MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is this stupid or what? CV mystery  (Read 7236 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RacePhoto

« on: December 27, 2012, 13:34 »
0
Had an image rejected for:

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[ Citting]}


And yes, it was my spelling error in the IPTC data, BUT there was no word in the CV and the image information, that I submitted. I couldn't have seen the spelling error, because there was no keyword that had "citting" instead of cutting. It never showed, and when I re-submitted, I looked and it wasn't there, anywhere.

Does IS reject for spelling now, in words that aren't used? Also a mystery, does the system search look at those phantom words?

I'm not going to waste the Scout systems time asking, but I'm hoping someone here understands how an invisible word, spelled wrong, causes a rejection?

So what I'm asking is this. Now we get rejections for an invisible keyword?


traveler1116

« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2012, 13:38 »
0
Yes if you add the word "citting" then it will be found when someone searches for that word.

Poncke

« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2012, 13:39 »
0
Yes if you add the word "citting" then it will be found when someone searches for that word.
??? ? ? ?

The word wasnt there, thats the mystery !!

traveler1116

« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2012, 13:43 »
0
Yes if you add the word "citting" then it will be found when someone searches for that word.
??? ? ? ?

The word wasnt there, thats the mystery !!
I think when the reviewer rejected it they also took that keyword out, the keyword was there when originally submitted which is why racephoto said "And yes, it was my spelling error in the IPTC data".

« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2012, 13:50 »
0
IS allows contributors to have words that aren't in the CV. You're allowed to have codes for models, for example, and species names for critters and plants. My guess is that what you had didn't look like a code or special name; independents can get keyword rejections.

It's a pain that they don't have a spell check like SS does, but if you use Deep Meta, it flags things in blue that aren't in the CV (it doesn't flag them as misspelled per se) so you have a chance to fix things before upload. Or you upload to SS first to get the spell check on your IPTC data :)

« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2012, 17:39 »
0
I think (and I may be incorrect) that what he's saying is that the word was only in the IPTC data (which iStock doesn't read) and not in his submitted keywords.

« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2012, 17:48 »
0
I think (and I may be incorrect) that what he's saying is that the word was only in the IPTC data (which iStock doesn't read) and not in his submitted keywords.

But iStock does read the IPTC data.

traveler1116

« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2012, 17:53 »
0
I think (and I may be incorrect) that what he's saying is that the word was only in the IPTC data (which iStock doesn't read) and not in his submitted keywords.

But iStock does read the IPTC data.
Like I said when the image gets rejected for bad keywords, the offending keywords are deleted for the resubmit which is why he couldn't see that word when he went to resubmit it.

CD123

« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2012, 19:58 »
-5
Who is the moron who -1 everybody in this thread, who seems to have some sort of opinion different to him/her? I +1 all of them again. If you do not agree, just say so! Everyone was referring to what RacePhoto said.  >:(

« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2012, 20:25 »
-1
Who is the moron who -1 everybody in this thread, who seems to have some sort of opinion different to him/her? I +1 all of them again. If you do not agree, just say so! Everyone was referring to what RacePhoto said.  >:(

That's kind of a big assumption isn't? How do you know it was all the same person? Sounds especially moronic to me to deliberately over-ride everyone else's expressed opinion because you want to make another point. Who really cares about the odd rejection or Istock's absurd CV anyway?

CD123

« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2012, 20:32 »
-5
Who is the moron who -1 everybody in this thread, who seems to have some sort of opinion different to him/her? I +1 all of them again. If you do not agree, just say so! Everyone was referring to what RacePhoto said.  >:(

That's kind of a big assumption isn't? How do you know it was all the same person? Sounds especially moronic to me to deliberately over-ride everyone else's expressed opinion because you want to make another point. Who really cares about the odd rejection or Istock's absurd CV anyway?

I also have a right to an opinion and mine was a heart to those contributors.  Very self opinionated of you to decide that other people would not care about what RacePhoto has to say, isn't it? Clearly the posters before you does.  ;)

PS I have removed my +1 hearts, so the battle can continue.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2012, 20:35 by CD123 »

RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2012, 21:27 »
0
I think (and I may be incorrect) that what he's saying is that the word was only in the IPTC data (which iStock doesn't read) and not in his submitted keywords.

Yes, maybe I didn't explain clearly.

It was in the IPTC data - in error
It doesn't show in the CV and the disambiguation online, AT ALL
So it's invisible when I'm editing the image data, adding categories (or adding the release which Deep Meta seems to lose in the process of uploading.)

If IS searches these I'm adding all kinds of invisible words, from now on.  ;)  Not really but it is interesting if they are read but invisible, like searches will find them? No Wonder the searches are acting crazy. They find words that aren't in the keywords, but are in the IPTC data for the image. That's whacked.

Just looked, thanks I never saw that blue for misspelled words, and yes I uploaded using Deep Meta. Should have seen it myself, didn't notice.

Still don't know why a reviewer was looking at the embedded IPTC data and not the CV, categories, or releases online.

traveler1116

« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2012, 21:52 »
0
I just added the word "citting" to a file in the IPTC and uploaded it, it shows up in the file after is uploaded.  I think you just missed it when you submitted and that's why your file was rejected.

RacePhoto

« Reply #13 on: December 27, 2012, 22:22 »
0
I just added the word "citting" to a file in the IPTC and uploaded it, it shows up in the file after is uploaded.  I think you just missed it when you submitted and that's why your file was rejected.

It was there, in the file, it didn't show in the keywords. You'll need to trust me. When I re-submitted I was going to remove it manually and... It Wasn't There! I removed all keywords and added them all again, to make sure. If it was there I would have deleted it.

It was invisible in the CV and keyword editing page.

Yes it shows in the file upload page:

Keywords:
woodcut, engraving, iron, metal, antique, object, art, vintage, drawing, equipment, lathe, citting, tool



« Last Edit: December 27, 2012, 22:26 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2012, 07:20 »
0
I'm sure this happened to me too. I haven't uploaded in months but a few times early in the year I was rejected on keywords that were in iptc but I know weren't included in deepmeta.

« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2012, 08:15 »
0
Are these really keyword rejections? I've had a number that start off with a keyword complaint but there is always some other technical reason listed lower down.

« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2012, 08:37 »
+3
Thought I'd seen somewhere that they don't reject independent  files for single keyword.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347107&page=1#post6741711

RacePhoto

« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2012, 08:37 »
0
Are these really keyword rejections? I've had a number that start off with a keyword complaint but there is always some other technical reason listed lower down.

Also true, it had a trade name on a wood lathe and was rejected -

...for the following reasons:

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[ Citting]}

This file contains legible information such as names, signatures, license plates, phone numbers, identification numbers, etc. Due to concerns relating to privacy and related property rights, we cannot accept this file unless this information is removed, or a property release is obtained.

« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2012, 07:21 »
0
plenty of times single keyword rejection and no other reason given. Stuff that I then resubmitted and got approved.
I think it depends on the reviewer as some have notified keyword not appropriate, but they removed the keyword and approved the image.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2012, 09:02 by Phil »

Batman

« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2012, 08:23 »
0
Thought I'd seen somewhere that they don't reject independent  files for single keyword.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347107&page=1#post6741711


Good Advice.

« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2012, 16:51 »
0
I think (and I may be incorrect) that what he's saying is that the word was only in the IPTC data (which iStock doesn't read) and not in his submitted keywords.

But iStock does read the IPTC data.

Sorry! I haven't used anything but DeepMeta in so long that I didn't know.

RacePhoto

« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2012, 20:50 »
0
And I resisted using DeepMeta for years but now that I see how much easier it is and how I can see all the categories, instead of schlogging through, clicks, columns and sub categories online. I like it better. Also tracks images better than the site does. Nice little work. Now I know the blue means, spelling error.  :)

For people who still don't use Deep Meta here's what I mean:

Categories

Only real problem I have (besides my crappy spelling and my own mistakes!) Is Deep Meta has lost attached releases, time after time, and I got rejections for none included.



I think (and I may be incorrect) that what he's saying is that the word was only in the IPTC data (which iStock doesn't read) and not in his submitted keywords.


But iStock does read the IPTC data.


Sorry! I haven't used anything but DeepMeta in so long that I didn't know.

gillian

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #22 on: December 30, 2012, 23:55 »
0
this has happened to me before too; a random keyword that I didn't add causing a rejection. I figured it was part of the CV adding it in somehow without me seeing it.

ShadySue

« Reply #23 on: December 31, 2012, 08:20 »
0
There is something seriously weird going on over there.
I often do searches and find loads of irrelevant images. There has always been spam, and carelessly DAed images, but now there are many cases where the inappropriate word can't be found when going into the file's keywords, as though to wiki.
I've at last worked out that a previous mucked up search I've mentioned, 'Sunderbans', is throwing up images with sunglasses, which explains why a few of my own pics show up on that search. Oh, and while checking my own files, I discover that the geographical area of Leith now maps only to Damien Leith, whoever he might be (and that's classed as Espanol).
F-F-S.  >:(

Of course, now that they have a geographically differentiated search/best match function, they probably see something completely different; so their totally inexplicable, disingenuous and oft-repeated assertion that there is no problem with search/best match could just possibly be true in Calgary.

RacePhoto

« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2013, 12:55 »
0
Here's the continuing story and it's getting kind of funny. In a strange kind of way.

I fixed the keywords, correct the spelling of Cutting, and I get this rejection today. (and yes it's two reasons, not just one ketword issue)

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[ Cutting]}

++Focus is soft. You could try downsizing the file then review at 100% to see if that achieves a more acceptable level of sharpness.++


Let me explain, it's a SCAN at 2400 dpi, of a flat drawing, of a Wood Lathe which cuts wood! The other rejection was for "Metal Cutting Machine" saying the same things. So what's wrong with the word "Cutting"?

Apparently the once stable and consistent reviews at IS, which I always found to be reliable, and complimented. Have now become, something that needs to be explained in a note to the reviewer, for people who apparently don't understand English or what a wood lathe does? (not really I'll just drop the word, it's much easier to give up.) Or is it just a CV wall I'm up against? Past tense, cutting as in the machine actions and function, instead of the actual act being depicted?

This will be the 4th upload of the same images, because of nit picking and side issues. Once for spelling, once for the lost release, once because it contained a Mfg. logo, and this time for "Cutting and Soft Focus". I'm kind of wondering what the rejection will be the 5th time around?  :o

I'm amused by the file size making something unacceptable, because it includes too many details at full size. This was a series of ten and eight have been accepted, the last two are just going around and around for words and being an unacceptable level of sharpness.

Now downsized from 30MP to 10MP. I guess I have to learn to make things smaller. ??? Remember that question, because people often ask, should I downsize all the time, and it's starting to sound like the answer is YES.




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
60 Replies
15344 Views
Last post April 21, 2008, 05:34
by LuMaxArt
11 Replies
3443 Views
Last post April 26, 2010, 15:09
by RacePhoto
6 Replies
2127 Views
Last post October 19, 2011, 17:48
by Sadstock
2 Replies
776 Views
Last post July 11, 2013, 08:44
by travelwitness
2 Replies
2139 Views
Last post October 31, 2014, 11:33
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors