Author Topic: This one takes the cake (Read 17617 times)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #25 on:** February 04, 2015, 01:35 »

Well, this site does automatic rejections, too, and produces some strange results. I can't write * without it being deleted.... errr - that is c.h.u.c.k.i.n.g. I was trying to write. To the best of my knowledge the verb to chuck (do I have to write "to c.h.u.c.k") has no obscene meaning (the worst meaning I know for it is to vomit), but an automated review automatically rejects it (while allowing tits, which does have a dodgy meaning in some contexts... so I can write "I was * some rubbish out when I saw some lovely tits on a girl across the road" and the wrong word will get deleted).
Automation is wonderful, isn't it. Now, about auto-correct on ipads....

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** February 04, 2015, 09:26 »

Quote from: marthamarks on February 03, 2015, 23:53

And also, sometime in the past, when I included the keyword "peep," which is a common birder's term for a sandpiper ("Hey, look, there's a whole flock of peeps over on that sandbar!"), especially when you're not sure what kind of sandpiper it is ('cause they can be verrrry confusing), that image got rejected too.
Those had to be robotic reviewers, because the subjects in question were clearly not pornographic… unless the delicate viewer can't bear the sight of unclothed birds. :-)

The rejection of 'peep' was probably iS, back in the day. There still is no DA of peep to sandpiper, only 'looking'.
IIRC, the original Getty CV was UK English, and 'peep' isn't used here for Sandpipers. I know the use from having birded in the US; we call them all (not just sandpipers) 'waders' (not the high wellies! [Where wellies/Wellingtons/Welington Boots = gumboots in the US, I think]).

marthamarks · « **Reply #27 on:** February 04, 2015, 10:13 »

"Peeps" is quite standard here in birder-ese.

I just Googled "peeps birds" and the first entry that came up was this from Birding magazine:

https://www.aba.org/birding/v40n4p32.pdf

See the left column on the 1st page. The first words are: "The peeps, common slang for the five smallest North American sandpipers..."

And the 2nd page headline reads: "American Peeps: Approach to an old problem."

Clearly, my robotic reviewer was not a birder.

ShadySue · « **Reply #28 on:** February 04, 2015, 10:43 »

Quote from: marthamarks on February 04, 2015, 10:13

"Peeps" is quite standard here in birder-ese.
Clearly, my robotic reviewer was not a birder.

Maybe not an American birder. Like I said, it's not a universally used term.
But on iStock, even if they were personally familiar with this birding slang, they would still have to reject it, as it's not in the CV.
It could only map to 'looking', which would probably be wrong unless your sandpipers were clearly 'looking' at something in your images. It's how the CV works. And if someone searched on 'peep' or 'peeps', they're going to get a lot of pictures with the keyword 'looking'. You could ask for peeps to be added to DA to sandpipers, if you were still there, but as you're not, it's moot.
Nowadays, despite claims to the contrary, it seems any old keywords get in, unless Keywordzilla is on the prowl rejecting even relevant words.

To be fair, I just searched on Peeps on SS, and clearly I'd be far better to search on Sandpipers. Even peeps birds wasn't all that great without excluding vectors etc. as there were lots of birds (misc) peeping out from behind things.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 04, 2015, 13:18 »

I always thought Peeps were those little marshmallow chicks you see at Easter - I'm surprised those aren't in the iS DA, because a Google search on "peeps" gets you marshmallow candies

tickstock · « **Reply #30 on:** February 04, 2015, 13:20 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on February 04, 2015, 13:18

I always thought Peeps were those little marshmallow chicks you see at Easter - I'm surprised those aren't in the iS DA, because a Google search on "peeps" gets you marshmallow candies

It is.

marthamarks · « **Reply #31 on:** February 04, 2015, 13:53 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on February 04, 2015, 13:18

I always thought Peeps were those little marshmallow chicks you see at Easter - I'm surprised those aren't in the iS DA, because a Google search on "peeps" gets you marshmallow candies

Peeps is a brand name for those marshmallow candies, isn't it?

Well, as we all know, the English language is rich and varied. And like every other major language in the world, there are wide disparities between countries, and even within countries.

For example, here in the US, a flavored carbonated beverage is variously known as a "soda", a "pop", a "soft drink" or (in some very regional areas) as a "Coke" (for the original brand). And I bet there's an equally diverse name for that product in the UK, Canada, and Australia.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #32 on:** February 04, 2015, 15:49 »

Quote from: Fyletto on February 03, 2015, 04:53

I still think it is a bug of somekind. I tried searching "bird" and "breast" in their system and the result was over 3000 images...

you wouldn't also search for cock , chicmen , and balls , did you?
cock , chicmen , according to wiki a male gallinaceous bird, usually male chicken (Gallus gallus).
balls, as in those things that tennis players love to grab four in one hand

marthamarks · « **Reply #33 on:** February 04, 2015, 16:02 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on February 04, 2015, 15:49

Quote from: Fyletto on February 03, 2015, 04:53
I still think it is a bug of somekind. I tried searching "bird" and "breast" in their system and the result was over 3000 images...

you wouldn't also search for cock , chicmen , and balls , did you?
cock , chicmen , according to wiki a male gallinaceous bird, usually male chicken (Gallus gallus).
balls, as in those things that tennis players love to grab four in one hand

Personally, no. I wouldn't search for any of those terms.

However, an avid North American birder looking for general information on the five species of small sandpipers, rather than search for each individual type of bird, might well Google "peep" or (more likely) "peeps." It never occurred to me when I attached that keyword to an image of exactly that kind of little critter, that anybody would see anything dirty or inappropriate in it.

Guess I'm just too innocent of mind.

ShadySue · « **Reply #34 on:** February 04, 2015, 16:16 »

Quote from: tickstock on February 04, 2015, 13:20

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on February 04, 2015, 13:18
I always thought Peeps were those little marshmallow chicks you see at Easter - I'm surprised those aren't in the iS DA, because a Google search on "peeps" gets you marshmallow candies
It is.

I had never heard of the brand named Peeps until I saw them earlier on SS in my search.
Peep on iS only maps to 'looking'; Peeps only maps to the marshmallow, when uploading, but searching on Peeps offers you a DA between looking and the marshmallow brand.

BTW, why does Peeps (the brand) not need to be sold as editorial on SS?

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #35 on:** February 04, 2015, 16:46 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 04, 2015, 16:16

TW, why does Peeps (the brand) not need to be sold as editorial on SS?

I thought it did need to be editorial - very definitely a brand name

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** February 04, 2015, 17:08 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on February 04, 2015, 16:46

Quote from: ShadySue on February 04, 2015, 16:16
TW, why does Peeps (the brand) not need to be sold as editorial on SS?

I thought it did need to be editorial - very definitely a brand name

How can you tell that an SS image is editorial only? Maybe I just didn't notice!

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 04, 2015, 17:26 »

It's very clearly marked and has an editorial caption - you will know it if you see one.

I just did a search for "peeps" on SS and some images of the marshmallow kind came up that are not editorial - presumably submitted a while ago - and others submitted last year are editorial. No birds on the first page of results out of almost 10,000 photo hits. A search of "peeps marshmallow" returned only 26 photos, most submitted by the same person. With only 26 hits it's an unsaturated subject, although I doubt there's much demand.

wordplanet · « **Reply #38 on:** February 04, 2015, 18:12 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 03, 2015, 04:19

...
It was this quote "and have to be sent up to someone higher on the review chain to determine whether in fact these are photos of birds or naked women." which was the giveaway. Either they have blind and/or stupid reviewers or it's machine-driven.

Maybe they could look at the photo as well as the keywords? LOL I'm not with them but you gave me a good giggle for the day.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #39 on:** February 05, 2015, 14:35 »

Quote from: wordplanet on February 04, 2015, 18:12

Quote from: ShadySue on February 03, 2015, 04:19
...
It was this quote "and have to be sent up to someone higher on the review chain to determine whether in fact these are photos of birds or naked women." which was the giveaway. Either they have blind and/or stupid reviewers or it's machine-driven.
Maybe they could look at the photo as well as the keywords? LOL I'm not with them but you gave me a good giggle for the day.

or they have real 20 20 vision reviewers who are flagging for naked women so they can cloud their morning coffee

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: This one takes the cake (Read 17617 times)

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

marthamarks

ShadySue

sgoodwin4813

tickstock

marthamarks

etudiante_rapide

marthamarks

ShadySue

sgoodwin4813

ShadySue

sgoodwin4813

wordplanet

etudiante_rapide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors