MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Oh dear. Here we go again....  (Read 12722 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2017, 16:32 »
+1
Did anyone post this yet? The AIM manual

http://www.alamy.com/myupload/help/AIM-InstructionManual.pdf

Or this?

http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/6970-high-discoverability/

Note: To optimize you need to have 50 tags, of which 10 are supertags.
All mandatory and optional fields must be complete.


The general consensus on the forum there is, it's a "spam-spawner" and that good keywords and phrases will work better. I don't know because this is all new, but I like their view.


ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2017, 16:48 »
+1
I just searched on what I'd consider the 'main' keyword on some of my 'low discoverability' files, and they were all findable, sometimes on the top line of the relevant search.

Ho-hum.  ;D

« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2017, 03:52 »
0
I did a little experimenting, plus looking at which of my images supposedly have "good" discoverability versus "poor" and you need at least 40 of 50 keywords to get the good rating.

I have lots of images with over 30 keywords (some because Alamy used to split multi-word keywords up) and tried adding a category, or location, or information to the caption to see if it would make an image "good" and those seemed to make no difference.

I hope that their notion of good vs. poor doesn't affect search position because if you have the important keywords for an image, that's more important than getting the numbers up.

41 keywords (relevant - just!), 100 supertags and all relevant boxes ticked - still poor discoverability. Just 47 of my 2000 or so images rate as 'good'.
:(
I just hope discoverability does not mean what it sounds like it means ie the chances of a buyer discovering an image and then - hopefully - buying it. If it does, then we're doomed, I say.........doomed.....lost in the swamp of undiscoverable and forgotten images........jolly dee.......

Where do you see this "discoverability"? Is this only with new system?

« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2017, 09:32 »
0
where do you see all this on alamy?

looks like i still have old page

cant find any of that discoverability things

ShadySue

« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2017, 09:35 »
0
where do you see all this on alamy?

looks like i still have old page

cant find any of that discoverability things

You only see it on the new system.
Don't worry about it. At the moment, discoverability seems to mean not a lot in the real world.
Relevant searches are pretty relevant.
Creative searches are all over the place.
(both comments obviously based on my very limited samples!)
High discoverability based on needing near to 50 tags is just going to encourage spam. No idea why they think that's a good thing. There's plenty spam there as elsewhere already.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #30 on: February 01, 2017, 10:14 »
+1
Well the good news is that it seems that we are now finally able to license editorials as RF!

« Reply #31 on: February 01, 2017, 11:26 »
+1
where do you see all this on alamy?

looks like i still have old page

cant find any of that discoverability things

Correct. I'm still on the old system too, but read the forums. Big discussion of the discoverability thing. Looks like maybe it's not going to be more than a guide. I see many who are ignoring it for just good words and not playing the 10+50 and all fields filled game.

Don't know why Alamy would encourage keyword spam?

ShadySue

« Reply #32 on: February 01, 2017, 11:46 »
+1
Well the good news is that it seems that we are now finally able to license editorials as RF!
I consider that to be a bad thing. Just yesterday I had two RM sales for different uses by the same buyer. I'm not happy about RF editorial at Alamy UNLESS the price is several times higher than RM, bearing in mind that the stated price is rarely the same as the going price.
Still, with hybrid prices it may be the buyer will choose a cheaper non-exclusive RM option anyway.

« Reply #33 on: February 01, 2017, 11:52 »
0
Isn't Alamy up against the same wall as all the others - expected return on an image is so low that it just doesn't pay to spend time jumping through any more keyword hoops?  Well maybe this new system could be a way to rise above the mob, by making the effort to meet new keyword guidelines - but first one would have to be darn sure it works


« Reply #34 on: February 01, 2017, 17:38 »
0
Well the good news is that it seems that we are now finally able to license editorials as RF!
I consider that to be a bad thing. Just yesterday I had two RM sales for different uses by the same buyer. I'm not happy about RF editorial at Alamy UNLESS the price is several times higher than RM, bearing in mind that the stated price is rarely the same as the going price.
Still, with hybrid prices it may be the buyer will choose a cheaper non-exclusive RM option anyway.

RF editorial is your choice, easier terms for buyers than figuring out complicated use numbers and distribution. RM is still an option from what I've read.

No I don't have access yet.

« Reply #35 on: February 02, 2017, 04:00 »
0
Isn't Alamy up against the same wall as all the others - expected return on an image is so low that it just doesn't pay to spend time jumping through any more keyword hoops?  Well maybe this new system could be a way to rise above the mob, by making the effort to meet new keyword guidelines - but first one would have to be darn sure it works
But on the other hand, when images are approved they go on sale automatically, you don't HAVE to do any further keywording once basic EXIF is transferred. Unless, of course, you think that discoverability matters....what a pickle.....

« Reply #36 on: February 02, 2017, 10:44 »
+1
Isn't Alamy up against the same wall as all the others - expected return on an image is so low that it just doesn't pay to spend time jumping through any more keyword hoops?  Well maybe this new system could be a way to rise above the mob, by making the effort to meet new keyword guidelines - but first one would have to be darn sure it works
But on the other hand, when images are approved they go on sale automatically, you don't HAVE to do any further keywording once basic EXIF is transferred. Unless, of course, you think that discoverability matters....what a pickle.....
At least Alamy seems to be evolving, and envisioning a future that's different from the past.  I can't say that for any of the others. 

« Reply #37 on: February 02, 2017, 11:19 »
0
Isn't Alamy up against the same wall as all the others - expected return on an image is so low that it just doesn't pay to spend time jumping through any more keyword hoops?  Well maybe this new system could be a way to rise above the mob, by making the effort to meet new keyword guidelines - but first one would have to be darn sure it works
But on the other hand, when images are approved they go on sale automatically, you don't HAVE to do any further keywording once basic EXIF is transferred. Unless, of course, you think that discoverability matters....what a pickle.....
At least Alamy seems to be evolving, and envisioning a future that's different from the past.  I can't say that for any of the others.

Yes offering us more options and getting in line with the rest that already offered RF editorial so we can license on Alamy again. No releases, no credentials, just what law says about editorial use. Finally dropped the three boxes that most people hated.

Just as a note, Alamy says Supertag order doesn't matter. Word proximity still important.

« Reply #38 on: February 03, 2017, 05:42 »
+1
Just realized.....discoverability as an idea has been borrowed from 500px! Not that that changes anything...just mulling......

« Reply #39 on: February 03, 2017, 07:13 »
+1
Don't worry about discoverability. Just ignore it.

The system hasn't the slightest idea if an image has good discoverability (is that even a word?) It simply checks the number of keywords and maybe that other fields have been filled in.

Don't put in 50 for the sake of it - that will lower your rank and give you worse discoverability

Of course, as per usual, IMHO

ShadySue

« Reply #40 on: February 03, 2017, 07:58 »
0
On the basis of a single search string I've been testing for months, I can confirm that a search for "Joe Bloggs"1 , the first page has almost all photos of Joe Bloggs and a few others where Joe Bloggs will be in the keywords or description.

Previously and for years, a search for Joe Bloggs threw onto the first page many images which had nothing to do with Joe Bloggs, but had (e.g.) Joe Doe and Jane Bloggs in the keywords, above actual pics of Joe Bloggs.

Assuming this improvement is sitewide, that is a huge and very welcome step forward in clean searches (in 'relevant').

Does anyone have a clue what 'creative' means on Alamy, other than, in many cases, 'creative' keywording?

1where Joe Bloggs actually equals Leonard Cohen, if you must know.

« Reply #41 on: February 03, 2017, 11:49 »
0
Actually this is great and a lot easier, still more clicks than SS but very nice, easy and fast. Good job.
Now, if I had thousands of photos I'd be angry for needing to revisit them all.

ShadySue

« Reply #42 on: February 03, 2017, 12:03 »
0
Actually this is great and a lot easier, still more clicks than SS but very nice, easy and fast. Good job.
Now, if I had thousands of photos I'd be angry for needing to revisit them all.

I'm going through mine (over 3K), ten minutes at a time, but we don't need to do this. In a few cases I'm thinking of new keywords, but mainly I'm choosing supertags. I'll probably never know how much difference that will make, though - on the happy chance my earnings go up, it might be due to them cleaning up the search algorithm more than me choosing keywords to promote. But ten minutes isn't much ...

HINT: if you're doing it one file at a time, remember to untick one file before ticking the next one!

« Reply #43 on: February 03, 2017, 12:07 »
0
Actually this is great and a lot easier, still more clicks than SS but very nice, easy and fast. Good job.
Now, if I had thousands of photos I'd be angry for needing to revisit them all.

How would you feel about over 2,000 and this is the third time they changed the system?  >:(

But if it makes me more money, I'll dig in and start editing.

Good news on the search Sue, I hope this means if I include a name "within quotes" it will be found first in the search and as you point out, not for half of two other names. That old proximity advise may be weighted more now?

All this supertag, 50 words and discoverability rank is also IMHO a waste of time. Use good clear keywords, put the best ten in supertags for weighting. Put words that belong together, next to each other, and only use words that honestly apply to the actual image.

Before someone can buy something, they have to see it. Lost in others with weak keywords or mixed in the wrong place with inappropriate keywords, won't make more sales.

For now my goal is get the best ten words into supertags. Later I can see about the rest.

ShadySue

« Reply #44 on: February 03, 2017, 12:32 »
0
Actually this is great and a lot easier, still more clicks than SS but very nice, easy and fast. Good job.
Now, if I had thousands of photos I'd be angry for needing to revisit them all.

Good news on the search Sue, I hope this means if I include a name "within quotes" it will be found first in the search and as you point out, not for half of two other names. That old proximity advise may be weighted more now?

I don't think the old "within quotes" ever worked the way they said it would.

The current situation is ambiguous: the blog article says, "... if something is a multi-word single entity then you should tag it as such e.g. Taylor Swift, South East Asian, Bible Belt, Red Leicester, The Rolling Stones, or Homer Simpson. If youre still using the older version of our image management tool you can enter a phrase by adding a comma or around the phrase. If youre using the new Alamy Image Manager (rolling out across the site now) then you can just type in each word before submitting them as a phrase."
So far, going over old files, I'm finding that separating by commas only is splitting keywords and keeping keyword phrases together, withut using quotes, and indeed old keywording which I separated into phrases by commas (thank goodness!) likewise; whereas the instructions might be taken as meanng that you have to use both quotes and commas.  ::) I didn't actually interpret it that way until I read what you said about quotes, reread the blog and realised that it could easily be interpreted that way.  ::) Same old ...

 Luckily, I always did that, so mostly I'm not having to stick keyword phrases back together - unless the phrase was more than four words, which has been split into separate individual words. If you try to add a keyword phrase, it saves it out after four words, there's no way to make a five-or-more word keyword phrase, which I seem to need quite often for specific names (in editorial). However, the caption is still searchable, so that helps with the long names.

Seems to be a bit nebulous, as this thread is finding:
http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/6980-keywording-query-about-prior-use-of-single-double-quotes
« Last Edit: February 03, 2017, 12:36 by ShadySue »

« Reply #45 on: February 03, 2017, 13:41 »
0
Nothing new Sue, I did that and for awhile the [bracket] thing they claimed would come soon. Yes the two word combined keywords is what I meant, I hope it produces better results.

I'm sure you went through the whole description used in search which was useful. But some people abused that and some found it made too many incorrect results. That's when it was the lowest weighted part of the search. Alamy disabled that.

Well I did what they said to start and had key minor details that would be found in a search. Description was nice and easy way to add a description!

Moved those into the Comprehensive box, as the other one wasn't searched. Year later they decided to add comprehensive and drop the other box from visibility. So great, now I can go move things, cut and paste thousands of files again!  >:(

This new system will remove some of those old three box system flaws. I haven't looked at how they are dumping all the keywords into one box. What happens to the dupes? I put the same words in two boxes sometimes.

Commas will do and "quotes" are unnecessary. At least that's the way I read the instructions in other threads. Also the question of "Kodiak Bear" and the same if it was ,Kodiak Bear, between commas, is not as huge of a problem as some make it.

Yes it will appear under bear and will under Kodiak, but it will appear first for Kodiak Bear because of proximity rank. It's impossible to exclude every combination of words, because there might be a false hit, as it would exclude many more good results. What I mean is, if only exact matches worked and someone types in three words and all three words aren't there in a group, it would come up No Results.

Try that on SS for some searches. If you have two words known and one missing, on a specific kind of search, the results will be no matches found. But I know two words are there, it's my image with those two words.

Which would you rather have? Maybe a mistaken match now and then, or blank pages saying no match, because all words must be present and exactly those words?

It's just a logic issue and which one serves the most people and the buyers the best.

The answer is commas and keep it simple. Without personal testing, I won't know how much the "quoted phrase" makes a difference. The way I did that in the past, was put up 4 - 10 new images, similar subjects and they go keyword them in a variety of ways. Then wait for the system to update. Might be days.

See what different searches produce and what order. Then you will know exactly how the search works and if it makes any difference at all. Most of the time these are questions where the "two words" or ,two words, or ,two,words, all come up the same and there's not deep analysis or complicated process. I don't know for the new system.

And that's why I added same words in comprehensive and primary boxes, for more weight.  ;) Doesn't matter anymore so no secret, it helped.

ShadySue

« Reply #46 on: February 03, 2017, 14:02 »
0
^^ What would I rather have?
Still, after all this time, I'd prefer a controlled vocabulary to prevent having to type in all possibilities and common mis-spellings.
For example, there's the famous Edinburgh Festival Fringe, often called Edinburgh Fringe Festival or just Edinburgh Fringe. In iS, you only need to type one of these and all three searches map to that, but on Alamy I have to type all three out in full, because who knows what a buyer might search on?

Imagine all the possible spellings of Tighnabruaich!

(Yes, I know perfectly well that iS's CV wasn't being properly updated (necessary words not being added from the request thread) and have lots of personal experience of keywords disappearing and inappropriate keywords appearing, and nothing we, or support, can do about it. I meant when it was working.)
« Last Edit: February 03, 2017, 15:04 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

« Reply #47 on: February 03, 2017, 18:59 »
0
And then I found this thread.
http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/7005-alamy--what-has-happened-to-the-search-engine

Often in the past, what Alamy has recommended either doesn't work in real life, or isn't optimal. (Not only Alamy, of course!)

I haven't checked this one for myself, as I didn't check the positions of any pics in my 'ten minutes at a time' batches before I changed them.
I'm putting 'revisiting the keywording and maximising the supertags' on hold til we get more empirical evidence about what's happening.

« Reply #48 on: February 04, 2017, 05:58 »
0
Can anyone post a print-screen of a new system? It seems I still have the old one.

« Reply #49 on: February 06, 2017, 05:04 »
0
Anyone else having problems with the new IM? When I click on a submission in the left column it says there are 0 images! It's the same for all submissions. It worked a couple of days ago.

Sorted, had images not for sale as a filter!
« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 09:16 by Steveball »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Dear Persons of the Year

Started by Istock News Microstock News

0 Replies
1538 Views
Last post December 31, 1969, 19:00
by Istock News
Dear Diamond Exclusives

Started by Istock News Microstock News

2 Replies
2266 Views
Last post January 04, 2007, 15:18
by dbvirago
0 Replies
1979 Views
Last post January 04, 2010, 11:29
by rene
Dear Veer

Started by velocicarpo Veer

8 Replies
2210 Views
Last post March 01, 2012, 17:42
by velocicarpo
17 Replies
4418 Views
Last post January 27, 2017, 12:26
by Justanotherphotographer

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results