Author Topic: What would you like to see in the new manage images / upload process? (Read 26494 times)

Alamy · « **on:** November 03, 2014, 06:19 »

We're starting to work on something we've wanted to do for a while now: improving the upload and keywording process.

Although our turnaround times for image processing are one of the quickest in the business, it's clear that our upload tool and keyword management areas of the site could be far more user friendly.

We're looking at vastly streamlining the whole process to make keywording and uploading more elegant and efficient which should make submitting images to us a far more enjoyable experience.

So what would you want to see changed / bought in? We're already sold on the idea of removing the flash element of manage images, and we have plenty of other exciting ideas up our sleeves for how we think things could be made better, but we're looking for your top 3 things you'd like to see improved.

Every idea will be read and considered.

Cheers

Alamy

bunhill · « **Reply #1 on:** November 03, 2014, 06:45 »

Quote from: Alamy on November 03, 2014, 06:19

we're looking for your top 3 things you'd like to see improved.

Hi. Thanks for asking.

1. ~~End dependence on Flash. Alamy is the only reason I still need Flash on my Macbook.~~

OK - I see I didn't read the OP properly.

2. IPTC keywords would be mapped to Main Keywords. Either recognising but removing separating commas - or else making comma separation the norm.

3. The ability to add additional keywords to multiple images in the batch / bulk editing functionality. i.e. whilst leaving existing keywords in place.

Lightrecorder · « **Reply #2 on:** November 03, 2014, 06:46 »

The batch editor at Shutterstock is pretty good. Just implement it like that and you are golden.

mystock · « **Reply #3 on:** November 03, 2014, 06:48 »

Thanks for realising that the keywording area needs an improvement, and thanks for asking here.

Basically, we need just one thing: if the IPTC data is complete, then you must import images without any action required on our part.

If you really need to have essential, main and secondary keywords, then you can import the first 8 keywords as "essential", without asking for manual intervention of course.

Other information such as Description, Attributes and Date and Place are useless most of the time.
Please make it completely voluntary or remove altogether.

FTP would be a plus.
And a different folder for editorial will make things even easier.

bunhill · « **Reply #4 on:** November 03, 2014, 06:51 »

Quote from: mystock on November 03, 2014, 06:48

If you really need to have main and secondary keywords, then you can import the first 8 keywords as "main", without asking for manual intervention of course.

OT/ This would not work for the vast majority of users using Lightroom since Lightroom puts keywords in alphabetical order.

mystock · « **Reply #5 on:** November 03, 2014, 06:57 »

Quote from: bunhill on November 03, 2014, 06:51

Quote from: mystock on November 03, 2014, 06:48
If you really need to have main and secondary keywords, then you can import the first 8 keywords as "main", without asking for manual intervention of course.

OT/ This would not work for the vast majority of users using Lightroom since Lightroom puts keywords in alphabetical order.

(First, an edit - I meant "essential" instead of "main", my error, sorry).

Then let's make the essential keywords non-compulsory.
Or map them to a different (usually) unused IPTC field.

About the Lightroom alphabetical order, we need to ask Adobe to fix that in version 7.
I stopped keywording in LR for that reason.

bunhill · « **Reply #6 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:05 »

Quote from: mystock on November 03, 2014, 06:48

Basically, we need just one thing: if the IPTC data is complete, then you must import images without any action required on our part.

OT/ That is never going to work since there are multiple other details which are essential - e.g. number of people, releases, licence type etc

I like the Alamy system and would like it tweaked, not abandoned.

dirkr · « **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:06 »

Remove the existence of three different keyword fields, keep just one.
Everything else is ok.

But while you're listening: Why do images with unrecognizable people (like tiny spots on a far away beach) have to be RM? Allow them as RF, so they can be sold at other RF places as well, that would be an improvement.

mystock · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:09 »

Quote from: bunhill on November 03, 2014, 07:05

Quote from: mystock on November 03, 2014, 06:48
Basically, we need just one thing: if the IPTC data is complete, then you must import images without any action required on our part.

OT/ That is never going to work since there are multiple other details which are essential - e.g. number of people, releases, licence type etc

I like the Alamy system and would like it tweaked, not abandoned.

What about a preset for all those data?
E.g., I don't do model shots or illustrations, so there are always 0 people in my images and all images are photos.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:15 »

For uploads via the News Feed, since you know how to auto-add the contributor's name on upload, find a way of auto-removing it again when it enters the main collection.
At the moment, if Joe Bloggs uploads a news photo shot in London, and doesn't go back into manage images to remove his name afterwards, his photo shows in a search for 'Joe London'. (Or indeed Joe 'anything else in the caption or keywords', likewise Bloggs [hypothetically])

dirkr · « **Reply #10 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:23 »

Another one: don't split phrases when importing keywords.

bunhill · « **Reply #11 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:30 »

Quote from: dirkr on November 03, 2014, 07:06

Why do images with unrecognizable people (like tiny spots on a far away beach) have to be RM? Allow them as RF, so they can be sold at other RF places as well, that would be an improvement.

Who decides whether a person is recognizable - especially when so often that is about context ? Straight yes/no is best IMO. Same as with property - e.g. vehicles, houses etc.

Anyhow - surely we don't do want them to do anything which encourages people to upload the same content to Alamy as they are also selling elsewhere as RF for typically much less money ?

dirkr · « **Reply #12 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:37 »

Quote from: bunhill on November 03, 2014, 07:30

Quote from: dirkr on November 03, 2014, 07:06
Why do images with unrecognizable people (like tiny spots on a far away beach) have to be RM? Allow them as RF, so they can be sold at other RF places as well, that would be an improvement.

Who decides whether a person is recognizable - especially when so often that is about context ? Straight yes/no is best IMO. Same as with property - e.g. vehicles, houses etc.

Anyhow - surely we don't do want them to do anything which encourages people to upload the same content to Alamy as they are also selling elsewhere as RF for typically much less money ?

If you don't have a release (e.g. crowd scenes) you could still sell as editorial, but there's no reason that cannot be RF.
So allowing to mark images as "RF + no release available" would be good.

LylePaddle · « **Reply #13 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:43 »

Please get rid of the need to separate keywords into 3 fields. It is tedious at best. If you require there be a set of essential keywords then please make it so the user can just select those from the main keyword block and they move into the essential block and disappear from the main block.

Right now sorting through the keywords to separate them is just too labor intensive.

But really there should be no tiers at all. A photographer should just be able to upload his IPTC keyworded images without any additional work.

mystock · « **Reply #14 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:51 »

Quote from: bunhill on November 03, 2014, 07:30

Anyhow - surely we don't do want them to do anything which encourages people to upload the same content to Alamy as they are also selling elsewhere as RF for typically much less money ?

The first thing that came to my mind when I saw this post by Alamy is that they are thinking about turning Alamy into regular microstock.

Which - considering how sales are falling there, at least for me - could even make sense.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #15 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:16 »

Upload IPTC data directly into the Alamy fields with no need to edit on the Alamy site or do special Alamy edits prior to upload. My database alphabetizes keywords and is not compatible with the 3 field Alamy method.

If Alamy is going to continue with the 3 fields for keywords, make the interface have a drag and drop capability to very quickly move keywords (and phrases) to the desired field.

Add more status to the batch processing. If you are going to put people in the sin bin for failures, that is fine. However the batch status needs to identify that so submitters can tell if inspection is slow or if the inspection has failed. This is very significant during the holidays. Is inspection slow or did I fail? Do I upload more or do I go back and find my failures? Failures feedback at the time of failure will make us better at self inspection regardless of the sin bin consequences. I don't need to make 30 more days of failures while waiting on a last batch failure status.

rimglow · « **Reply #16 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:19 »

Do away with keyword tiers! No other site makes us go through that. One set of keywords is all you need.

tickstock · « **Reply #17 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:21 »

Keyword tiers are one of the better things Alamy does, I'd like to see other sites adopt that or something similar. Spending a few extra seconds making sure our images have good keywords helps buyers find them. What's more important uploading millions of images as quickly as possible or getting sales?

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #18 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:24 »

I still use the old manage images and overall I find it much, much better than the "new" one.

For example, I can see clearly which image I'm working on instead of the square thumbs which can look similar despite one image being horizontal, one vertical and another a panorama.

I can see multiple images and easily copy/paste or drag/drop the keywords from one to others.

All info needed about an image is seen at once without need to move through tabs. I really cannot understand why, on a pop-up window used exclusively for one image, there's need for tabs while 80% of the computer monitor is unused!

As previously mentioned the way Shutterstock handles the uploads management is very good. Coincidentally it's very similar to the old manage images from alamy...

Except for the batch edit, I never liked the new manage images.

Dook · « **Reply #19 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:25 »

The same like the others - keywords. Just accept the keywords brought in with IPTC. Now you have time consuming process, which is why I haven't uploaded half of my portfolio yet.
I'm happy that you recognized the problem. If you implement it right your collection will grow significantly.

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #20 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:29 »

I agree with keeping the keyword tiers. It's one of the best things alamy has despite the work it requires. At least we can choose the most relevant ones and limit the spam.

tickstock · « **Reply #21 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:36 »

Quote from: Dook on November 03, 2014, 08:25

The same like the others - keywords. Just accept the keywords brought in with IPTC. Now you have time consuming process, which is why I haven't uploaded half of my portfolio yet.
I'm happy that you recognized the problem. If you implement it right your collection will grow significantly.

If you want Alamy to be like every other microstock site expect them to compete on price just like all the other microstock sites. I for one would like to see Alamy continue as something different. If spending a few seconds arranging your most relevant keywords means that you can't make money then my guess is your images aren't worth uploading in the first place.

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:47 »

Quote from: Dook on November 03, 2014, 08:25

If you implement it right your collection will grow significantly.

I don't think 'lack of size' of Alamy's collection is a serious issue.

samards · « **Reply #23 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:51 »

- remove 10 types of different keyword categories - just make order of keywords important (if that is needed at all)
- make drag-drop functionality - like on SS or DT - it is much easier to see and drag photos to drop area.
- make FTP upload working for everybody
- take a look at 123RF - there's the easiest upload process

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #24 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:54 »

Quote from: bunhill on November 03, 2014, 07:30

Anyhow - surely we don't do want them to do anything which encourages people to upload the same content to Alamy as they are also selling elsewhere as RF for typically much less money ?

From my 10+ sales I had last month 90% were under $10.

Micro now accepts editorial content which means that images that in the past only had place in alamy are now accepted in Micro as RF Editorial.

One of the strongest collections in the past for alamy was travel photography. Now, at least for the most known places you can find great images on micro.

The distinction has no sense anymore except for very specific type of images.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What would you like to see in the new manage images / upload process? (Read 26494 times)

Alamy

bunhill

Lightrecorder

mystock

bunhill

mystock

bunhill

dirkr

mystock

ShadySue

dirkr

bunhill

dirkr

LylePaddle

mystock

StanRohrer

rimglow

tickstock

StockPhotosArt.com

Dook

StockPhotosArt.com

tickstock

ShadySue

samards

StockPhotosArt.com

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors