Engines. Google is not the end of the world and almighty only one that counts. But that's another issue. I wouldn't go back and alter descriptions just because of a beta change and roll-out of some testing.

That, and shopping is not the same as buying. Finding an image on a search, doesn't mean the people are looking to buy it. Just that the words matched. The place for buyers to discover and see our work, should be through the agency search.

Search Engine   Alexa Rank*   Unique Visitors**
google.com   1   182 M
yahoo.com   4   173 M
bing.com       22   162 M

(ask.com   30   69 M)

Only reason Ask shows as #4 is because they are invasive, attach to your computer, infest and install software. Most people try to avoid them.  Take a look at the top three please, and consider not writing everything as if Google is the only one that matters, has spiders, finds things or registers views.

Link between active iStock images and PPsite images is still broken! On PP I miss 30 % of my images.
First of all they must repair this!
Shameful!

[ShadySue]

They seem to be asking people to build descriptions using words which would be the keywords if they were not stuck with the legacy CV.

Not necessarily.
Posted By ChuckSchugPhotography:
If opting in, in the case of plant and animal images, can I assume that the rewrite staff will always include the genus and species names that I've laboriously researched and included in my descriptions?

Posted By Lobo:
I can't be 100% certain of that. If you are at all concerned about your descriptions being close or identical to the descriptions you already have I would suggest not opting in.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365797&messageid=7088767
My view on someone else writing my descriptions is the same as my view on someone else (on a 'generalist' site) writing my keywords. "No, no a thousand times no."
I fear they will declare this a roaring success and force us all into it.  Then back off again, like all of their other wheezes and schemes.

[SnowDog]

But SS doesnt talk about a minimum of 50 words. A good clear and simple description could be Green apple isolated on a white background. Thats 7 words and should be enough. I am sure good SEO helps, but creating long novel descriptions cost a lot of time and I'm certain it wont be worth the time spent on it.

Well, iS isn't talking about a minimum of 50 words, it's saying 50 words is optimal.

Presumably deliberately disingenuously, Lobo posted "I guess if all your files are only white eggs on white backgrounds you probably would do okay with 1 word. Egg."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365797&messageid=7088349
Whereas the better description would be something like "white hen's egg on a plain white background".
Like with your apple, that's perfectly adequate, but putting the type of apple wouldn't do any harm and might help a few buyers - e.g. a Golden Delicious looks very different to a Bramley.

A single white egg on a plain white background. The background used is seamless paper. There is a slight shadow showing on the paper to the left of the egg. The egg has no chips and was laid by a happy organic free range hen of the White Leghorn variety.   

[Holmes]

But SS doesnt talk about a minimum of 50 words. A good clear and simple description could be Green apple isolated on a white background. Thats 7 words and should be enough. I am sure good SEO helps, but creating long novel descriptions cost a lot of time and I'm certain it wont be worth the time spent on it.

Well, iS isn't talking about a minimum of 50 words, it's saying 50 words is optimal.

Presumably deliberately disingenuously, Lobo posted "I guess if all your files are only white eggs on white backgrounds you probably would do okay with 1 word. Egg."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365797&messageid=7088349
Whereas the better description would be something like "white hen's egg on a plain white background".
Like with your apple, that's perfectly adequate, but putting the type of apple wouldn't do any harm and might help a few buyers - e.g. a Golden Delicious looks very different to a Bramley.

apparently Shutterstock is being well indexed by Google. Perhaps iStock is correct in trying to play the SEO game.