MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Dreamstime.com => Topic started by: litifeta on February 17, 2010, 18:09
-
This is a cup of coffee ... real coffee. I got reported for the incorrect keyword "coffee". Pretty funny
(http://www.dreamstime.com/new-home-design-contract-and-coffee-thumb1570315.jpg)
-
Weird. So what are the consequences of being 'reported'?
-
Maybe they thought it was a cup of tea? :)
-
apparently you get paid 2 cents for reporting the wrong keyword, i imagine the result is they deduct 2 cents from your income.
-
I got one of those today too.
http://www.dreamstime.com/slice-of-pumpkin-pie-image1579686 (http://www.dreamstime.com/slice-of-pumpkin-pie-image1579686)
(sorry not too good at embedding images)
It got flagged for using the words pumpkin pie. When I checked the data for the person reporting, it appears to be a buyer. No portfolio, nothing. A name and city. I replied and asked why pumpkin pie should be flagged. I also sent a message to support, asking why pumpkin pie was flagged, and also asking what happens to the file while it's being investigated, what happens to the person if they wrongly flag, and is the file available for download while all this is going on.
I am all for getting rid of keyword spamming, but this is ridiculous. I hope they reprimand people who do this nonsense. It's always something, isn't it?
-
Any chance of getting hold of some of that pie Cathy?
-
There seems to be a food theme here. Hmmm....
-
This is a cup of coffee ... real coffee. I got reported for the incorrect keyword "coffee". Pretty funny
([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/new-home-design-contract-and-coffee-thumb1570315.jpg[/url])
Funny, I had the same exact thing. Coffee removed from a series of images of a woman serving coffee, Chef removed from many pictures of a chef, Isolated and Chart removed from a picture of two doctors isolated and holding a chart.
Don't know if their system is experiencing a glitch or if some submitters are trying to remove relevant keywords from competing images. Either way, I sure hope the people tasked with reviewing these changes are paying attention.
-
I was going to help Cathy by posting her image, but I can't seem to get it to work either. So much for me being Ms. Know-it-All ;)
-
you mean like this ... LOL
(http://www.dreamstime.com/slice-of-pumpkin-pie-thumb1579686.jpg)
-
OK so how did you do that?
-
I am getting plenty of these. Like image of handsome businessman sitting in office reported for bad keywords of "handsome", "businessman", "office". I never thought and still hope DT is not so stupid to let this reports harm your files without any reviewing.
-
OK so how did you do that?
right click on the image on the page. that gives you the properties of the image with its url, which is different to the page. copy, hit the insert image button up there (pretend there is an arrow pointing) and then paste the image url in, then post.
-
This almost sounds like a scam - and maybe even an automated scam. Is someone running a program that randomly chooses images, arbitrarily selects one keyword and reports it as 'bad'? Maybe using some simple-minded heuristic such as - words that appears in both the description and the list of keywords...
-
DT instituted this new keyword spam reporting thing in August of 2009 (Here's the original thread - http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18084 (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18084))...
"Each time one of your images is flagged for irrelevant keywords, you will receive a comment. As you probably know, flags are reviewed and will continue to be reviewed. If the flag is valid, we approve it and your image had editing rights blocked. Should the flag be invalid, it will be refused. However, it may take some time to have flags reviewed therefore, while the report is still pending, you have the possibility of removing irrelevant keywords. In case the the report is correct, you can edit the images and delete the keyword/s in question."
So, when you report a bad keyword it automatically generates a comment to the contributor who can then reply to the comment and justify why they think the reported keyword is ok. Someone in Support reads both the bad keyword report and your reply and then decides whether or not to remove the keyword.
Problem is, they are just now only getting around to addressing all these comments. I think they've had a lot of other, more important things to deal with, or this system got sent to a server that didn't sync with the images. So these comments are just now showing up. I'm all for cleaning things up but I don't know if this is a good way to handle bad keyword reports.
-
The stupid thing about DT locking editing... if you get a legit bad-keyword, it will likely be from one of your oldish files and it will make you cringe at your own amateurishness... you will want to change the other keywords because now that you are a seasoned pro you will recognise the error of your ways and you won't be able to.
-
That's supposedly the good thing about this new reporting scheme. You get a comment and can then reply with a good reason or just delete the bad keyword before any action is taken. They are also pretty good with making a change if you just contact them and explain your situation, if it is a simple mistake. I've always found them to be very understanding.
-
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.
When I click inside the keyword box to try to change the keywords, I can't. So if the reviewer has already checked the keywords and locked them, then they did so WITHOUT removing pumpkin and pie. Which almost leads me to believe:
This almost sounds like a scam - and maybe even an automated scam. Is someone running a program that randomly chooses images, arbitrarily selects one keyword and reports it as 'bad'? Maybe using some simple-minded heuristic such as - words that appears in both the description and the list of keywords...
When I look at the page for the person who reported the bad keyword:
http://www.dreamstime.com/healthoffices_info (http://www.dreamstime.com/healthoffices_info)
There's nothing there. I just assumed it was a buyer.
It also says that comment was dated 9/11/07 and yet that pink comment notice just showed up in the last couple of days. I'm positive it hasn't been there for 2-1/2 years!
Like this?
(http://www.dreamstime.com/slice-of-pumpkin-pie-thumb1579686.jpg)
Yay!
ETA: I did reply to the comment and sent a message to support. But I should be able to self-edit the keywords, per their explanation, and I was not able to.
-
If DT is getting scammed by someone using fake accounts, and software that 'works' the site to rake in 2 cent payments by the hundreds or thousands - they're going to have a hellacious mess to clean up.
-
It does not work that way folks ... for starters, you have an opportunity to review the flagged images to double check that your keywords are correct - only if you insist that the keywords are correct do they then go to an admin - the admin then determines if the keywords are spam - and if they are, then and only then does the flagger get 2cents - i assure you no one is flagging for the 2cents ... it is just not feasible ... also if you flags are incorrect you flagging rights get suspended ...
On the other hand, the keywords you are getting notified on - Pumpkin pie, coffee etc - are just guesses by the system i.e. they are likely the term a person intially searched on but they may very well have gone off from there - those may not, or indeed, are likely not the keywords actually being flagged - if you are notified of a flag it would behoove you to check the image to ensure there are no incorrect words in your list ...
-
it would behoove you to check the image to ensure there are no incorrect words in your list
I'm not sure that I'm understanding correctly... Are you saying that the flag does not tell you which keyword your image was flagged for?
TIA for clarification.
-
I'm not sure that I'm understanding correctly... Are you saying that the flag does not tell you which keyword your image was flagged for?
Think about it - 9 times out of 10 the person is simply clicking on a little icon of a flag - they are not inputting the actual words - so the system must be, by definiton, taking a guess - there is a facility for actually reporting the words themselves but this is very time consuming and I doubt very many people are using this procedure now - it is so much easier to just click the flag icon ... but keep in mind too that the person's identity is being given out as well so I really don't think people are by and large doing this for spite ... they are being held accountable.
-
ahhhh ... so that's how it works. Thanks for clearing it up Hoi
-
I'm not sure that I'm understanding correctly... Are you saying that the flag does not tell you which keyword your image was flagged for?
Think about it - 9 times out of 10 the person is simply clicking on a little icon of a flag - they are not inputting the actual words - so the system must be, by definiton, taking a guess - there is a facility for actually reporting the words themselves but this is very time consuming and I doubt very many people are using this procedure now - it is so much easier to just click the flag icon ... but keep in mind too that the person's identity is being given out as well so I really don't think people are by and large doing this for spite ... they are being held accountable.
Yeah, well put.
The image the system uses though would have been the last search term so generally, the keyword should be correct.
I have had a few images flagged for keywords and yep- there was a problem with them. They were images I uploaded 5 years with totally rotten keywords :( I like the keyword system and go in and correct images that get flagged.
On the same note, if i do a search and some crazy images show up, I'll flag the images. It only takes a second to click the flag and helps clean up DT's database and helps the photographer clean up his images.
-
Didn't they stop paying the 2c recently? There is a lot of talk about people flagging for the 2c but I doubt there are many if anybody that does it for the money. I have flagged quite a few images because it really annoys me when totally irrelevant images come up before mine that are keyworded properly and also I would be very annoyed if I was a buyer and had to sort through all the rubbish to get to images that fitted my search.
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!!
(http://www.dreamstime.com/peruvian-paso-horse-thumb1071610.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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".
-
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).
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (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).
-
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.
-
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 (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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
I got reported today for incorrect keyword "icons" for a set of vector icons. ;D
-
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.
-
How do you know that you've been flagged? Do they e-mail you or is it posted on the site?
-
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.
-
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
-
DT is not fond of the word "nobody." Tangie, an admin says,
"... it is not that "nobody" is not accepted as keyword. We already have an option to search for images with or without people - see Dreamfinder advanced search tools. You can use nobody but, as general recommendation, do not use keywords that do not really help your images in searches. Remember that less may be better from certain points of view so keep image keywords as short as possible."
-
DT is not fond of the word "nobody." Tangie, an admin says...
Yes that was in a reply to my post. However, I wonder how many buyers use those extended search options. I still keep using nobody, one/two/three person and isolated as standard keywords that are good for all sites.
-
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.
Would it be a wise idea to go in and edit the keywords on those antique images? I use to put "landscape/horizontal" for direction and "color/black and white" for type of image. I know alot of the early ones have those keywords in them. I don't do that any more and haven't for awhile so wonder if it wouldn't be a wise idea to do it before they do get flagged.
-
DT is not fond of the word "nobody." Tangie, an admin says,
"... it is not that "nobody" is not accepted as keyword. We already have an option to search for images with or without people - see Dreamfinder advanced search tools. You can use nobody but, as general recommendation, do not use keywords that do not really help your images in searches. Remember that less may be better from certain points of view so keep image keywords as short as possible."
There are certain terms and words that are widely used across all stock agencies worldwide both micro and macro and have been for a very long time, the fact that a DT admin is encouraging contributors not to use them is not a very comforting thought, but nothing surprises me about DT anymore, I sometimes wonder if they actually want anybody to buy stuff there.
-
DT is not fond of the word "nobody." Tangie, an admin says,
"... it is not that "nobody" is not accepted as keyword. We already have an option to search for images with or without people - see Dreamfinder advanced search tools. You can use nobody but, as general recommendation, do not use keywords that do not really help your images in searches. Remember that less may be better from certain points of view so keep image keywords as short as possible."
Hmm, you can select "with people" in advanced search, but not "without people", what I think would be a very useful choice.
But do they accept flagging on "nobody"? That's silly. They may say it's useless, but not that it is wrong to use it.
Was this answer in their forum? I would like to comment this.
-
Here's the "nobody" thread -
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_20297 (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_20297)
-
WOW, I had an image reported yesterday where the person suggested to remove about 80% of my keywords, that mostly directly relate to the image.
I wrote to support.
Funny thing the comment showed up as new but the date was from 2007.
I said it then when they started the keyword reporting and I say it now: It's not working.
Now, they have to have a massive amount of resources work on this glitch and guess what? Someone is paying for this and in these times it's not the buyers, it's rather us contributors not getting another raise soon...
Not happy about how this panned out.
-
I guess you know where our 20% pay cut will be applied :o
-
I guess you know where our 20% pay cut will be applied :o
I'd rather see this money invested into reviewers checking keywords while image review and locking them right away.
If changes need to be made it should be done by request through support. DONE.
-
Indeed, DT has a 'without people' option, which is hidden in the 'model properties' tab. It makes a lot of sense... to them ??? It seems no one thought of having it next to "with people" check box.
from their forum
It is an option, just not in the same place as the 'with people' option. You have to click on the 'DreamFinder advanced search' down arrow, click on the 'model properties' tab, and from there select 'No people'.
-
I got an answer from DT today saying that they are going through the reports "gradually" - that's why they state back to 2007.
I wonder what happened in the last 3 years with those reports... :-X
Secondly I'm being harassed by a member reporting keywords that are directly related to the images.
What a waste of time.
-
I received 33 comments today that my images were flagged for incorrect keywords.
Ridiculous fact #1: The date on the comments is 2007.
Ridiculous fact #2: Vast majority of the reported keywords are directly related to the image.
EXAMPLES:
1. Image containing nothing but closeup on red rose is flagged for "red" and "rose"
2. Image depicting child playing on beach is flagged for "child" "play" "beach"
3. Image of echinacea flower is flagged for "medicinal" "herb" "flower"
.....
I am not going to waste more time here, but the list can go on and on and on. I emailed support about this. I got a reply that sometimes "users can make a mistake when reporting an image". Sorry, not this kind of "mistake" and not this consistently. This system is not working. It is mostly abuse and waste of time. I replied to some of the comments a while ago, and the person who supposedly flagged some of the images (for fully relevant keywords) replied that they didn't even do it. I think Dreamstime needs to pay close attention to these - someone is abusing their system, this can damage the site and can result in a lot of wasted time and money.
I am not a keyword spammer. Sometimes it's a judgement call if a keyword belongs to the image or not. I think a better course of action for Dreamstime is to identify the spammers and work on removing their images instead of releasing a flood of outdated and mostly irrelevant comments on photographers who actually comply with the rules.
-
When does Dreamstime realize that there is a problem?
I've been reporting these kind of problems for months!
I just got 16 today from one user who is submitting inferior quality images.
Obviously, low quality submitters are trying to push long standing members out of their way.
-
I've had few, always wrong and always overturned. Also always people with no portfolio, I suspect that there are submitters setting up second accounts so as to avoid scrutiny of their own portfolios.
-
Everybody, please send emails to support explaining why it isn't working the way it should.
They need to get as many emails as possible describing the issue.
-
I just posted on the forum about this. Will copy and send an email to support, too.
I sorted my images by downloads this morning, intending to go through the top sellers and make sure they are correct. Every single image on the first 3 pages were flagged and locked! I didn't even bother checking any more.
This just isn't working the way they intended. Before there was keyword abuse, now there is flagger abuse because they get paid for it!
ETA: Ok I just went back to the forum and Tangie posted this:
Cathy, if you cannot edit any image, then this is not the result of reports. Try again now and let support know if the problem persists.
All who experience similar issues - cannot edit entire portfolio - please contact support!
-
Did DT outsource their entire tech-team to some funny country that nobody ever heard of?
What's going on over there?
-
As always my post killed on friendly DT forum, will have to blog it.
-
My latest comment flags (from 2007) are over the keywords "kangaroo" (shot on Kangaroo Island in South Australia, "island" (shot on Waiheke Island in New Zealand) and, my favorite, "yellow car" (an isolated "falling rock zone" sign that is yellow and has a picture of a car being hit by falling rocks). This has long since passed ridiculous.
Updated: I sent a message to DT and got the following response:
Thank you for contacting Dreamstime.
Please ignore reports that are irrelevant. If the image info indeed requires adjustments, we recommend you to correct. We are aware there are instances of incorrect reports or incorrect usage of the flag icon therefore we kindly ask you to ignore any flag that is not relevant for your files.
Let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Civil and to the point.
-
As always my post killed on friendly DT forum, will have to blog it.
Looks like the entire thread was deleted?
MY Bad... it's alive and going strong.
-
Hi there
I got four messages today for incorrect keywording - funny thing is when it show's the picture and keyword, it's not mine, it's someone elses.
The mystery deepens.
Rgds
Oldhand
-
Mystery solved, senior moment!
Oldhand
-
Has anyone returned the favor, and reviewed a few of the flaggers images?
-
I don't have any problems YET and of course I don't have the volume most of you do...but I don't understand why they would pay someone 2 cents to flag keywords. I would think that would create misuse. Why in the world did they do that?
-
...but I don't understand why they would pay someone 2 cents to flag keywords. I would think that would create misuse. Why in the world did they do that?
My words, they just want to pay DT members less than what they would have to pay for their own staff for taking care of the problem.
As somebody mentioned before: Also deduct 2 cents if the flagged keyword was indeed a correct one. Then the flaggers will have to think 3 times before submitting their report and refrain from flagging unsure keywords.
-
Yeah, someone is on a tear at DT. I had a batch of these back when they first started. I replied to all as the flagged keyword was appropriate and never heard or saw anything else about it. Six months later, I have had a dozen flagged today and yesterday. First one I opened, called Front Door and Umbrella is a picture of a front door and an umbrella. Keyword flagged is umbrella. I closed it and ignored the rest. Not worth the trouble. Flag it, don't flag it, keep it, delete it, whatever. I'm not going to spend time justifying a top 10 seller that's been on the site for three years.
-
...but I don't understand why they would pay someone 2 cents to flag keywords. I would think that would create misuse. Why in the world did they do that?
My words, they just want to pay DT members less than what they would have to pay for their own staff for taking care of the problem.
As somebody mentioned before: Also deduct 2 cents if the flagged keyword was indeed a correct one. Then the flaggers will have to think 3 times before submitting their report and refrain from flagging unsure keywords.
Yes I 100% agree. I just received about 30 more notifications for images mostly flagged for DIRECTLY RELEVANT keywords. After I forwarded examples of that to support, I received the same reply as been posted here earlier, to the word. I think it would be a smart course of action for Dreamstime to accept that this keyword reporting program has proven to be a failure and just dump it instead of waisting time and resources on it. Better concentrate on marketing strategies and advertising...
-
DT is a fly by night company.
maybe they outsourced to India and the indians there expect "queen's english" in the keywords ?
-
Has anyone returned the favor, and reviewed a few of the flaggers images?
The four I had today and the five from yesterday were both from people with zero images in their portfolio!
Today's classics included a photo of a boy flying a kite flagged for the word "kite" and an image of a pen writing the words 'Contact us' flagged for the phrase ...well I bet you can guess ::)
I think DT's experiment of getting a room full of chimpanzees to go through the keyword database has backfired a bit and they should set them back on their task of writing War and Peace.
-
I would like to see all the micro-engines accept keyword phrases rather than breaking up all the data into single strings. It seems like it would be the most logical solution.
In another post somebody mentioned getting flagged for the color blue and their subject was a blue collar worker. If we were able to use the keyword phrase "blue collar worker" instead of "blue", "collar", "worker" there would be no confusion in the flagging process plus there should be an improvement in search results for the buyers. Is the buyer looking for my photos of a person with brown hair and blue eyes or blue hair and brown eyes .. with single keywords there is no way of knowing.
-
I would like to see all the micro-engines accept keyword phrases rather than breaking up all the data into single strings. It seems like it would be the most logical solution.
In another post somebody mentioned getting flagged for the color blue and their subject was a blue collar worker. If we were able to use the keyword phrase "blue collar worker" instead of "blue", "collar", "worker" there would be no confusion in the flagging process plus there should be an improvement in search results for the buyers. Is the buyer looking for my photos of a person with brown hair and blue eyes or blue hair and brown eyes .. with single keywords there is no way of knowing.
Correct thinking but tricky approach.
"blue collar worker" works at Shutterstock for instance if you put that term in quotation marks. Still I would like to keep the three keywords individually because not every buyer is typing "blue collar worker".
I think in most cases the buyer will type in the term without the quotation marks. So if an image still gets reported for "blue" or "collar" and the reviewer thinks: "Hey that's right, there is no color "blue" and no "collar" and removes these terms you are left to those buyers who make the effort of typing in "blue collar worker" with quotation marks and all other searches without quotation marks will direct the buyers to all images that haven't been flagged before and still carry the individual terms.
This is the problem that important keywords may be stripped form our images decreasing the chance to find the correct buyers who do search for these terms but instead we get (partially) flagged by our competitors who simply want to move our images out of the search results.
I hope this occurred to you all already...?
-
I got a bunch of them today, too, and all from just two people.
Several were on photos of angel food cake, which were uploaded when we couldn't hyphenate words and the search engine was designed to put the two words together in a search and bring up the image. They changed the system :o and now I have to go through and do....what? I tried changing it to angelfood, as it is in similar images, but the system wouldn't take it. Do buyers search with hyphens? Oh, dear, what's a girl to do.
DT sometimes seems like a site doing its best to make itself crash. Oh, dear, oh, dear.
-
This is the problem that important keywords may be stripped form our images decreasing the chance to find the correct buyers who do search for these terms but instead we get (partially) flagged by our competitors who simply want to move our images out of the search results.
I hope this occurred to you all already...?
It's definitely occurred to me. I took your advice and wrote DT support and this was one of the points I made in the e-mail.
I think Dreamstime's intention to clean up keywords is a good one. It's just the implementation that seems to have some problems.
-
My latest comment flags (from 2007) are over the keywords "kangaroo" (shot on Kangaroo Island in South Australia, "island" (shot on Waiheke Island in New Zealand) and, my favorite, "yellow car" (an isolated "falling rock zone" sign that is yellow and has a picture of a car being hit by falling rocks). This has long since passed ridiculous.
Updated: I sent a message to DT and got the following response:
Thank you for contacting Dreamstime.
Please ignore reports that are irrelevant. If the image info indeed requires adjustments, we recommend you to correct. We are aware there are instances of incorrect reports or incorrect usage of the flag icon therefore we kindly ask you to ignore any flag that is not relevant for your files.
Let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Civil and to the point.
But does the flagging of an image has any negative effects on it? Like those keywords being ignored in a search?
I received a flag in an image for kangaroo also, it has no kangaroo in it, but a "kangaroo ball'. Again, the problem of composed keywords. It was flagged by a member from Australia, so perhaps she was looking for kangaroos and did not like to see an improper image in the results. She is right, but I am not wrong either.
-
...I think Dreamstime's intention to clean up keywords is a good one. It's just the implementation that seems to have some problems.
I believe it's the approach how to get rid of spamming.
First off, this system is not preventing spammers from initially spamming their keywords otherwise reviewers would catch on to those EVERY SINGLE TIME. As this is not possible (we're all humans/usually are not getting paid enough for what we do ::) ) there will be spamming all the time.
Secondly, paying flaggers is definitely wrong. Since they won't deduct 2 cents for "false flags" the flaggers have nothing to fear.
If they simply don't want or can not implement a disambiguation system then go ahead and lock all new images to begin with. This will significantly reduce spamming.
Take all the 2 cents per correctly reported spam and invest it into reviewers professionally checking our images and not some numb nuts who never learned English yet think they can report keywords.
Plenty of long standing contributors have made the experience of being flagged unnecessarily. Such a waste of time (and money).
I'm telling you - we all have to carry the costs for these flaggers. Bye bye commission raise 2011 !!!
-
Has anyone returned the favor, and reviewed a few of the flaggers images?
I was tempted . . . but no i didn't ;D
-
Serban proudly announced:"We are 2 million"
Just curious how many of accounts have been opened by freebies' and 2cts keywords spamming hunters. Maybe only reason of this flagging system is to have as many as possible registered user?
-
DT sometimes seems like a site doing its best to make itself crash. Oh, dear, oh, dear.
my thoughts exactly:)
-
For me its seems that they have new marketing campain adds in poor countries like "Find wrong keyword" and earn money?!? (1 or 2 cents are big there) but they dont tell them that min payout is 100$
I have also raising numbers of Keyword comments one day 1 next 3 next 5???? and only in one case it is real case about that keyword (one keyword).
I erase it and add 3 or 5 more which I dont add because of my ignorance from this time... ;D
-
And the problem is... ?
You get a flag/commment for bad keywords.
Next check all your keywords on reported images.
Remove irrelevant (if any).
Job done.
What's the big story?
And why is this move considered suicidal?
I have quite a few images at IStock with 5 keywords only.
Bare minimum allowed.
Had it been possible I would have used even less.
That's how much I hate spam.
Let them do it, errors aside, this is for the best.
-
It is funny to see that to fight spam they use spam ::)
-
This flagging system is in wrong hands when given to the public. Some people has no vision how the keywording works. Most of the flaggers do look at a single point and doesn't understand the whole. Others has no idea what is indirectly related to the image and what is really off subject.
Annoying examples:
- my car wheel image was flagged because of 'car' and 'black' words. 80% of the buyers searched for 'car wheel'. The poor flagger searched after 'black car' and voila, there is a wheel, nowhere the needed black car! He/she saw only one point, doesn't imagine that the system splits apart the words and actually the car is related to wheel, this is how the system works, since DT doesn't have controlled vocabulary.
- stupid example of a flagging of a beach illustration flagged on word 'beach'. I don't believe anymore in tales 'somebody accidentally flagged' because of the countless examples of this.
I had some images with wrong keywords, thanks for flagging, I removed the bad words, but it's very annoying that 90% of flaggings are wrong, steals extra time to reply why is the flagging incorrect and contact support to ignore the flagging state. I think, now support @DT is flooded with these stupid messages, also stealing precious time from them.
I think, this keywording stuff must be made by people who really understands the system, not by the public.
-
It is funny to see that to fight spam they use spam ::)
in serious agencies anyone spamming would be booted out without any further questioning.
DT is obviously not a serious agency.
-
And the problem is... ?
You get a flag/commment for bad keywords.
Next check all your keywords on reported images.
Remove irrelevant (if any).
Job done.
...
Eirann, please do understand that there are contributors with more than 10, 20 or 50 times more images in their portfolio than you do.
With up to 40 or 50 flagged images per day this is a major inconvenience. These photographers don't make a living by double checking invalid flags from Dreamstime.
Today, I found one of my best sellers reported AND my keywords locked for the keyword "ski" showing a skyline with 2 jet skiers in the foreground. Not to mention that the keyword "jet" was also removed.
I've made more money with that image than many photographers will ever make with their portfolios and now someone received a whopping 2 cents for reporting a valid keyword pushing my image out of the search for a water sport in front of a major tropical skyline. This is sick.
-
Has anyone returned the favor, and reviewed a few of the flaggers images?
Yes, and then it got embarrassing because it turned out that the "flag" was two years old and the one-time newbie who had flagged them had a) forgotten about flagging them b) grown out of such behaviour c) thought he was being persecuted because he had got piles of antique "flags", too.
-
@Click - Click,
typical.
Since I haven't started uploading in 1963 (or thereabouts) my portfolio is small.
And that's the first thing you come up with.
Anything else?
What about the quality of my images?
Are they ok with you? Any complains?
Now, that beeing said, let's try to leave my portfolio out of the debate and return to the subject on hand.
There are photographers who have portfolios 50 times larger than mine.
Well, I'm sorry to say, but I imagine the number of bad keywords growing proportionally.
Is it not a good idea to clean them up? After all they're the ones who cover most searches.
And I still can't see the problem.
Don't have the time to edit them all?
Let admins do it.
Errors?
Report them.
Losing a few sales?
Were they legitimate in the first place?
I believe cleaning keywords is a good idea, hassle or not.
And you haven't managed to convice me otherwise, regardless of the thousands of images in your portfolio.
-
Looks like DT is shooting themselves in the foot. Screwing up keywords on good images will result in drop of sales - not just for us, for them as well. I wish they'd stop being stubborn and drop the entire thing.
I am receiving more than 30 comments a day for flagged images, and 90% are irrelevant. My portfolio is over 10, 000 images, so I figure I'll keep receiving those for a while. Dreamstime admins, please hear me - I will not waste my time going through all of these comments every day. My time is better spent elsewhere. If you remove relevant keywords from my images, wiping out years of hard work, you will not only reduce yours and mine sales, you'll also give me a good reason to stop uploading to DT.
The problem with Dreamstime is that it looks like they still stick with the crowd-sourcing idea - for both images and now keywords - and this kind of thinking is getting more and more outdated today. Microstock has matured - we have serious professional buyers and serious professional contributors. It's basically a new RF stock business. For the crowds, there is Flickr and other places like that, where they can share and interact and comment on each other and don't have to pay. But you can not rely on amateurs anymore in microstock - yeah, many of us and many of the site started that way, 5 years ago or more, but times have changed. Not seeing this and not being flexible in your ideas is not good for the business. Let's hope DT won't have to learn that lesson the hard way.
-
@Click - Click,
typical.
Since I haven't started uploading in 1963 (or thereabouts) my portfolio is small.
And that's the first thing you come up with.
Anything else?
What about the quality of my images?
Are they ok with you? Any complains?
Now, that beeing said, let's try to leave my portfolio out of the debate and return to the subject on hand.
There are photographers who have portfolios 50 times larger than mine.
Well, I'm sorry to say, but I imagine the number of bad keywords growing proportionally.
Is it not a good idea to clean them up? After all they're the ones who cover most searches.
And I still can't see the problem.
Don't have the time to edit them all?
Let admins do it.
Errors?
Report them.
Losing a few sales?
Were they legitimate in the first place?
I believe cleaning keywords is a good idea, hassle or not.
And you haven't managed to convice me otherwise, regardless of the thousands of images in your portfolio.
If you would have followed this and the parallel topic which was merged into this one you'd realize that nobody is against reporting spammed keywords.
Removing spam is good - I hope this clarifies it for you!
It is not good to have thousands of images reported ALHTOUGH the keywords ARE CORRECT!!!
This is the problem we're discussing here that CORRECT KEYWORDS are being flagged BY ABUSERS OF THE SYSTEM!!!
Just because you wouldn't have to go through hundreds and hundreds of images IF they WOULD be flagged doesn't mean that OTHER contributors HAVE TO DO SO.
Regardless of how whiny you think we are - we are making a living off of this and if relevant keywords are being stripped from our images it's my *CENSORED* right to voice concerns about this system.
And if you haven't gotten my point yet!
SPAM IS BAD!!!
-
Looks like DT is shooting themselves in the foot. Screwing up keywords on good images will result in drop of sales - not just for us, for them as well. I wish they'd stop being stubborn and drop the entire thing.
I am receiving more than 30 comments a day for flagged images, and 90% are irrelevant. My portfolio is over 10, 000 images, so I figure I'll keep receiving those for a while. Dreamstime admins, please hear me - I will not waste my time going through all of these comments every day. My time is better spent elsewhere. If you remove relevant keywords from my images, wiping out years of hard work, you will not only reduce yours and mine sales, you'll also give me a good reason to stop uploading to DT.
The problem with Dreamstime is that it looks like they still stick with the crowd-sourcing idea - for both images and now keywords - and this kind of thinking is getting more and more outdated today. Microstock has matured - we have serious professional buyers and serious professional contributors. It's basically a new RF stock business. For the crowds, there is Flickr and other places like that, where they can share and interact and comment on each other and don't have to pay. But you can not rely on amateurs anymore in microstock - yeah, many of us and many of the site started that way, 5 years ago or more, but times have changed. Not seeing this and not being flexible in your ideas is not good for the business. Let's hope DT won't have to learn that lesson the hard way.
Well said, but it will probably fall on deaf ears.
-
And the problem is... ?
SNIP
Let them do it, errors aside, this is for the best.
Well, to answer your question, the errors are 90% of the flags, just as Elena is reporting. You can't really put them aside.
No one is defending spam here. If you think that's what's going on, you are missing the point.(please refer to Click Click's post above subtly clarifying this point ;D)
If 90% of the flags reported are actually relevant and essential to the image then this is a seriously flawed system. And as Elena and others point out, it is damaging to Dreamstime on several levels:
1. It costs them money to pay reviewers to sort through all the flags, including the vast majority which are in error.
2. Correcting the errors costs contributors a lot of time, which results in lost productivity producing and uploading salable images.
3. Inevitably some bad flags will be approved and relevant words removed. This will result in the following:
a) reduced accuracy of search results = disgruntled buyers
b) reduction of legitimate sales for contributors = disgruntled contributors
4. Ultimately buyers will migrate to sites that are not removing vast swaths of images from relevant searches, and contributors will focus their uploading efforts on sites that actually sell their work.
Personally, I have made no secret of the fact that DT has always been my favorite site. But over the last year or so DT has fallen from 16-17% of my income to a consistent 12%. As my numbers drop there I have less and less incentive to commit time to responding to DOZENS of inaccurate keyflags a day. And like Elena, if my sales plummet further because of essential keywords removed from hundreds or thousands of my images, I will no longer have any incentive to upload there.
-
*everything you said*
Thanks Lisa for explaining this to everyone.
Sometimes it just has to be spelled out.
-
Sounds like they just didn't realize how, in today's world, people will swarm on an opportunity to make 2 cents by clicking on web pages.
-
This is really a shame because DT used to be a good moneymaking site for me. Sales consistently increased. I sabotaged it myself by considering exclusivity and my sales plummeted in Jan. but that is not their fault.
I appreciate that they are trying to clean up the database and make searches easier for buyers. I do hope they can sort this out, though, because I see it causing more problems than solutions at this point.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing)
-
I can't stop harping on the fact that it is the DT reviewers who approved the erroneous key words. They need to clean up their own mess.
When was the last time you had an upload rejected for keywords?
-
But does the flagging of an image has any negative effects on it? Like those keywords being ignored in a search?
Any answer to this?
-
But does the flagging of an image has any negative effects on it? Like those keywords being ignored in a search?
Any answer to this?
AFAIK not until they are removed.
-
I can't stop harping on the fact that it is the DT reviewers who approved the erroneous key words. They need to clean up their own mess.
When was the last time you had an upload rejected for keywords?
Try to imagine how much it would cost to pay competent people to review and edit the keywords of 8 million images already in the archive. Is that really going to happen, or is it more likely that today's microstocks are eventually eclipsed by new agencies that start fresh and do a better job?
-
AFAIK not until they are removed.
I agree. From what I remember, the fact that they have been flagged does not change anything about the image. Once the reviewer goes over the flagged keywords, approves or rejects their removal, the keywords are locked. If you want to change them after that, you have to email support. Until the keywords are reviewed and locked, your image stays in the search as it was, with keywords as they were.
At least this was my understanding.
-
AFAIK not until they are removed.
I agree. From what I remember, the fact that they have been flagged does not change anything about the image. Once the reviewer goes over the flagged keywords, approves or rejects their removal, the keywords are locked.
But haven't people reported old 2007 flags apparently now were verified and reviewers (wrongly) agree with the flags? Or do we have two different flag problems, one old and one new? I'm confused.
The one I was reported about made sense only because it was not a composed keyword anymore. I don't know if adding the composed keyword in the description will help when the reviewer checks it, because that keyword alone indeed doesn't belong to the image.
-
In my case a flag from 2007 led to my keywords being locked on one of my best sellers although the keyword is absolutely valid.
I wrote to support to get the keyword re-inserted and the whopping 2 cents stripped from the flagger.
This in itself is such a waste of time.
-
Perhaps this is the way DT fights IS exclusivity? AFAIK any editing resets lock period?
:)
-
Perhaps this is the way DT fights IS exclusivity? AFAIK any editing resets lock period?
:)
And the conspiracy begins... ::)
-
Click- Click,
stop shouting.
It does you no good, (think of high blood pressure and other medical perils) and more to the point, there's nothing to stop me from doing the exact same.
Your caps-lock IS NOT BETTER THAN MINE. Although it's stupid, we can go that way if you really want to.
It's ok, I got it, you don't like spam.
Then clean it up, or let other people do it for you. (caps lock on :) )
Don't like the way DT is doing it? Have a better idea?
Post it on DT's forum.
Over 90 per cent of the flags are errors?
I have a hard time believing this.
As far as I understand it the flag only reflects the last search. The reported keywords are not necessarily all irrelevant.
Have a look at ALL your keywords on reported images.
Don't have the time to do it?
Let DT's admins do it for you.
They have no reason to remove relevant keywords.
End of story.
Are photographers going to leave DT because of the flagging system?
Well, judging by what I've seen (most) photographers do, the sites they upload to, I have a hard time believing this either.
As long as it's all about the money, they'll keep on uploading. No matter what.
@Lisa,
your case is different. There's something else stopping you from uploding to DT, and it's not the flagging system.
But I respect your opinion, I always have, and although I'll be sorry to see you going I wish you all the best.
Ah, and by the way, after posting here I also got flagged (twice). Predictably.
I'm the target of revenge.
Go ahead, I have 278 images, 2 flagged, 276 to go, plenty more images to click. Enjoy :)
-
@Lisa,
your case is different. There's something else stopping you from uploding to DT, and it's not the flagging system.
But I respect your opinion, I always have, and although I'll be sorry to see you going I wish you all the best.
I don't think lisa's case is much different than the rest of ours. If keyword flagging starts resulting in plummeting sales, there will be a long line behind lisa on the way out. We aren't in this only for funzies...we do expect to make money, too.
Don't like the way DT is doing it? Have a better idea?
Post it on DT's forum.
Actually, some of us have posted on the forum as well as emailed support, making suggestions as to how the flagger abuse could be stopped. We are not a part of management though. There isn't much else to do but make the suggestion and debate it amongst ourselves. That's kind of what this forum is for. At least I thought. :)
-
...
Let DT's admins do it for you.
I did, and today they stripped two valid keywords from one of my best selling image because the flagging system rips keywords out of context and the reviewers obviously don't have enough time to thoroughly go through all the keywords.
I'm not the only one or first one this has happened to.
They have no reason to remove relevant keywords.
Of course they have no reason to remove relevant keywords but since DT doesn't use disambiguation it's getting fairly impossible for reviewers to be up to date of how a keyword was used.
...
Are photographers going to leave DT because of the flagging system?
Well, judging by what I've seen (most) photographers do, the sites they upload to, I have a hard time believing this either.
As long as it's all about the money, they'll keep on uploading. No matter what.
Once you will do this business as your main income you will care about things like this. And why would you care if anybody leaves DT? Neither me, Lisa, Elena or anybody else here wants to leave DT. No idea where that is coming from.
...
Go ahead, I have 278 images, 2 flagged, 276 to go, plenty more images to click. Enjoy :)
Go get a cookie for that one. Congrats.
-
Ellen Boughn was the flagger for this one...
Your image was flagged/reported for incorrect usage of the following keywords: nude. No admin action has been taken yet and the report is pending.
::)
(http://www.dreamstime.com/mr-gym-bw-thumb4763316.jpg)
-
I would write to Ellen directly.
As I understand it she was beta testing the flagging system several years ago and there were some bugs. Obviously she knows how to keyword and would have no motive for intentionally taking out relevant words.
Personally I feel really bad for having singled her out. She's been a really great sport and very gracious about this.
-
Since it seems most of these flags came from 2007....did they have the 2 cent deal back then? I thought that was something recent..either that or time has flown by unnoticed by me.
-
Leaving DT is a personal choice and I respect it in all cases.
However I do not believe photographers are going to leave DT solely because of the flagging system.
Such cases will be very, very rare.
Some photographers will lose some sales.
Other photographers - more relevant images will get them.
Nothing wrong with that, right?
I'm sure everyone here wants to play fair.
It has nothing to do with personal interes. Or does it?
Anything DT does to improve buyers' experience and search results gets a thumbs up from me. The fact that they're willing to pay contributors to help clean up the collection is a bonus.
In my opinion it shows true commitment from one of a kind site.
I trust errors will be fairly dealt with.
I have never flagged anyone and I will never do it.
But I'm all for it, even if it means that every single one of my images gets flagged (and I got 10 more approved in the last half hour :) ).
That's all I had to say on this matter.
-
It seems to me that this system is counterproductive. For an image to get 'flagged' (by honest buyers, not scammers) someone has to click on it, i.e. already have some interest in it based on the thumbnail. Doesn't this mean that good images, and good-selling images, will tend to be cleaned up but that the real junk goes untouched? Or am I missing something?
-
Personally I feel really bad for having singled her out. She's been a really great sport and very gracious about this.
Lisa, you are right. I guess I was just a bit twisted around in my seat this morning when I posted that. Others had been complaining that people with non-existant ports were flagging, I thought it was odd that Ms. Boughn would flag this obviously nude image as being incorrectly labeled "nude". And, I guess, a little upset.
So, I apologize for being a bit jumpy.
It is the only image that has been flagged in the last few months, so I removed the keyword and am pressing on for now. If it starts to happen more frequently, I will look deeper into it.
-
Since it seems most of these flags came from 2007....did they have the 2 cent deal back then? I thought that was something recent..either that or time has flown by unnoticed by me.
The flagging I got from one contributor was from 2007. She was surprised as I was that it's just turning up now. Her flag was actually an act of trying to help me because I had spelled a critical word wrong. She was very gracious in accepting my apology, and I felt like a dunce for pouncing on her.
The other trolls on the loose looking for a few extra pennies are a different story. If these flagged files are dating back to '07, as many seem to be, then something is really messed up. If it's taking almost 3 years to address those flags, how long will it take to clean up what's happening now with all these people scrambling to get their two cents? The site could be user-hostile for years to come.
In all fairness, things have been changing rapidly in microstockland, and it's only been during the past two years that keywords have become such a big issue. Reviewers of past would give a quick glance at keywords to check for obvious spamming, but the main focus was on building the catalog as fast as possible. I wonder if these guys really thought this business would become the monster business that it has become, or if they thought they'd make some cash while the getting was good then retire when the game ended. Surprise, surprise. The hunger for images has gotten even bigger over the years, and now all the sites are scrambling to fix messes they let pass by during the race to get more images online than the other guy.
How the issue is handled is going to determine who stays in the game and who folds. The one with the most user-friendly search engine that does NOT turn contributors against each other will probably come out ahead. So far, DT is not handling it well. Using words like "award" for flagging, and "penalty" for removed keywords are fighting words in American English idiom. It's one thing to master a foreign language, and another thing altogether to understand the subtle nuances. I've always felt that this was a problem with the communication on DT, especially where Serban is concerned. But what the heck do I know.
FYI, those trolling for a penny or two are, for the most part, not making personal attacks. One guy who flagged me is doing random searches, cruising the keywords in hopes of finding something he can make some money off of, and does not see the name of the person whose image it is. What is not at all fair is that the person flagged does see the flagger's name, and it can feel like one heck of a betrayal or a personal vendetta. That is not fair to those earnestly trying to help clean up the site. That needs to change, and quickly.
-
DT is a fly by night company.
maybe they outsourced to India and the indians there expect "queen's english" in the keywords ?
Fly-by-night? It was the first one set up after istock, in June 2004. That's hardly "fly-by-night".
-
Most of your questions have received an answer in our forums or in the Q&A that is linked in the flag report (http://www.dreamstime.com/faq2036-my-image-was-flagged-reported-for-irrelevant-keywords-what-should-i-do- (http://www.dreamstime.com/faq2036-my-image-was-flagged-reported-for-irrelevant-keywords-what-should-i-do-)). The link was missed by most persons complaining. The system is not perfect and I apologize for not making it better and for the controversy it generated. There are many members communicating nicely though. A lot of educated explanations are made, helpin our admin when reviewing. We're grateful for all efforts involved.
The amount of reported images was huge (several hundreds of thousands). The number of complaints was minimal compared to how much of the database was cleaned of spam. Spam affects all contributors' sales and the buyers' experience and should concern you too.
The method was working this way (via public comments) since middle last year (August 2009). For anyone who wants to check here is the original thread dated 2007 and an updated thread in August 2009:
http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_7808_pg1 (http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_7808_pg1) (Jul 2007)
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18084 (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18084) (Aug 2009)
We consider this as an advantage for contributors (see why below). If you dislike it, simply ignore the comments, nothing changes for you. No flag affects your images until they are reviewed by an admin (when they could be very well refused).
The controversy was generated because we accelerated the process in the last couple of weeks, trying to get rid of the entire pending line. The number of comments was much higher and generated some panic. People rushed to reply without knowing how the system works. Several wrong or misleading details are in this very thread.
For example a few contributors assumed that the flag affects your search placement or it's approved by default. That is not the case. The flag will only inform you: you can educate the admin (and the flagger) OR fix the image (and you will not have your rights blocked).
It's important to note that many buyers have used the flag accidentaly, especially in the beginning. The report will reveal the very words that were used to download your image. If you reply, don't make rude comments, you could email the very customer who downloaded the image.
As for the fee, the two cents are symbolical. No one is using the system to generate revenue and that is why the fee was set so low. I agree that otherwise there would be a witch hunt and we certainly don't want members to turn against each other.
Any specific questions to images and flags should be posted here: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_21022 (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_21022) , we will be happy to address them.
If you have any questions I will do my best to reply, but please do it in one of the threads given. Read admin posts in these threads: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18084 (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18084)
http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_7808_pg6 (http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_7808_pg6)
I'm no longer able to follow all threads posted here, especially when a response was given on our site. We cannot answer questions in several places.
Also some users hide behind anonymous accounts to launch veiled attacks or to make rude comments. I'm not saying that all anonymous users have bad intentions, but one needs to check the facts before posting some accusations or misleading statements. There is a certain etiquette that should apply to any poster on any forum. If you believe that flaming agencies and creating so much hate in this forum will result in anything good, you're wrong and I'm sorry for you. I'll probably give up visiting MSG due to this fact. If you need my help, I'm available on Dreamstime via comments and will gladly help.
-
Thank you for the explanation and the links, Serban. This certainly helps.
Some of us don't spend all of our time in the forums (we are actually out trying to make money), and therefore don't always see when major changes are made or when new policies arise. It is really becoming difficult to keep up with all the changes going on right now. For exclusives, the task might be easier. But when a contributor uploads to several sites, the task is daunting. Not your fault, as I know you would love for everyone to be exclusive!
I think I still disagree with you about the 2 cents though. When the net result of flagging spam is to clean up the database and attract more buyers, everyone can get on board with that, and does so with that sole intention. When the net result of flagging spam is to make money, you have attracted people who could care less about buyers and contributors and just want to add to their pockets.
But I do agree with you about everything else.
-
The flag will only inform you: you can educate the admin (and the flagger) OR fix the image (and you will not have your rights blocked).
How do you educate the admin, on the flags I've had there's only the option to reply to the flagger. And once read they disappear.
My biggest concern lies over the ability of the admins to understand that sometimes people flag a set of keywords they've used as a phrase when in single use they are relevant, and I'm also concerned that given the vast numbers of flags that have suddenly appeared admins may take the easy option of just approving the flag. Is there any recourse?
I know you say to ask on the DT forum but unfortunately you have a habit of deleting anything you don't like the sound of.
-
Well said Cathy! This sums up my feelings exactly!
I am grateful to Serban for posting here and hope the tone of these forums does not chase you away. We get excited about things sometimes, but there is so much good information and when you post here you are often communicating with people who can't keep up with all the individual site forums.
I applaud the goal of cleaning up the keywording system, but I do worry that the issue of keyword phrases is a problem. Reviewers will naturally approve the removal of the words slot machine from an image of a water machine with a coin slot, and similar situations. I would too if it was presented to me that way.
I also think that the .02 "reward" is having unintended consequences, such as generating hundreds of thousands of flags, many of which are false. If you eliminated the payment you would be more likely to get legitimate flags from people who care about accurate searches.
But again, thanks very much for taking the time to post here and also for being open and receptive to contributors concerns :)
-
Serban, your statements and efforts do NOT prevent this systems from ripping apart search phrases.
I'm sure you and Dreamstime know that there are buyers out there using search phrases. What is being done about that?
-
ive had enough of DT aswell, i get flagged quite a lot for bad keywords and most of the time its false. now i just upload images and let the key mentors keyword everything. cant get flagged then. if i have a batch of simular images i just upload 1 and then copy all the keywords to my simular images. my sales have plummeted really badlt this year - worst ever!
-
There is a certain etiquette that should apply to any poster on any forum.
True enough and if you conducted your own forums with the same 'certain etiquette' that you hold in such esteem, by not just deleting every post or thread that you don't like, then maybe you'd get more takers.
You may not have noticed but issues concerning Istock are hardly ever discussed on the MSG forum nowadays. Why? Basically because there's no need to; we can fully discuss the issue in question on their own forums without concern that the posts will be deleted or the thread locked, etc. They let their contributors vent their spleen, with only the lightest of hands on the tiller, and it works much better that way.
Ultimately both the contributors and the agencies have the same objective, to sell images. You don't need to be scared of them and what they have to say.
-
You may not have noticed but issues concerning Istock are hardly ever discussed on the MSG forum nowadays.
The whole IS/Thinkstock/StockXpert thing was definitely discussed here, in depth, about 2 weeks ago. For days. And I disagree with you about threads not ever getting locked on IS...that happens all the time! We must be visiting two different IS forums. ;)
-
You may not have noticed but issues concerning Istock are hardly ever discussed on the MSG forum nowadays.
The whole IS/Thinkstock/StockXpert thing was definitely discussed here, in depth, about 2 weeks ago. For days. And I disagree with you about threads not ever getting locked on IS...that happens all the time! We must be visiting two different IS forums. ;)
You can't see what's invisible?
Funny that Alamy locked all the off topics sections, but then left them all there. It was kind of a message to keep on topic from now on, but they didn't delete the old ones.
I don't bother with the site forums much, unless it's really late at night and I'm REALLY bored. Something about "show us your latest ... photo" just drove me away.
-
We don't delete any posts or threads that are not either debated to death in another thread (usually we move posts for this) or agressive and harsh. Also, any kind of attack towards another user is deleted or moderated. The number of moderated posts is minimal (around 2-3 posts per week at most) and most of the attacks came from users from here, after reading a misleading thread. There are many negative posts in the threads I posted and as you can see they are still there.
Our forums are not censored but moderated. We apply the basic rules of netiquette.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29)
I can give you a huge list of extremely rude posts made by admins of the website you mentioned. I will not replicate that here. I'll not divert this into an attack towards someone else, but if you really think we're bad for moderating/deleting a post, send me a PM to give you some examples of the language used.
There are tons of threads here that defame agencies and their editors or admin. Offensive language was used often and the meaning of the agency is slowly lost. I'm not eager to participate into this process, as it eventually will affect the overall perception of contributors.
Until problems mentioned above are fixed, this will be my last post here. If you have questions about flagging or anything else, please contact me via Dreamstime's comments or by email at any time and whenever you need help. Farewell.
-
Bull... My posts were deleted and YOU followed that with threatening or intimidating personal comments. One that was deleted simply responded to a comment about the economy affecting sales at DT. I stated that my sales were good at other sites so I did not believe that. You deleted it and followed with intimidating comments.
and, I have not seen any of the language you mentioned. I don't see such language here.
why contact you personally? So you can lock my sales?
-
Bull... My posts were deleted and YOU followed that with threatening or intimidating personal comments.
Same thing happened to me.
-
Achilles,
I still think that composed keywords would reduce improper flagging and improve relevance in searches as well. Someone looking for a "white dog" doesn't want a black dog on white background.
-
...Someone looking for a "white dog" doesn't want a black dog on white background.
Eloquently put.
-
Ellen Boughn was the flagger for this one...
Your image was flagged/reported for incorrect usage of the following keywords: nude. No admin action has been taken yet and the report is pending.
::)
([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/mr-gym-bw-thumb4763316.jpg[/url])
I checked this photo as there is no way that I would flag a photo of a nude man as having 'nude' as a bad keyword. I might have used the search words "nude from the back"
or nude back. Since you used 'back' in the description, the image came up. Since Dreamstime uses words in the description for the search, 'back' would have been considered a keyword. The other issue is that I often sort not on most relevant but most downloaded. I did this first when searching for images for my book, for example. If I had chosen most relevant, the image would most likely have been far down in the search.
-
Ellen's example shows that even with the best intentions lead to confusion between contributors and reviewers.
Implementing the flagging system that focuses on the actual keyword part of an image is one thing (despite the problem of missing disambiguation...) but DT's move to include the image description into the search function therefore creates a big problem when it comes to keyword reporting. This means more instances of confusing reports that have to be checked.
Technically a very simple process when it comes to avoiding this but this has not been thought through from DT at the time of implementation.
Maybe now this can be tackled... ::)
-
Exactly! I have suggested from the beginning that descriptions not be added to the search algorithm. For instance, a photo of a wildflower shows up when you search for an elephant because it includes this description "wild aster found at Elephant Mountain in Maine." If I were a flagger I would flag this image especially if I didn't take the time to read the description which in my mind should only be filled in as fluff to possibly foster creative thinking for the buyer, or give details that have nothing to do with what the image "is."
Other examples:
A search for symphony orchestra brings up a violin - description reads "a gorgeous symbol of symphony and music."
A search for waterfall brings up a fern - description reads "Maiden hair fern on a wet cliff near a waterfall."
And a search for that ever popular business meeting brings up many of choices such as a line of catered food which, you guessed it has "buffet at business meeting" in the description.
Buyers search by looking at thumbnails and do not bother to click through to the image's description unless they are interested. At that point a good description may help. But it is not what sells an image. An image is purchased visually, not be reading (in most cases).
-
I think using the description additionally to keywords is important for relevance. If an image has a wod only in the description, it's less relevant than if it is in the keywords.
I, for instance, have a photo of a clay court and in the description I say it's the type of court of Roland Garros, but Roland Garros is not a keyword. If you search for "Roland Garros", non editorial, it's the last image in the results - and it is one of the two with more downloads in the results. You will notice also that many images before it have Roland Garros as keywords, even if some don't even show a court - tennis balls illustrations, for instance. THAT is spam.
I am not saying that a buyer looking for Roland Garros will like to find my images, I'm only showing that the description has a smaller weight in the relevance sorting. But this weight can still be very important.
-
I have 2 flagged images out of 2 on DT. I don't know who flagged them or how to find who did. Could someone clarify how to do this?
-
You need to read through this entire thread in the DT forums and if that does not answer your question you will have to contact their support with a specific question.
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_7808 (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_7808)
-
I have 2 flagged images out of 2 on DT. I don't know who flagged them or how to find who did. Could someone clarify how to do this?
The notification you get in your comments section shows who flagged them. It's on the far right under "comment by" unless something has changed in the last few days...
-
I have just learnt that you can use the "reply" in the comment to explain the flagged keywords, and not only the person who flagged the image will see it, but also the reviewer later. I had thought we would have to send a note to support.
-
I got the flag message but no comments by anyone to show who flagged it.
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.
-
I just got the opposite of this. I had a message about a bunch of keywords added. This has never happened to me at DT. Anyone else have this?
-
There is an option under each image where you can either report bad keywords or suggest more keywords. If you suggest 10 (must be at least 10) and they are reviewed and accepted you get the famous 2 cents. They even used to have a special section of images that needed keywords for anyone to look at and have a go at, but that has recently disappeared. I hope they replace it with something more useful, I always thought it was kind of odd.
You can use this form to suggest more keywords. The minimum amount is 10 keywords, no misspellings accepted. The suggestion will enter a waiting list and $0.02 per image will be rewarded, if the suggestion is accepted.
-
I just got the opposite of this. I had a message about a bunch of keywords added. This has never happened to me at DT. Anyone else have this?
Somebody must like you a lot.
-
I just got the opposite of this. I had a message about a bunch of keywords added. This has never happened to me at DT. Anyone else have this?
Somebody must like you a lot.
It was probably my mom. ;D
-
I just got the opposite of this. I had a message about a bunch of keywords added. This has never happened to me at DT. Anyone else have this?
Somebody must like you a lot.
It was probably my mom. ;D
:)