MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock's new Zero Tolerance Policy for keyword SPAM  (Read 14414 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2008, 16:16 »
0
Quote
Unfortunately, there are people who engage in out-and-out, wholesale spamming of their uploads, which is why youll find photos of dogs keyed to Christmas and business. But the bulk of the tag problems dont come from serial spammers, they come from normal contributors who just stretch the possibilities of their image a bit too far in hopes of getting more hits.

It's funny how they see it in a different way: they think stretches are a bigger problem than true spam.  DT showing keywords used in a search proved to me that sometime people do searches with very vaguely ideas.

And in my tests I've found TONS of true spam by exclusive contributors.  Let's see how tough will IS be on them.

They also need to listen when we make suggestions for the CV. I've made many, using dictionary definitions and not just my opinion, but I never saw them add any of these words.

Regards,
Adelaide
« Last Edit: October 12, 2008, 16:19 by madelaide »


« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2008, 16:50 »
0
If this is inline with the new shift towards rejecting photos due to non-relevant keywords it should be interesting. 

I just had an isolation of a carabiner rejected for bad keywords.  One of the key words they cited was "carabiner"  I just don't get it.

« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2008, 16:57 »
0
I think istock has made a rod for it's own back with this policy. I guess its worth depends on how many buyers do know exactly what they're looking for.

 On another note, there's a contributor (non-exclusive) who must be making istock close to $1 million per year (80% of about 1000 dls per day) whom many people consider to be a major spammer. Could be interesting.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2008, 19:51 by averil »

« Reply #28 on: October 14, 2008, 09:54 »
0
Although I'm not a huge fan of IS because of the uploading process, I think they're usually fair when they do these mass house-cleanings.  They went after the "rating gangs" quite awhile ago and I don't recall hearing any complaints about the wrong people being punished. 

I'm all for this.  I have a very low opinion of people who do this kind of thing (keyword spamming)  - not that my opinion matters one iota!

« Reply #29 on: October 14, 2008, 10:18 »
0
Thats good news, but I still wonder why there could be ANY keyword spamed pics accepted. When reviewers have enough time to check images for invisible artifacts at 300%, why they dont have enough time to check keywords ???

IS still more or less ok but check SS and you see that there are OBVIOUS spam-keywords with every second image... horrible.

« Reply #30 on: October 14, 2008, 12:19 »
0
Thats good news, but I still wonder why there could be ANY keyword spamed pics accepted. When reviewers have enough time to check images for invisible artifacts at 300%, why they dont have enough time to check keywords ???

IS still more or less ok but check SS and you see that there are OBVIOUS spam-keywords with every second image... horrible.

even if they checked the keywords during the review  spammers could still add new (irrelevant) keywords after the  approval but I don't think it is a good idea to take away the re-editing abilities of the contributers once an image is approved ,which is one of the things that FT does.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2008, 12:23 by stokfoto »

« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2008, 13:31 »
0
If spamming actually works, as I believe it does, then some istock exclusives will be losing income once this comes into effect. I wonder if any of them will reconsider their exclusivity?

« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2008, 17:19 »
0
If spamming actually works, as I believe it does,

Do you think it really does?  Real spamming, not stretches?  Will someone looking for "sexy woman" purchase an image of a nun praying in the church?  ;D

The problem with spam is, in my view, that searches may bring so many irrelevant results that a buyer may give up that site.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2008, 18:07 »
0
A lot of design uses visual metaphor. I'm sure there would be occasions when an image of a nun praying would convey a message better than a sexy woman when the latter was originally being sought, as irony for instance. Imagine an add for contraceptives, with the caption she mighn't need them, but you do...

My design experience is limited to battling in the istock steel cage, but I know I'm not the only one who would use a fairly general search term and try to find an image with the right mood and attitude more than the right specific details. A top battler there (and experienced designer) said she never knows exactly what she wants when she starts looking for images - she lets what she finds guide her final design. She also saves stuff in lightboxes for later use, so an attractive image could be saved even if not relevant to current searches.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2008, 18:11 by averil »

« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2008, 20:34 »
0
A lot of design uses visual metaphor. I'm sure there would be occasions when an image of a nun praying would convey a message better than a sexy woman when the latter was originally being sought, as irony for instance. Imagine an add for contraceptives, with the caption she mighn't need them, but you do...

But then you would deliberately search for a nun, not for sexy woman.

Ok, there may be also images of a sexy woman dressed as a nun, but this is not what I meant.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2008, 21:15 »
0
My point is that many designers are open to inspiration from what turns up in search, and don't necessarily have such a clear cut and non-negotiable idea of what they're looking for.

« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2008, 00:35 »
0
I just got my email threat from IS about their crackdown.

My favorite part of the email was an illustration of a can with the word "SPAM" on it. IS rejects all my vectors which have text on them. But any photographer who has ever received one of IS's infamous rejections for trademarks should be especially amused, or perhaps bemused, by the fact that SPAM, especially when spelled in all caps, is a registered trademark of Hormel.  Oh well.


« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2008, 06:55 »
0
Are you saying you got the weekly contact sheet, or that you actually got a directed mail about your keywording?

« Reply #38 on: October 15, 2008, 07:43 »
0
Just search eg. wilderness on SS, IS and then on photographersdirect.com - the result doesnt need any further info. In case Im buyer, I will rather pay $20 per picture instead of $1 rather then dealing with TONS of keyword spamed pics. Designers are maybe not searching something certain but many editors and other buyers need something concrete and if they type "giraffe", they are NOT searching something else.

bittersweet

« Reply #39 on: October 15, 2008, 07:55 »
0
I just got my email threat from IS about their crackdown.

My favorite part of the email was an illustration of a can with the word "SPAM" on it. IS rejects all my vectors which have text on them. But any photographer who has ever received one of IS's infamous rejections for trademarks should be especially amused, or perhaps bemused, by the fact that SPAM, especially when spelled in all caps, is a registered trademark of Hormel.  Oh well.


:-\ Is there some reason why you believe this particular image is part of the istock collection? To me it is clearly an editorial illustration, to which an entirely different set of trademark criteria applies.


« Reply #40 on: October 15, 2008, 09:07 »
0
Are you saying you got the weekly contact sheet, or that you actually got a directed mail about your keywording?
I was referring to their mass emailing "iStockphoto Tip of the Week - 10.14.2008 - Keyword Crackdown". I guess they wouldn't include an illustration in a direct email abouj my own keywording. I have always tried  to avoid spam in my own keywording, and I've only had a couple of images disambiguated by by reviews.

As to whether the "SPAM" was 'editorial' or fair use or whatever, I am no IP attorney. I just thought it was funny, given IS's well known pickiness about violations of its rules, and violations of its rules being the subject of the email.

bittersweet

« Reply #41 on: October 15, 2008, 09:23 »
0
Are you saying you got the weekly contact sheet, or that you actually got a directed mail about your keywording?
I was referring to their mass emailing "iStockphoto Tip of the Week - 10.14.2008 - Keyword Crackdown". I guess they wouldn't include an illustration in a direct email abouj my own keywording. I have always tried  to avoid spam in my own keywording, and I've only had a couple of images disambiguated by by reviews.

As to whether the "SPAM" was 'editorial' or fair use or whatever, I am no IP attorney. I just thought it was funny, given IS's well known pickiness about violations of its rules, and violations of its rules being the subject of the email.

I guess I don't understand what you consider as breaking their own rules. Their rules are against accepting and selling copyrighted and trademarked material as royalty free stock. They are not doing that. They clearly slapped together this silly thing to illustrate their article. This image is not in their collection and they do not violate any IP by simply using the word "spam". Even if they used an actual can of SPAM, because of the editorial context, it would be hard to classify as an IP violation since as an editorial, it would fall under the umbrella of parody. I'm not an IP attorney either. I'm just completely missing your point.

« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2008, 12:52 »
0
Are you saying you got the weekly contact sheet, or that you actually got a directed mail about your keywording?
I was referring to their mass emailing "iStockphoto Tip of the Week - 10.14.2008 - Keyword Crackdown". I guess they wouldn't include an illustration in a direct email abouj my own keywording. I have always tried  to avoid spam in my own keywording, and I've only had a couple of images disambiguated by by reviews.

As to whether the "SPAM" was 'editorial' or fair use or whatever, I am no IP attorney. I just thought it was funny, given IS's well known pickiness about violations of its rules, and violations of its rules being the subject of the email.

I guess I don't understand what you consider as breaking their own rules. Their rules are against accepting and selling copyrighted and trademarked material as royalty free stock. They are not doing that. They clearly slapped together this silly thing to illustrate their article. This image is not in their collection and they do not violate any IP by simply using the word "spam". Even if they used an actual can of SPAM, because of the editorial context, it would be hard to classify as an IP violation since as an editorial, it would fall under the umbrella of parody. I'm not an IP attorney either. I'm just completely missing your point.

I didn't really meat to say that IS violated its rules, I don't know if it did or not and I don't really care. I said, "given IS's well known pickiness about violations of its rules, and violations of its rules being the subject of the email." I have no plans to email Hormel that they should send IS a cease and desist order.

As to my point, I just thought it was funny, that's all. Or ironic. Or something. If I offended any sensibilities, I'm sorry.

« Reply #43 on: October 15, 2008, 13:06 »
0
Just search eg. wilderness on SS, IS and then on photographersdirect.com - the result doesnt need any further info. In case Im buyer, I will rather pay $20 per picture instead of $1 rather then dealing with TONS of keyword spamed pics. Designers are maybe not searching something certain but many editors and other buyers need something concrete and if they type "giraffe", they are NOT searching something else.

Anyone who does a one word search like "wilderness" deserves to get a bit of everything.

bittersweet

« Reply #44 on: October 15, 2008, 13:06 »
0
Are you saying you got the weekly contact sheet, or that you actually got a directed mail about your keywording?
I was referring to their mass emailing "iStockphoto Tip of the Week - 10.14.2008 - Keyword Crackdown". I guess they wouldn't include an illustration in a direct email abouj my own keywording. I have always tried  to avoid spam in my own keywording, and I've only had a couple of images disambiguated by by reviews.

As to whether the "SPAM" was 'editorial' or fair use or whatever, I am no IP attorney. I just thought it was funny, given IS's well known pickiness about violations of its rules, and violations of its rules being the subject of the email.

I guess I don't understand what you consider as breaking their own rules. Their rules are against accepting and selling copyrighted and trademarked material as royalty free stock. They are not doing that. They clearly slapped together this silly thing to illustrate their article. This image is not in their collection and they do not violate any IP by simply using the word "spam". Even if they used an actual can of SPAM, because of the editorial context, it would be hard to classify as an IP violation since as an editorial, it would fall under the umbrella of parody. I'm not an IP attorney either. I'm just completely missing your point.

I didn't really meat to say that IS violated its rules, I don't know if it did or not and I don't really care. I said, "given IS's well known pickiness about violations of its rules, and violations of its rules being the subject of the email." I have no plans to email Hormel that they should send IS a cease and desist order.

As to my point, I just thought it was funny, that's all. Or ironic. Or something. If I offended any sensibilities, I'm sorry.

No offense taken. I meant none either. I should have let it go after the first post.  ;)

« Reply #45 on: October 16, 2008, 07:02 »
0
sjlocke

Well, good point hehe  ;D However I think you understood what Ive ment.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
8166 Views
Last post December 04, 2008, 14:54
by Phil
14 Replies
5789 Views
Last post February 20, 2009, 07:41
by Peter
31 Replies
22370 Views
Last post July 29, 2009, 16:08
by puravida
57 Replies
22395 Views
Last post September 23, 2013, 07:07
by Ron
4 Replies
4593 Views
Last post February 15, 2020, 02:55
by SpaceStockFootage

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors