pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia categories are time-consuming and unproductive.  (Read 9771 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 29, 2015, 05:29 »
+16
Filling Fotolia categories are getting to be time-consuming.

To start with the categories offered are not comprehensive and there are limited choices to select from.


Semmick Photo

« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2015, 05:48 »
+2
That is a well known issue going back many years

« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2015, 08:57 »
+5
123rf doesn't have categories, but buyers still find your photos, aren't they?


dbvirago

« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2015, 09:00 »
+3
Agree. With the old interface you could get by without entering categories, but with the new one, not only are you forced to choose, it goes 3 levels deep and many, like with the old system are confusing. If they are going to force us to do this, make it straightforward. I shouldn't have to guess and click through many windows to find something that should be simple.

« Reply #4 on: May 29, 2015, 10:47 »
0
For my own content, no other site has categories as useless as Bigstock.   

« Reply #5 on: May 29, 2015, 10:53 »
+2
You could get by in the old without choosing?  It never let me.  I was happy with the drop to one set.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #6 on: May 29, 2015, 11:07 »
+3
For my own content, no other site has categories as useless as Bigstock.   
the miscellaneous sub category  is a classic

dbvirago

« Reply #7 on: May 29, 2015, 12:28 »
0
You could get by in the old without choosing?  It never let me.  I was happy with the drop to one set.

If you clicked on the first category and then left it blank, you could continue without choosing categories. You had to click on it so it was highlighted. Not sure how I figured that out, but it worked.

« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2015, 13:29 »
0
For my own content, no other site has categories as useless as Bigstock.   
the miscellaneous sub category  is a classic

right, but many times I've had batches rejected for inappropriate category when using misc -- BS is marginal anyway, so I just ignore those rather than re-submitting

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2015, 17:37 »
+2
I doubt many buyers actually use categories. So I wouldn't put too much thought into it.

« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2015, 18:53 »
+8
caterogries are the thing I hate most when uploading image

Uncle Pete

« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2015, 19:32 »
+5
Especially when we are often forced to fit something into a category because what should be there, doesn't exist. So assuming a buyer actually cares and uses a category, instead of keywords, the work we submitted will be in some inappropriate classification, not what the buyer wanted, it's a waste of time.

caterogries are the thing I hate most when uploading image

« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2015, 20:20 »
0
I was once randomly drawn to the meeting with Oringer and I told him it it useless thing and they should get rid of categories or generate them from keywords but he insisted that buyers really browse images by categories. I think they do not want to generate them because it would take computing resources and they would rather let slaves do the work for them :-)

dbvirago

« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2015, 20:50 »
+5
I've never liked categories but can't say buyers never use them. SS categories are easy and make sense. Fotolia's are vague and confusing. It's as if they decided they were going to come up with new and unique categories to differentiate themselves, while forgetting the only purpose is to make it easy for buyers to find what they are looking for.
So instead of a generic Objects category, or one with simple subheadings like Bigstock, you have to figure out to put a gun under Social Issues/Violence and Crime/Weapons and Gun Control and flags under Graphic Resources/Signs and Symbols/Flags, which is also where you would find The Internet and Bubbles.

« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2015, 06:30 »
+4
When Peter built Stockfish he did not include categories because he said customers rarely used them on Stockxpert.  Maybe it's how the systems are built that dictates how categories are used, but I would consider Peter very knowledgeable around categories and their effectiveness for buyers.     

dbvirago

« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2015, 08:10 »
+4
I've just discovered the 'Chilling Out' and 'Imaginary Animals' categories. I think I can put everything into one of those two.

« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2015, 10:39 »
+8
The fotolia categories are driving me crazy. There is no category for objects or just still life and the drop down menu is often unlogical.

It is a really, really painful way to upload like this.

Seriously, if they want more content, why not make it easy and elegant?


« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2015, 10:40 »
+2
The fotolia categories are driving me crazy. There is no category for objects or just still life and the drop down menu is often unlogical.

It is a really, really painful way to upload like this.

Seriously, if they want more content, why not make it easy and elegant?

Try to find "Halloween".

« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2015, 11:12 »
+10
The fotolia categories are driving me crazy. There is no category for objects or just still life and the drop down menu is often unlogical.

It is a really, really painful way to upload like this.

Seriously, if they want more content, why not make it easy and elegant?



Agreed. It is quite illogical. Quite like istocks controlled vocab. It is very specific on some words then totally lacks a solution for another word/subject

« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2015, 19:36 »
+6
I recently made a little research on categories for every agency and found some funny things:
1. There is no consistency from one agency to another. Trying to understand them is a nightmare!
2. Sometimes they have the same thing in 2 or 3 different places: "Miscellaneous" and "Other" for  Depositphotos, Bigstock has A category called "Miscellaneous" containing 2 subcategories, "Holidays" and... "Miscellaneous", in fact they love this word so much that they placed it in every category. I counted "Miscellaneous"28 times. Wouldn't it be easier to have a single category "Miscellaneous" and remove everything else?
3. Fotolia has some of the most unusual categories, especially in "Science": "Applied and Fundamental sciences", Esoteric (hmmm, interesting science) and... good luck with this one... "Outer space". So, wedding photographers, what are you waiting for? Let's go on the Moon for a photo shooting!
4. For Dreamstime "Sports" is part of "Industries"
5. Fotolia is so specific that they created a subcategory called "Eggs". I wonder how many eggs they have inside
6. For Bigstock "Insects" are part of "Nature" not "Animals", obviously because you can't find them in the Zoo, only in nature!
7. And Bigstock again with a tricky one. "Sexy" category contains "Men", "Women" and..."Miscellaneous" This might be for Transgender? Or Dildos? Hard to say...

« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2015, 03:43 »
+3
using Categories is a total nonsense in 2015.

we should write a detailed article where we rant against the use of Categories and why they must go and then forward the links to all the top agencies .. they won't care but maybe someone will take note ... most of these agencies are usually run by businessmen who have no clue about our workflow.


« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2015, 16:58 »
+6
The subcategories of Plants and flowers / plants are the following:

bamboo
clover
fern
other
raspberry bush    ;D

Lol! I suppose we should be thankful they gave us the "other" option.

dbvirago

« Reply #22 on: June 23, 2015, 18:44 »
+1
I recently made a little research on categories for every agency and found some funny things:
1. There is no consistency from one agency to another. Trying to understand them is a nightmare!
2. Sometimes they have the same thing in 2 or 3 different places: "Miscellaneous" and "Other" for  Depositphotos, Bigstock has A category called "Miscellaneous" containing 2 subcategories, "Holidays" and... "Miscellaneous", in fact they love this word so much that they placed it in every category. I counted "Miscellaneous"28 times. Wouldn't it be easier to have a single category "Miscellaneous" and remove everything else?
3. Fotolia has some of the most unusual categories, especially in "Science": "Applied and Fundamental sciences", Esoteric (hmmm, interesting science) and... good luck with this one... "Outer space". So, wedding photographers, what are you waiting for? Let's go on the Moon for a photo shooting!
4. For Dreamstime "Sports" is part of "Industries"
5. Fotolia is so specific that they created a subcategory called "Eggs". I wonder how many eggs they have inside
6. For Bigstock "Insects" are part of "Nature" not "Animals", obviously because you can't find them in the Zoo, only in nature!
7. And Bigstock again with a tricky one. "Sexy" category contains "Men", "Women" and..."Miscellaneous" This might be for Transgender? Or Dildos? Hard to say...

And in Bigstock's world, there are Rivers, but no Lakes

dbvirago

« Reply #23 on: June 23, 2015, 18:46 »
0
The subcategories of Plants and flowers / plants are the following:

bamboo
clover
fern
other
raspberry bush    ;D

Lol! I suppose we should be thankful they gave us the "other" option.

But in others, where nothing ever fits, there are no other categories. All areas under Industry come to mind. And as someone else said, trying to figure out where you put Objects is tedious and a waste of time.

« Reply #24 on: June 23, 2015, 19:30 »
0
I specialize in photographing North American wildlife.

On FT, when I click Animals > Mammals, my sub-sub-category choices include such critters as:

Bats
Camels and dromedaries
Cheetas
Donkeys
Goats
Hippos
Kangaroos
Koalas
Mice
Monkeys
Other Pets
Pandas
Pumas
Rhinos
Wolves

Missing from the list -- and therefore forced to list as "Other" -- are extremely common North American critters like these:

Coyote
Elk
Moose
Pronghorn
Buffalo/Bison
Ground Squirrel/Prairie Dog/Chipmunk/Marmot
Raccoon
Opossum
Armadillo
And many, many more.

Frustrating to me? You betcha! Helpful to would-be buyers? Not much.

How much better it would be if under "Mammals" we had more general categories like the following, which would be applicable to mammals worldwide, not just in one continent or another:

Carnivores (bears, coyotes, wolves, foxes, etc)
Rodents (rabbits, squirrels, prairie dogs, chipmunks, etc)
Ungulates (deer, pronghorn, bison, elk, camels, hippos, giraffes, zebras, etc)

Mat, any chance you can persuade the powers-that-be at Adobe to make these sub-categories more generic, and thus less frustrating to contributors and more useful to buyers?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 09:06 by marthamarks »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
5133 Views
Last post October 21, 2010, 17:50
by bunhill
12 Replies
7477 Views
Last post May 25, 2011, 03:47
by ThomasAmby
34 Replies
11035 Views
Last post October 02, 2011, 06:15
by microstockphoto.co.uk
24 Replies
11539 Views
Last post November 18, 2011, 16:03
by noam
8 Replies
3489 Views
Last post March 02, 2015, 06:03
by LissiC

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle