I personally think that the keyword reporting thing on Dreamstime works well, although I can't say I have had any problems with it to make me frustrated either.

From time to time I have an image reported as having poor keywords and embarrassingly enough, they are right.  I fixed the problem and moved on.  If I do a search and see improper images I click on the keyword flag.  I think the reporting tool is very simple and a good way to get user generated review of keywording issues.

If someone is just clicking the keyword flag for kicks - surely DT would notice this behavior.

Yap , today I had an grunge border reported for "border" keyword , people obviously don't have nothing else to do

I'm not a huge fan of keyword spammers but I think I preferred when you could make at least a small inference and didn't have to keyword with nouns so much.  

Right now its so bad - I keyworded a summer BBQ image as "4th of July" and had it rejected. Ok, fair enough.  Maybe I don't understand buyers but will they never type in 4th of July?  If they will, what image could possibly make the cut?  A red, white and blue flag is simply a flag.  If my bbq image is 'simply a bbq' than fireworks are "simply fireworks" and can't have 4th of July as a keyword either.  Same with flags.  So what would a buyer find under 4th of July?  Nothing iconic, nothing representative.  It's like saying you can't keyword a heart with "love, Valentine's Day, holiday" - if you can't key a heart illustration with those you make buyers change their habits from "Valentine's heart" to "heart, pink"  It's noun keywording and I dislike that part of the job.

I just got my first flagged keywords.

A Blue grunge background for words "blue", "grunge" and "background"
and then a bucket of potatoes for the word "potato".

This seems to start off nicely...

We really need an option to flag the people who flag for the wrong keywords!

At least the one I had today was from the year 2008.  Maybe by the end of the year it will be up to date.

Is that what we are supposed to do - write to admin to defend the flagged keywords?

Come on everybody - think about it:

It does take time both to report and to defend the whole nonsense. And it all started because DT failed to review keywords (PROPERLY) once images get inspected - this is not the contributor's fault who uses proper keywords, don't you agree?

It's fine if you have the time to constantly write support defending your keywords especially for the reasons mentioned above such as "Eiffel tower", "potato" etc. which is a total nuisance and in total, a waste of hundreds of hours from contributors defending their valid keywords but I don't have that kind of time.

How can this system be called effective?

Now DT has to pay additional reviewers (or their time) to review stupidly flagged images when all those additional costs could be spent on reviewing  the initial keywords when uploading and locking them.

Obviously keyword spamming has become a major issue at DT (although it's seen everywhere) so this is not fair to take it out on contributors who correctly keyword their images getting reported by some idiots who have nothing better to do than sending out reports all day long for 2 cents each?

Seeing reports being from 2007 shows that something is out of control there - take this as an understatement.

DISAMBIGUATION!!!
I'd rather disambiguate all of my 2000 images at DT again instead of dealing with this reporting ****. Then at least there is no room anymore for misunderstood terms like the Hungarian flag etc.

It's just beyond me how such a reputable company can create such a convoluted feature.

It's been months since I had one flagged then I get one today?  Which among us is using the forum links to make .02 off each other?

It's been months since I had one flagged then I get one today?  Which among us is using the forum links to make .02 off each other?

I got 5 today, all from the same person. It does name the person who reported the error.

Quote from: mantonino on March 01, 2010, 11:46

It's been months since I had one flagged then I get one today?  Which among us is using the forum links to make .02 off each other?

I got 5 today, all from the same person. It does name the person who reported the error.

Ok so who's Marck.  I ain't fraid of no ghost.

Come on everybody - think about it:

It does take time both to report and to defend the whole nonsense. And it all started because DT failed to review keywords (PROPERLY) once images get inspected - this is not the contributor's fault who uses proper keywords, don't you agree?

It's fine if you have the time to constantly write support defending your keywords especially for the reasons mentioned above such as "Eiffel tower", "potato" etc. which is a total nuisance and in total, a waste of hundreds of hours from contributors defending their valid keywords but I don't have that kind of time.

How can this system be called effective?

Now DT has to pay additional reviewers (or their time) to review stupidly flagged images when all those additional costs could be spent on reviewing  the initial keywords when uploading and locking them.

Obviously keyword spamming has become a major issue at DT (although it's seen everywhere) so this is not fair to take it out on contributors who correctly keyword their images getting reported by some idiots who have nothing better to do than sending out reports all day long for 2 cents each?

Seeing reports being from 2007 shows that something is out of control there - take this as an understatement.

DISAMBIGUATION!!!
I'd rather disambiguate all of my 2000 images at DT again instead of dealing with this reporting ****. Then at least there is no room anymore for misunderstood terms like the Hungarian flag etc.

It's just beyond me how such a reputable company can create such a convoluted feature.

I'm already persona non gratis and have been told that most of my DT posts are negative ... but, things like this is the reason.  Click Click is exactly right.  It is the DT reviewers job to check the key words.  If they don't, admonish them, not the contributors.
And, as for biting the hand that feeds us ... I think someone misunderstands the relationship .. WE hired DT to sell OUR images.  WE are feeding them.  DT is taking a huge amount of the revenue.  THEY need to fix their own keyword review problems.

Sorry, click click.  My writing to DT admin only fuels the fire.  

There is definately something up at DT, I've got 5 flagged images today all from the same person and all dated 23rd Dec 2007!!

What really annoys me the most about DT's stupid flagging system is that they've flagged the keywords they've obviously used as a phrase which when viewed together don't apply to the image, but the keywords I have in the file are not entered as a phrase and as single keywords they do apply.