Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 27, 2012, 02:38

MicrostockGroup

MicrostockGroup » Forum » New Sites / Low Earners » Sites that no longer exist » StockXpert.com » More ridiculous StockXpert fun

Microstockgroup Sponsors

« previous next »

Pages: [1]

Topic: More ridiculous StockXpert fun

(Read 1852 times)

PaulieWalnuts

« on: October 18, 2007, 06:26 »

#link

Here's some StockXpert fun for your enjoyment.

1. I submit a picture of a car. They reject it and say "please remove brands from metadata". Okay, I had Porsche in the keywords. So remove the word Porsche, resubmit, and it gets rejected for "Keyword spamming".

2. I love this one. I had a photo that was already approved. I used the Replace File function to upload a better larger MP file, didn't touch the keywords, and it gets rejected for keyword spamming.

I don't think my keywords are even close to spamming and I've never had this problem before. Seems I'm now officially a victim of the mass rejection issue. Good times...


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2007, 06:48 »

#link

what was the image and what were your words?


	Ignore \| Logged

PaulieWalnuts

« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2007, 07:44 »

#link

Maybe words like horsepower and sleek are a stretch but is there anything else you're seeing as spam here?

a at auto automobile automobiles autos bumper car cars close close-up closeup for front german headlight high hood horsepower in left metallic modern of performance pewter row silver sleek sports sportscar supercar transportation up vehicle vehicles wheel


	Ignore \| Logged

mattb

« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2007, 08:11 »

#link

Looks like you had a couple of phrases in there that got broken up into individual keywords, maybe that's what flagged it. Other then that and a couple of other borderline keywords( nothing I would consider spamming though), it looks fine to me.


	Ignore \| Logged

fotografer

Premium Member

« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2007, 09:17 »

#link

I've seen a lot of really bad spamming go unpunished but I wouldn't call your keywords spamming at all.


	Ignore \| Logged

dbvirago

« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2007, 09:37 »

#link

Yeah, it looks like you have some phrases getting broken up so you have keywords like a at for in of, etc. I would put phrases like that in the description field.


	Ignore \| Logged

epixx

« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2007, 11:00 »

#link

I believe Porsches are copyrighted (the design of the car), but never mind. I think I have a couple of Porsche images out there as well Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

Bateleur

« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2007, 11:41 »

#link

The 'a', 'at', 'for', 'in', 'of' and 'up' (that have obviously been split from their phrases) probably set alarm bells ringing. Any maybe 'pewter' and 'silver' (especially since you haven't got 'grey' or 'gray').

Then what about 'german' and 'high'? I can see where you're coming from with these. But with the brand name removed, what's gGerman about this picture? And with 'high' separated from 'performance' (I guess) what's 'high' about it.?


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2007, 11:47 »

#link

well i don't think a keyword should have to be beside it's pair for it to be not spamming.

if the keywords in question were high and performance, they should both be acceptiable since someone could search for high performance car. Their placement in the keywords should have not relevance.

Same thing, a person might want to search for german sports car. German sports cars DO look different than american sports cars, so i could see someone wanting to search for this.

I agree that I can't see much that would alert a spamming flag - except if they didn't like the 'a', 'at', 'for' ...


	Ignore \| Logged

PaulieWalnuts

« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2007, 12:13 »

#link

Thanks for the comments. Maybe I need to tighten keywording up a bit for StockXpert. I started adding stuff like "a, at, on" because of Fotolia. With them, if someone searched for "apples in baskets" and "in" wasn't one of your keywords, you wouldn't show up. It's not like I have "hot girls" and "customer service agent" as keywords.

What bugs me is inconsistency. To me, IS is rock solid with rejection/approval consistency. If they reject it, I normally will agree with the reason. It starts to become a major waste of time when there is no pattern to rejections. Especially when they do stuff like rejecting an image they had already approved a few days ago.

I'll give it another try. If nothing improves maybe I'll give StockXpert a rest for a while until I see some signs of this stuff blowing over.


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2007, 13:38 »

#link

Quote from: mattb on October 18, 2007, 08:11

Looks like you had a couple of phrases in there that got broken up into individual keywords,

I get that all the time with prepositions. "Rio de Janeiro" becomes "Rio, de, Janeiro". At least they don't resort the keywords, so this becomes easy to fix.

Hmm, it seems we have another suggestion for Steve-oh.

Regards,
Adelaide


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2007, 13:43 »

#link

On a side note, I don't think commercial words should be banned as keywords. If someone wants an image of a Porsche, even if it doesn't show a Porsche logo, they would appreciate having that keyword active. As long as the image is indeed a Porsche, of course, and not that someone puts Porsche, Ferrari and Jaguar in a photo of a VW Beetle..

Regards,
Adelaide


	Ignore \| Logged

hatman12

« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2007, 19:01 »

#link

Madelaide, words like Porsche are trademarked and cannot be used for commercial purposes, and that also means using them as keywords to try to sell images.

iStock recently deactivated all images that contain pictures and keywords 'Motorola', so we can expect the world to tighten up on these things.

The only time a word like that can be used is if it becomes 'part of standard language'. This is something Google is trying to avoid at the moment - if it becomes standard to refer to 'googling' rather than 'searching', Google loses all rights to protect its name.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

Jump to:

Related Topics
	Subject	Started by	Replies	Views	Last post
	ridiculous rejections at IS.... iStockPhoto.com	Peter	22	3135	April 06, 2008, 10:55 by Peter
	iStock has ridiculous standards for Exclusives « 1 2 » iStockPhoto.com	ichiro17	35	4615	November 23, 2008, 12:11 by hali
	Ridiculous rejections « 1 2 ... 9 10 » Shutterstock.com	Herg	244	17071	January 03, 2012, 01:24 by RacePhoto
	This is getting ridiculous « 1 2 » Dreamstime.com	RT	28	4228	March 27, 2011, 08:07 by digitalexpression
	Dreamstime's ridiculous restrictions Dreamstime.com	digitalexpression	11	1829	April 13, 2011, 07:26 by digitalexpression

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
iRockStock
Vivozoom
StockPhotoMedia
Regimages
ImageVortex
Imagegate
ViscoImages

More Poll Results Updated: 2012-05-27

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