Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2012, 12:29

MicrostockGroup

MicrostockGroup » Forum » New Sites / Low Earners » Sites that no longer exist » LuckyOliver.com » keyword spamming

Microstockgroup Sponsors

« previous next »

Pages: [1]

Topic: keyword spamming

(Read 2133 times)

leaf

Premium Member

« on: July 17, 2007, 05:04 »

#link

I am out to get some pictures for my website so i decided to go shopping at lucky oliver.

I am looking for images to do with summer and beaches perhaps with sun and sand, but it would be great to have a camera in the image as well.

I did a search for
summer camera

hmmm... seems like lots of people like to put camera in their keywords since the pictures was taken with a camera Sad

in the first 16 images there was only 4 with a camera and the rest of the results didn't seem much better.
some of the the top 16 images are as follow (by the way i love the forum code you have provided bryan

it even automatically copies - - very fancy - two thumbs up)

my question for lucky oliver - will there be a keyword spamming alert button anytime??? i would like to use it. Undecided


« Last Edit: July 17, 2007, 05:09 by leaf »	Ignore \| Logged

Stu99

« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2007, 05:15 »

#link

It seems that the fault lies not with keyword 'sticky word' spamming but with the search default including text in the description.

I looked at three images that didn't have any hint of a camera, they all had the word camera in the description ie; 'lady reaching for the camera'; 'doe looking at the camera" etc.

I think other sites ignore the words that are found in the description, only including description words in the search.

I wonder if this is an oversight or deliberate, since this obviously can cause some frustration.


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2007, 05:20 »

#link

ah yes.. i guess that makes sense. Perhaps they could be ranked lower if it was ONLY in the description??


	Ignore \| Logged

Stu99

« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2007, 05:26 »

#link

Quote from: leaf on July 17, 2007, 05:20

ah yes.. i guess that makes sense. Perhaps they could be ranked lower if it was ONLY in the description??

Or maybe not at all. I can only see that the inclusion of description words would cause further keyword spamming frustration. Perhaps this may become as issue for LO as it continues to grow.


	Ignore \| Logged

Karimala

« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2007, 07:15 »

#link

Quote from: leaf on July 17, 2007, 05:20

ah yes.. i guess that makes sense. Perhaps they could be ranked lower if it was ONLY in the description??

Great idea! And maybe a higher ranking for words that are included in both the keywords and description. A lot of the descriptions at LO are extremely lengthy, almost like mini stories about the day the photog shot the photo, and really don't have anything to do with the subject matter.


	Ignore \| Logged

CJPhoto

« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2007, 11:04 »

#link

Quote from: Karimala on July 17, 2007, 07:15

Quote from: leaf on July 17, 2007, 05:20

ah yes.. i guess that makes sense. Perhaps they could be ranked lower if it was ONLY in the description??

Great idea! And maybe a higher ranking for words that are included in both the keywords and description.

ranked high if in the description and keywords (since must be a major focus) but not at all if not in keywords.


	Ignore \| Logged

CJPhoto

« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2007, 11:05 »

#link

Quote from: leaf on July 17, 2007, 05:04

my question for lucky oliver - will there be a keyword spamming alert button anytime??? i would like to use it. Undecided

My question for lucky oliver - what is acceptable use for your watermarked images? it seems it makes it very easy for a blogger (or forum poster) to steal an image if they aren't concerned with the watermarks.


	Ignore \| Logged

bryan_luckyoliver

« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2007, 12:33 »

#link

Leaf, thanks for the thread. I'll try to answer a few questions.

1. The copy feature is a clever little thing that Ryan was able to figure out. It's great if you're posting in our Odditorium a lot.

2. Search relevance. We recently did an upgrade to our search results- I've written about this on the blog a bit. For most searches there has been a huge improvement. Search is an ongoing activity.

Right now we know we have some weakness in the relationship between words. We're aware of some of the problems. Camera is a 'generic' term on a photo site, so it causes some problems. If you do a search for 'camera' it's much better. We'll be working on this over the next year.

3. Spam. It's on the feature list. Direct reporting is useful. We're also collecting some interesting information which will penalize Carnies that spam.

4. Watermarked images. The web is a connection of images and text- if it's public, people are going to link content- we'd prefer to control this more by providing the tools to make it easier. A link back to the photo is much better than a watermarked image taken with no record. It's defense and offense. The vast majority of linked images are used in the Odditorium.


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2007, 19:32 »

#link

I'm not sure that descriptions should be neglected in the search. I think that if a word appears in title and description and keyword, then the image is probably the most relevant. If in title or description and in keywords, a little less relevant. If only in keywords, a bit less. If only in the title or description, then the less relevant.

In the "lady reaching for the camera" example, there is nothing wrong in the description but camera is not a valid keyword, however someone may search for "woman looking at the camera", I guess, and that would be a right match.

I think it's just a matter of fine-tuning the relevance.

Regards,
Adelaide


	Ignore \| Logged

ianhlnd

« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2007, 20:40 »

#link

Leaf, I agree whole heartedly. Spamming leads the buyer down all kinds of paths til he gives up. Why not limit the key words to the catagories, max maybe 12 keywords?


	Ignore \| Logged

maunger

« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2007, 16:26 »

#link

Quote from: ianhlnd on July 17, 2007, 20:40

Leaf, I agree whole heartedly. Spamming leads the buyer down all kinds of paths til he gives up. Why not limit the key words to the catagories, max maybe 12 keywords?

My preference is to not limit the number of words -- i can spam an image with just 5 words if that’s what the limit were... "nude, sexy," etc.

limiting the number of words won't solve the problem if you ask me.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

Jump to:

Related Topics
	Subject	Started by	Replies	Views	Last post
	Keyword spamming General Stock Discussion	fintastique	7	1399	August 05, 2006, 16:33 by leaf
	keyword spamming? General Stock Discussion	JC-SL	6	1140	May 30, 2007, 21:30 by litifeta
	Keyword spamming - sort of. General Stock Discussion	gaja	2	722	October 26, 2008, 17:08 by madelaide
	Does keyword spamming even work? General Stock Discussion	davey_rocket	12	1476	September 06, 2009, 13:59 by gaja
	Insane keyword spamming on SS Shutterstock.com	Slovenian	20	1848	April 21, 2011, 10:01 by heywoody

Microstockgroup Sponsors

MicrostockGroup Email Updates

Microstock Poll Results

Site	Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock	100
iStock	66.7
Fotolia	34.9
Dreamstime	26.7

Middle Tier
DepositPhotos	21.6
123RF	16.3
Canstockphoto	11.2
Bigstockphoto	9.5
Veer	8.7

Low Earners
PantherMedia	6.7
PhotoDune	5.8
isignstock	4.1
Zoonar	3.5
GLStockImages	2.7
Stockfresh	2.2
YayMicro	1.8
FeaturePics	1.4
MostPhotos	1.3
ScanStockPhoto	1.1
Crestock	0.8
Cutcaster	0.6
AllYouCanStock	0.1
ClipartOf
Pond5
RevoStock
Clipcanvas
DrawShop
ClipDealer
PhotoSpin
VectorStock
GraphicRiver
Pixmac
PhotoCase
The3dStudio
photaki
SuperHug
PhotoKore
StockPhotoMedia
Regimages
ImageVortex
Imagegate
ViscoImages
iRockStock
Vivozoom

More Poll Results Updated: 2012-05-26

Advertise on Microstockgroup.com | Contact: [email protected]