MicrostockGroup

Those examples are quite clearly the wrong keywords for the image, specific to a fraction of the Lynx ones only - as mentioned the whole index is being rebuilt, should be back to normal shortly, ranking could be affected until it's settled.   

Our Reviewers a great job to keeping spam keywords out, and we don't plan to reinstate the post-approval keyword changing tool for artists as it is simply too expensive to have to pay people to review changes of keywords, which should be done right from the start.

And for the record, I don't see the problem of a stethoscope with a keyword 'doctor' - it is in the the theme. If i'm making a brochure design for a doctor I would certainly consider a stethoscope as a relevant result for 'doctor'.
 

It happens everywhere and yes, it seems that the majority are coming from Lynx for some odd reason. Maybe it's a robot translator.

Without beating you about the head over the usual inaccuracies in keywords. The first three with the girl, all have automobile in the keywords, and there is an auto somewhere in the image.  The problem is that if someone does a search for 20 images, they get better matches, when it goes up to 40 or 80, Zymmetrical puts the LAST pages first, so lower matches are showing at the top of the search page, best matches show at the bottom. Strange?

I wasn't just complaining for the sake of causing trouble. If you have less images now, and you tighten the limits to start with, it's not going to be as hard to get the site under control as if you wait for a year and 1 million more images later to edit.

No stethoscope isn't a doctor, just like a pipe wrench isn't a plumber. A road sign showing a moose crossing isn't an automobile, and neither is a stretch or highway with no cars on it. How many buyers will get frustrated from too many vague matches and implied connections and go to iStock or Veer where CV is reigning in a runaway proliferation of mismatched key words. I suppose a poor selection of search words will produce poor results, (as in my example of one word "automobile) it's going to happen, but a front end loader, kid on a bicycle, tire and fuel gauge are not automobiles.   



One way to get free help is add an option to, flag an image for bad keywords? Now you don't have to have someone going through all the images looking for obvious errors like a lady elephant where someone may have just bulk edited their keywords by accident.

Sorry, and if it wasn't clear because the thread got hijacked, the images are not stolen, they are licensed from an affiliate agency.

What if somebody registers with the name Lynx? 
Well Zymm could have it called user "Panthermedia". Using "Lynx" as a nick seems like a deception and we always find out sooner or later 
Two years ago, BigStock pulled a similar trick with affiliates, where the shots were sold 20x the price. It started like a "theft" thread but then they had to become clear on the affiliate.

Let's put it this way: you can register as username 'xyz123' with our business (or many other stock agencies), and that is the name the copyright is attributed to on the public facing pages. It is an arbitrary, non-legal name attribute that is connected to your real identity. We provide additional optional profile options to be able to display your 'real name' on your profile page etc. should you choose to be reveal more info.  We, as the agent licensing the content, know who the copyright holder is, and you (the creator of the material) know who the copyright holder is - you. 

We are not brokering copyright we are licensing images.  Goods are sold in all kinds of marketplaces under 'white labels' or various marks other than the direct 'original manufacturer' name.

For example, 'iofoto' is a name featured in the 'copyright' section of photo pages on many agencies. Of course the copyright holder himself is the person Ron Chapple and his business. If his business wanted to use an anonymous name on a stock site, they could and that's who the public 'copyright' would be attributed to.  Same with 'Yuri Arcurs' - a nom de plume. The real name associated with the file is a matter between the artist and the agency, and if the artist chooses to make that info public then they can do so. By opting-in to distribution channels, in this case, people have made the choice to have their photos represented in a collection context instead of a personal context - we had thought about 'Lynx Collection' as the name, maybe that would have avoided some confusion. That's all.          

I just find that soooo odd that Panthermedia 'Lynx' can claim copyright on someone elses photo. I found this on their site under their licence agreement:

2.5 The author agrees that all licences for the contents he makes available may be granted without stating his name (i.e. anonymously). The author expressly waives his right to be named as author.


But it still doesn't say anywhere, that I can find, that people who upload to Panthermedia agree to allow Panthermedia to claim copyright to their photos.

Er, ahem, that top link leads to MY new Zymmetrical profile, which I just set up late last night. My images aren't even all up yet. Interestingly, when I go to your image links above and click on Lynx from there, I do get the Lynx page but it has the same URL as my new profile.

For the record, the thief IS NOT ME. Hey Zymmetrical, can I get a new link not associated with a thief pls??

Keep up the good work. It was entertaining poking fun at the minor database errors. Nothing serious.