MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Dreamstime.com => Topic started by: mtilghma on September 22, 2011, 12:24
-
Hey guys, I have a question about keywording on DT. I ran a search and came across lots of little issues, but surprisingly not the one I'm confused by.
My question is simple (so simple, in fact, that I will probably look like an idiot): What is their keywording method? I've tried comma-delineated, and I've tried space-delineated with quotes around compound keywords. In either case, if I import keywords from a previous upload, all the compound keywords always get split up. So for instance, when I keyword with either "..., golden gate bridge, ..." or "... "golden gate bridge" ...", and then use this file to import metadata to the next, I find all three words separated and strewn about.
Thoughts?
-
They split up the keywords and put them in alphabetical order.
-
Right, that is what I'm talking about. So there's absolutely no way to get "golden gate bridge" for example as a singular keyword?
-
And somebody can flag your keywords - he will not see GOLD or GATE in your photo...
-
P.S.- you can write this not as keyword, but in description or title!?
-
They don't "do" compound keywords and you can use space, comma, semicolon as delimiters. Frankly I think this is by far the simplest most effective and sensible way to handle keywords. Downside is they don't automatically handle plurals. It doesn't matter if someone flags them as long as the flag isn't justified.
-
I think the best you could do would be to use Golden Gate Bridge in the title and description.
-
Dt's system is the opposite of disambiguation.
I always thought DA is going to be the only way to deliver the best possible search results in the future.
-
Dt's system is the opposite of disambiguation.
I always thought DA is going to be the only way to deliver the best possible search results in the future.
Me too. It is the ONLY part of the iStock process which I like better than the rest (in fact probably the only part that isn't the WORST of them all!). Sure it takes extra time when uploading, but I know that people who want to see my image are going to get to see my image (best match sorting aside :) )
-
Dt's system is the opposite of disambiguation.
I always thought DA is going to be the only way to deliver the best possible search results in the future.
Me too. It is the ONLY part of the iStock process which I like better than the rest (in fact probably the only part that isn't the WORST of them all!). Sure it takes extra time when uploading, but I know that people who want to see my image are going to get to see my image (best match sorting aside :) )
Istocks system could have been the best, but the way they have done it it both encourages and rewards people for misdisambiguating and makes search a pain. Just another of the areas where Istock could have killed their competition but instead didn't. I guess that is one less thing I'll have to worry about in a few days.
-
Dt's system is the opposite of disambiguation.
I always thought DA is going to be the only way to deliver the best possible search results in the future.
Me too. It is the ONLY part of the iStock process which I like better than the rest (in fact probably the only part that isn't the WORST of them all!). Sure it takes extra time when uploading, but I know that people who want to see my image are going to get to see my image (best match sorting aside :) )
If someone does a search for Golden Gate bridge they will find your image as long as golden, gate and bridge are in the keywords. They'll also see your image if they search for golden bridge or golden gate which means in an international market where a buyer might not know the full name of the bridge, they still have a fair chance of finding it. It's not really a bad approach. The only issue is when people who don't know the subtlety of the english language flag words like golden when it's an image of a bridge. You just have to learn to ignore those flags.
-
Dt's system is the opposite of disambiguation.
I always thought DA is going to be the only way to deliver the best possible search results in the future.
Me too. It is the ONLY part of the iStock process which I like better than the rest (in fact probably the only part that isn't the WORST of them all!). Sure it takes extra time when uploading, but I know that people who want to see my image are going to get to see my image (best match sorting aside :) )
That's a good point, I hadn't really thought of it that way. I guess I'm not that concerned. I'm more concerned about some of the more obscure places I shoot though, which are only known by name to regional people. I guess they probably aren't a huge portion of the sales, but they are something. One example is this place shown below, for instance. It is a park around here called "Russian Ridge." So I now have the keyword 'russian' in there, which definitely makes me look like a keyword spammer :(
(http://www.dreamstime.com/california-chaparral-at-sunset-thumb20258314.jpg)
I suppose I could avoid looking like a spammer by putting "taken at Russian Ridge" or something in the description, and sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I'm never sure if the exact location might put off some buyers who are looking for the "anonymous typical California grassland". Thoughts?
If someone does a search for Golden Gate bridge they will find your image as long as golden, gate and bridge are in the keywords. They'll also see your image if they search for golden bridge or golden gate which means in an international market where a buyer might not know the full name of the bridge, they still have a fair chance of finding it. It's not really a bad approach. The only issue is when people who don't know the subtlety of the english language flag words like golden when it's an image of a bridge. You just have to learn to ignore those flags.
[/quote]
-
... they still have a fair chance of finding it. It's not really a bad approach. The only issue is when people who don't know the subtlety of the english language flag words like golden when it's an image of a bridge. You just have to learn to ignore those flags.
You call it "approach", I call it the cheapest way possible of assigning tag/keywords to a file.
Not that it is particularly challenging to build a DA system like iStock's but if buyers look for a "ball" it does help whether it is a sports equipment or a dancing event for instance.
Sure the buyers would add keywords like "dancing" it they searched for the latter, but simply ticking a check box when being asked which ball they are looking for might be more convenient and user friendly - besides it will only show relevant images.
Just my thoughts on a "perfect" system...
-
I suppose I could avoid looking like a spammer by putting "taken at Russian Ridge" or something in the description, and sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I'm never sure if the exact location might put off some buyers who are looking for the "anonymous typical California grassland". Thoughts?
I have "Roland Garros" in the description of a clay tennis court ("...the type of court use din Roland Garros"). It is found in a search, but if it is not a keyword, it ends up in the end of a search (try searching for Roland Garros, non-editorial, mine is the last, and many others are not RG in any way).
I've seen people putting all famous tennis tournaments in the keywords even if the image does not apply at all (Wimbledon is grass, not clay). That's spamming for me.
As for the composite keywords, I think it would be smart to any site to allow them for relevance purposes. DT in particular uses title and description to set relevancem what is a good idea too.
-
... they still have a fair chance of finding it. It's not really a bad approach. The only issue is when people who don't know the subtlety of the english language flag words like golden when it's an image of a bridge. You just have to learn to ignore those flags.
You call it "approach", I call it the cheapest way possible of assigning tag/keywords to a file.
Not that it is particularly challenging to build a DA system like iStock's but if buyers look for a "ball" it does help whether it is a sports equipment or a dancing event for instance.
Sure the buyers would add keywords like "dancing" it they searched for the latter, but simply ticking a check box when being asked which ball they are looking for might be more convenient and user friendly - besides it will only show relevant images.
Just my thoughts on a "perfect" system...
Couldn’t disagree with you more. Disambiguation is an exponentially more complex approach and only viable if executed properly. In IT, the simplest solution is almost always the best solution. Using single keywords both the contributor and the buyer can easily understand what is needed to find an image and I certainly wouldn’t have a problem including “dancing” or “sport” to narrow a search. On the other hand, the IS approach prevents relevant words (“render”, for example, is not recognised) and, as, I’ve said before, it’s like newspeak for stock and does absolutely nothing to prevent spam. It’s no more than a “look how great we are with our sophisticated tools” exercise and doesn’t work. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that almost all “best match shift” complaints here are directed at IS.