MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Incorrect keywords DT  (Read 27636 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2010, 04:38 »
0
I just got my notice today. When i go to the image, this message appears next to the keyword box:

This image has been rightfully reported as having bad keywords and an editor approved the needed corrections. At this time you can add more keywords only through the key-mentoring system.

Then a reviewer (or whoever does that) is not doing what they should.

While keywords have not yet been checked, does flagging impede your image to be found with those keywords?  THAT would be an issue.


« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2010, 04:57 »
0
While keywords have not yet been checked, does flagging impede your image to be found with those keywords?

No - in order for someone to have their ability to edit their own keywords restricted they have to, one, have been reported; then two, not corrected the file themselves after being notified thereto; and then third, the admin has to agree there was keyword spamming in the flagged file. At least that is the way it is now ... a while back one did not get the option to self-correct. But you do now ...

« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2010, 07:48 »
0
Quote
No - in order for someone to have their ability to edit their own keywords restricted they have to, one, have been reported; then two, not corrected the file themselves after being notified thereto; and then third, the admin has to agree there was keyword spamming in the flagged file. At least that is the way it is now ... a while back one did not get the option to self-correct. But you do now ...

I noticed the pink comment in the bar yesterday. I can believe the comment notice may have been there for a couple of days, but I cannot believe it was there for 2-1/2 years without me noticing it. The file says that the person flagged it in 2007. So either the process is NOT working the way you are saying, or there is some other issue going on. Someone posted in the last couple of days here on this forum that comments were popping up in his header bar, but when he clicked on them, nothing was there. I am wondering if my comment was lying dormant, and their recent changes to the server have now caused it to pop up.

In any case, the words pumpkin and pie are still in. I reviewed the keywords and they look ok. I don't need to change them, but something wacky is going on here. And by the way, I do not keyword spam. The rules for keywording have changed so much in the last few years, who knows what word may have been in there to cause the flag. And the way the system separates two words makes it even more likely that I accidentally used something wrong. Like "selective focus".

I think it's kind of silly to implement this system and then NOT allow the person to put what actual keywords are the problem ones.

« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2010, 14:21 »
0
I don't know about you, guys, but my entire portfolio seems to be flagged for bad keywords!
I was about to start a keyword clean-up session today for my older files with less downloads and I just realized I cannot edit any of my images. When I click Edit, they all show the same message - "This image has been rightfully reported as having bad keywords and an editor approved the needed corrections." etc. There's definitely something wrong!
I had no comments / notifications on any of my images, 0 comments showing now in the bar. I only had one report in the past for the keyword "cowboy" (on an isolated cowboy hat), which was an abuse - I think several of us had been hit by that person.
Could you randomly check some of your images and make sure you can still edit the info and keywords, even if you have no comments on them?
I already contacted support, I hope I'll get a reply before the weekend. :(

Oh, and something else: does the editing restriction apply to the whole portfolio or just to the image in question? Just in case I did have a rightful report but didn't receive the notification due to the recent site problems.

« Reply #29 on: February 19, 2010, 15:08 »
0
Quote
does the editing restriction apply to the whole portfolio or just to the image in question?

It should only apply to the image in question, but it does sound like something wacky is going on.

« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2010, 11:47 »
0
Man, am I stupid.  I believed this was a purebred Peruvian Paso horse.  Apparantly it's not chestnut and it's not even a horse!!!

Hm...if it's not a horse, I'm not sure what to call it.  My friend paid quite a bit of money for it, how do I tell him it's not even a horse?  He'll be mortified.  Those registered papers that call it a Peruvian Paso "horse" that is "chestnut" in colour must be a fraud!!!


lisafx

« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2010, 12:05 »
0
Part of the problem may be that on DT phrases have to be added as separate words.  I recently had an image of a Water Machine with a Coin Slot flagged for the keywords Slot Machine. 

Yes, it probably did come up in a search for "slot machine" and didn't belong there, but words "machine" and "slot" were both legitimate words just the same.  I can't see an easy fix for this type of thing short of a CV like Istock's.   

« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2010, 12:44 »
0
Part of the problem may be that on DT phrases have to be added as separate words.  I recently had an image of a Water Machine with a Coin Slot flagged for the keywords Slot Machine.
You can reply on the flagging comment with this argument. The reviewer will read it and see the obvious flagging mistake. They should allow compound keywords with unbreakable space, like Veer does.

lisafx

« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2010, 13:14 »
0
Part of the problem may be that on DT phrases have to be added as separate words.  I recently had an image of a Water Machine with a Coin Slot flagged for the keywords Slot Machine.
You can reply on the flagging comment with this argument. The reviewer will read it and see the obvious flagging mistake. They should allow compound keywords with unbreakable space, like Veer does.

Yes, I did that already.  :)

« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2010, 14:01 »
0
Part of the problem may be that on DT phrases have to be added as separate words.  I recently had an image of a Water Machine with a Coin Slot flagged for the keywords Slot Machine.  

Yes, it probably did come up in a search for "slot machine" and didn't belong there, but words "machine" and "slot" were both legitimate words just the same.  I can't see an easy fix for this type of thing short of a CV like Istock's.    

The funny thing is that they used to allow compound phrases, such as "slot machine", in their keywords, but they decided to get rid of them (for some reason).  I used to think that the ability to add compound phrases was one of the reasons why DT had a great search engine, because when you searched for "slot machine" you would most likely end up with images of a "slot machine".

« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2010, 14:12 »
0
This is off-topic, for sure, but...

That is a horse, and it could be a Peruvian Paso, but the color is not chestnut, it is a bay. If the registration papers for the horse say chestnut, I believe them to be wrong. Unless Peru calls horse colors something different than the US. A chestnut is a reddish color with a same color mane. Bays are brown with black manes and tails, clearly what that horse is.

OK, back to the topic of incorrect keywording...I thought I just recently read that if you contain the phrase in quotes, like "slot machine", in the keywords box, it would keep them together. Was that for another site or was I just dreaming (no pun intended).

« Reply #36 on: February 26, 2010, 16:10 »
0
I flagged a number of files ages ago and am now getting response (some abusive) from the contributors of the files.

If I had known that I would get these responses I wouldn't have flagged them, not because I think the keywords were even marginably correct but because I don't want to deal with people complaining at me for their spam.

I much prefer the Istock system where there is no chance of retailiation.

On a side note shutterstock has the worst spam around, do they have any reporting systems ?

« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2010, 17:34 »
0
You can reply on the flagging comment with this argument. The reviewer will read it and see the obvious flagging mistake. They should allow compound keywords with unbreakable space, like Veer does.
And StockXpert did too for a long time. I never understood why they stopped accepting this.

I hope Achilles is reading this thread and doing something about these absurd examples.

« Reply #38 on: February 26, 2010, 18:25 »
0
I still smell some sort of a scam here.  Maybe someone else has a photo of a Peruvian Paso and is trying to take out the competition.  Seriously, though, something like this suggests a mindless piece of software, spidering its way through the site, senselessly flagging images - but for what reason?

Maybe SS and DT have gone about as far as they can go without taking some responsibility for their own database content.  They can't rely on buyers and contributors to clean it up for them, at no cost.  Nice try, fellas, but it's just going to compound your problems.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2010, 18:28 by stockastic »

« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2010, 19:02 »
0
Quote
I believed this was a purebred Peruvian Paso horse.  Apparantly it's not chestnut and it's not even a horse!!!

If the word "chestnut" was used as a keyword in your horse photo, I can see why that might be flagged. A chestnut is a nut, as in roasting on an open fire. If someone was doing a search for that and your horse came up, I can see why they would be upset. Chestnut is not usually recognized as a color, only as a nut.

Remember, if it says your image was flagged because of the words "horse, chestnut, Peruvian Paso", those may not be the offending words. I just learned this last week when one of my images was flagged. The words they tell you are wrong, may not be the ones that are wrong. Which seems really silly to me. If you're going to put a program in place like this, why don't you show the true offending words?

KB

« Reply #40 on: February 26, 2010, 19:13 »
0
Quote
I believed this was a purebred Peruvian Paso horse.  Apparantly it's not chestnut and it's not even a horse!!!


If the word "chestnut" was used as a keyword in your horse photo, I can see why that might be flagged. A chestnut is a nut, as in roasting on an open fire. If someone was doing a search for that and your horse came up, I can see why they would be upset. Chestnut is not usually recognized as a color, only as a nut.

I agree chestnut is not usually recognized as a color. But it is used often as a description of horse hair color. Here's an entry from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chestnut_%28coat%29

And you're very right about the keywords given in the notice not necessarily being the ones objected to. I think this is a very poor way of doing it, though I can understand the ease of use factor (istock's method is much more accurate, but much more of a pain, too).

RT


« Reply #41 on: February 26, 2010, 19:39 »
0
If the word "chestnut" was used as a keyword in your horse photo, I can see why that might be flagged. A chestnut is a nut, as in roasting on an open fire. If someone was doing a search for that and your horse came up, I can see why they would be upset. Chestnut is not usually recognized as a color, only as a nut.

I bet if you asked 99.9% of buyers searching for a photo of a chestnut who had only used that single word in their search whether they were upset because a photo of a horse came up that was chestnut in colour they wouldn't be upset.

Chestnut is a widely used colour term, and not being a horse expert if I were searching for a golden/brown horse like the one shown I'd certainly use the word chestnut.
But by your reckoning anybody searching for a photo of a nut to go on the end of a bolt could justifiably be upset if they found a photo of a chestnut! You see lots of words in the English language have more than one meaning, 'bay' is another fine example, until you mentioned it earlier I'd never have considered using it to search for a horse photo but I would use the word bay to search for secluded coastal landscape photo, would I then be justified to be upset when that photo of the horse appeared?

Clearly without a shadow of a doubt whoever flagged those keywords as being wrong for that horse photo is either blind, stupid or has an alternative motive. The words 'horse' & 'chestnut' are 100% relative for that photo.

« Reply #42 on: February 26, 2010, 19:45 »
0
Quote
I believed this was a purebred Peruvian Paso horse.  Apparantly it's not chestnut and it's not even a horse!!!


If the word "chestnut" was used as a keyword in your horse photo, I can see why that might be flagged. A chestnut is a nut, as in roasting on an open fire. If someone was doing a search for that and your horse came up, I can see why they would be upset. Chestnut is not usually recognized as a color, only as a nut.


The Webster dictionary states the following:

1 a : any of a genus (Castanea) of trees or shrubs of the beech family; especially : an American tree (C. dentata) that was formerly a dominant or codominant member of many deciduous forests of the eastern United States but has now been largely eliminated by the chestnut blight and seldom grows beyond the shrub or sapling stage b : the edible nut of a chestnut c : the wood of a chestnut
2 : a grayish to reddish brown
3 : horse chestnut
4 : a chestnut-colored animal; specifically : a horse having a body color of any shade of pure or reddish brown with mane, tail, and points of the same or a lighter shade compare 2bay 1, 1sorrel 1
5 : a callosity on the inner side of the leg of the horse see horse illustration
6 a : an old joke or story b : something (as a musical piece or a saying) repeated to the point of staleness


As you can see, two out of the six definitions in the dictionary have to do with the color chestnut!

I'm sure that there might be buyers out there that understand this definition and might be looking for a chestnut colored horse.

And that is the problem with allowing others to flag keywords.  They usually don't understand the photo as well as the original artist, and they have no idea if the keyword is used as part of a compound expression.  On top of that, as has been stated many times before, artists will flag keywords for their competition.

cclapper: Could it be that you don't agree with this keyword because you have photos of horses as well?

http://www.dreamstime.com/search_dyn.php?s_ph=y&s_il=y&s_rf=y&s_ed=y&srh_field=horse&s_sm=all&s_st=new&memso=y&s_cf=1&s_catid=&s_cliid=138896&s_colid=&memorize_search=1&s_exc=&s_excp=&s_sp=Cathyclapper&s_sl1=y&s_sl2=y&s_sl3=y&s_sl4=y&s_sl5=y&s_color1=FFFFFF&s_percent1=10&s_color2=FFFFFF&s_percent2=10&s_rsf=0&s_rst=7&s_clc=y&s_clm=y&s_orp=y&s_ors=y&s_orl=y&s_orw=y

KB

« Reply #43 on: February 26, 2010, 19:51 »
0
And while I still have plenty of problems with IS' CV, it continues to improve each month.

If you type in 'chestnut' into the IS search box, you have 3 choices:
Chestnut (Animal Color)
Chestnut (Nut)
Chestnut .. Chestnut Tree (Deciduous Tree)


This is why I've always preferred IS' search system, regardless of its problems.

« Reply #44 on: February 26, 2010, 19:52 »
0
Quote
The words 'horse' & 'chestnut' are 100% relative for that photo.

Well, actually, no the word chestnut is NOT relevant to that photo, because as I explained in an earlier post, the picture that was posted of the horse IS NOT chestnut in color. Secretariat was a chestnut. That horse is a bay. So yes if I were searching for horse and chestnut and that image came up, I would be upset.

I don't consider myself to be an expert in ANYTHING, and with so many folks here coming from other parts of the world, there could be possibly be a language difference. But I did own horses for close to 30 years. I am 99.9% certain that is not a chestnut horse.

But your experience with horses and nuts and chestnuts and whether you think somebody would or wouldn't be upset may be different than mine and you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  ;)

stockmaniac: the horse that is prevalently shown in my portfolio is a bay. I believe there is one photo of a chestnut and he has a rider. If you are insinuating that I was the one that flagged the keywords, you are dead wrong. But I am a buyer of stock photos, and it annoys me to no end to search for a chestnut horse and have images of a bay horse come up!

Well, I'm off to watch last night's episode of Project Runway. You all have a great Friday night debating horse colors!

edit to add one more thing since you took the time to post my horse photos (thanks for the exposure): The child holding his arms out to his sides is on a chestnut. Note the mane and coat color are the same. Note the bay horse, body brown, mane and tail black.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2010, 19:56 by cclapper »

helix7

« Reply #45 on: February 26, 2010, 19:59 »
0

I got reported today for incorrect keyword "icons" for a set of vector icons.  ;D

« Reply #46 on: February 26, 2010, 21:45 »
0
The irksome thing here is this woman has a single horse in her port and she cherry picked my keywords.  Then again, this friggin flag is from 2007 - maybe she wouldn't do it now.

I'm going to ask them about chestnut.  They have been breeding Peruvian Pasos for decades and should know.  To be honest though, they do have horses that are redish brown so maybe they were telling me about one of the horses that I didn't release. 

So, I wonder how many flags I have to look forward to from 2007-2010 and when I'll see them.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #47 on: February 26, 2010, 22:09 »
0
How do you know that you've been flagged? Do they e-mail you or is it posted on the site?

« Reply #48 on: February 27, 2010, 05:06 »
0
How do you know that you've been flagged? Do they e-mail you or is it posted on the site?
You will get a comment on the image. The problem is that for flagging, the comment reporting was off by at least a year till recently, so you had no choice to reply in time.

RT


« Reply #49 on: February 27, 2010, 06:23 »
0
Quote
The words 'horse' & 'chestnut' are 100% relative for that photo.

Well, actually, no the word chestnut is NOT relevant to that photo, because as I explained in an earlier post, the picture that was posted of the horse IS NOT chestnut in color. Secretariat was a chestnut. That horse is a bay. So yes if I were searching for horse and chestnut and that image came up, I would be upset.

I don't consider myself to be an expert in ANYTHING, and with so many folks here coming from other parts of the world, there could be possibly be a language difference. But I did own horses for close to 30 years. I am 99.9% certain that is not a chestnut horse.

But your experience with horses and nuts and chestnuts and whether you think somebody would or wouldn't be upset may be different than mine and you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  ;)

Try to understand that DT is not a specialist horse site , if it were a site that only sold photos of horses you may have a point, but to the vast majority of people the colour of that horse is chestnut, which despite your objections is a colour, and because the colour of that horses coat to everyone that isn't an expert in horses is chestnut it makes that keyword relevant.

To apply your keywording logic does that mean I would be justified to flag up keywords you've used in the photo you have in your port of the 'curry comb' , because 'curry' is a food, and you've also used the word 'horse' neither of which are in the photo - no of course it wouldn't because as a collective the words are justified. On a side note you might consider adding the words 'cut out' 'isolated' 'object' 'nobody' etc etc


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
28 Replies
3137 Views
Last post July 12, 2013, 14:32
by cthoman
2 Replies
1956 Views
Last post May 20, 2014, 20:14
by ecadphoto
2 Replies
1656 Views
Last post March 29, 2016, 20:25
by angelawaye
31 Replies
7385 Views
Last post September 26, 2016, 19:57
by AlessandraRC
0 Replies
877 Views
Last post May 23, 2018, 22:30
by grace

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results