Author Topic: Dreamstime-Admin Action on Keywords (Read 14574 times)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #25 on:** June 17, 2012, 10:43 »

Quote from: Karimala on June 17, 2012, 09:58

So kind of you to check my keywords. LOL There's peaches and pears inside the Jello, and Jello is a kids' food.

Well, you presented yourself as someone with good keywords who was getting wrongful complaints, which is pretty much an open invitation for people to check.

I could see no sign of the peaches or pears, if they are as invisible as I think they are it would be like putting "DNA, mitochondria, blood" etc. on any picture of a person, because we all contain those things. Put yourself in the mind of someone searching for peaches and pears, your red jelly could well turn up high up in that two-term search, will that meet their reaquirements?

As for "kids" (apart from them really being young goats), I think you missed the more accurate description of our yough "child, children, boys, girls" and, in any case, I still like jelly, so perhaps you should add "man, 50s, British, English" to it. See the problem? My keywords aren't perfect, either, especially on my older images.

I do understand the reasoning behind your keywords but, honestly, many of your images contain spam even though you think that the terms are a reasonable extension of the subject. And that is probably why you get a pile of complaints. Of course, you could also be targetted by someone who sees a chance to harvest a good trawl of pennies by singling you out because dubious words are so easy to find.

Bear in mind, also, that getting images viewed without sales is likely to demote your overall search ranking, so any gain in accidental sales from spam is likely to be countered by the loss of search position for your whole portfolio.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #26 on:** June 17, 2012, 10:48 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2012, 10:43

Quote from: Karimala on June 17, 2012, 09:58

So kind of you to check my keywords. LOL There's peaches and pears inside the Jello, and Jello is a kids' food.

Well, you presented yourself as someone with good keywords who was getting wrongful complaints, which is pretty much an open invitation for people to check.

I could see no sign of the peaches or pears, if they are as invisible as I think they are it would be like putting "DNA, mitochondria, blood" etc. on any picture of a person, because we all contain those things. Put yourself in the mind of someone searching for peaches and pears, your red jelly could well turn up high up in that two-term search, will that meet their reaquirements?

As for "kids" (apart from them really being young goats), I think you missed the more accurate description of our yough "child, children, boys, girls" and, in any case, I still like jelly, so perhaps you should add "man, 50s, British, English" to it. See the problem? My keywords aren't perfect, either, especially on my older images.

I do understand the reasoning behind your keywords but, honestly, many of your images contain spam even though you think that the terms are a reasonable extension of the subject. And that is probably why you get a pile of complaints. Of course, you could also be targetted by someone who sees a chance to harvest a good trawl of pennies by singling you out because dubious words are so easy to find.

Bear in mind, also, that getting images viewed without sales is likely to demote your overall search ranking, so any gain in accidental sales from spam is likely to be countered by the loss of search position for your whole portfolio.

You come across as the expert in this field, Paul. Are you sure that your port is perfect?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #27 on:** June 17, 2012, 10:53 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 17, 2012, 10:29

Does anyone really expect a resolution to the constant bickering over keywords?

Hopefully we are not bickering. I'm just trying to explain the way the agencies tell us they want keywords done, which is less inventive than some people seem to think.

@ Karimala - if you notice, I said my portfolio is NOT perfect and that my older images are much worse than more recent ones but I haven't got time to go through them all. For a long time I have tried to stick to the rules as best as I can.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #28 on:** June 17, 2012, 11:09 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2012, 10:53

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 17, 2012, 10:29
Does anyone really expect a resolution to the constant bickering over keywords?

Hopefully we are not bickering. I'm just trying to explain the way the agencies tell us they want keywords done, which is less inventive than some people seem to think.

@ Karimala - if you notice, I said my portfolio is NOT perfect and that my older images are much worse than more recent ones but I haven't got time to go through them all. For a long time I have tried to stick to the rules as best as I can.

My response to this (the part in bold) is what got me banned from DT.

You don't have time to mind your own business but find time to mess with others.

People in glass house should not throw stones.

pancaketom · « **Reply #29 on:** June 17, 2012, 12:26 »

Probably 3/4 of my images that get reported for spam are for the main keywords - like "lake" for a picture of a lake. I am guessing these are instances where a buyer hit the wrong button (report image instead of lightbox or zoom or something). Every once in a while there is one that just doesn't belong that I somehow stuck in there. It happens, we all do it. I fix it when I see it. We also have all seen portfolios with blatant multiple serial spamming - I think the sites should drop the boom on them.

The other problem is for sites like DT that split multiple keywords into single words. For example a picture of someone climbing at smith rock that contains the keyword "smith rock" but does not contain a smith. If it is something that would look really spammy I try to include the phrase in the description but not always.

I think all sites could greatly improve their searches by having someone go through the most popular searches and lowering the placement (by lowering the keyword weighting? or however their black magic works) for all the images that obviously don't belong on the first 3 or 4 pages of returns - maybe more for the most common search terms. While tedious, this would probably greatly improve the appearance of the searches quite quickly I think. There is nothing worse than seeing most of the images on the first page having nothing to do with the search terms.

fotografer · « **Reply #30 on:** June 17, 2012, 12:48 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 17, 2012, 10:29

Keywording, at best, is less than perfect. Easter is a Holiday; Christmas is a Holiday. A search for "Easter Holiday" is likely to return ALL holidays ... if they are properly keyworded with "Holiday."
Calling this Spam is the cause of much of our disagreements.
And, I have noticed that many of us are much more eager to criticize others than review our own shortcomings.

Yes agree with your examples but Christmas trees are never valentines day by any stretch of the imagination.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #31 on:** June 17, 2012, 13:01 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 17, 2012, 11:09

-

You don't have time to mind your own business but find time to mess with others.

People in glass house should not throw stones.

It seems to me that you have trouble discening the difference between offering helpful advice (such as that extra views without sales may not help your search ranking) and "messing" with the business of others. It's not as if I'm spending my time reporting other people's keywords when I should be working on my own, I've never been a "wiki warrior".

It seems to me that if people want to come and talk about keyword accuracy there is plenty of room for discussion in the spirit of sharing experience. Or should we just spend all our time as a mutual admiration group, regardless of the facts?

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #32 on:** June 17, 2012, 13:11 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2012, 18:13

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 16, 2012, 17:56
I've seen this many times but don't understand how the keyword is expressed if the button is selected accidentally?

Whatever keyword(s) they searched on will automatically be the ones expressed when they hit the flag button.

Exactly. Design flaw. Hopefully they'll fix it. I sent them a message about it once. And don't even try posting on their forum about the subject. It will be deleted. Send your message directly to them.

leaf · « **Reply #33 on:** June 17, 2012, 13:28 »

whenever I get a 'reported keywords' I usually respond to the note with reasoning why the keywords are in there. Sometimes it isn't clear to the spam reporter. Even if it is obvious I just write a note like.

Quote

I have the words 'sore back' because this is an image of a model looking as though she has a sore back. Perhaps you reported this by mistake?

.. unless of course the reporter is right

Karimala · « **Reply #34 on:** June 17, 2012, 15:18 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2012, 10:53

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 17, 2012, 10:29
Does anyone really expect a resolution to the constant bickering over keywords?

Hopefully we are not bickering. I'm just trying to explain the way the agencies tell us they want keywords done, which is less inventive than some people seem to think.

@ Karimala - if you notice, I said my portfolio is NOT perfect and that my older images are much worse than more recent ones but I haven't got time to go through them all. For a long time I have tried to stick to the rules as best as I can.

Why is everyone picking on me? What did I do?

Just kidding. It's fine.

I've just had some relevant keywords flagged, which I illustrated with photos in a following post. That's all I was trying to say originally. By no means am I an expert on keywording...too many differing opinions for anyone to be an expert. The trick is understanding the various ways people search. Some use only a handful of keywords, while others use a very precise description as their keywords, like "Middle" "aged" "Asian" "man" in his "40's" "wearing" a "casual" "blue" "linen" "suit" "holding" a "red" "fountain" "ink" "pen" with his "toes" "putting" or "inserting" it "inside" a "keyhole" or some crazy thing. I know a few buyers like that.

Using my Jello photo as an example, someone might want an image of Jello with fruit, or specifically peaches and pears, inside. Mine fits the bill. FYI -- you can see the fruit through the Jello at larger sizes...kinda hard to see at the small size, because the Jello is fairly thick.

What would be helpful is if the micros allowed phrasing, so I could add "kids food" as one word instead of "kids" and "food." That way the Jello wouldn't show up when people are searching for children or goats.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #35 on:** June 17, 2012, 15:32 »

Quote from: Karimala on June 17, 2012, 15:18

What would be helpful is if the micros allowed phrasing, so I could add "kids food" as one word instead of "kids" and "food." That way the Jello wouldn't show up when people are searching for children or goats.

Yes it would. It is problematic that some do and some don't. Istock has them, but often in a very weird way (once they've been mashed through its CA). SS seems to, but DT splits everything and list's it in alphabetical order. It also doesn't recognise anything with an apostrophe in it, splitting it into two "words" and I think SS does the same. Alamy doesn't have an automatic singular/plural condensation, I still haven't worked out which micros do or don't.

The only rational way to upload to multiple sites is to keyword and then send identical files all over, so the fact that they read keywords differently is a significant issue.

Mantis · « **Reply #36 on:** June 17, 2012, 16:06 »

I think we should form a keyword union

Karimala · « **Reply #37 on:** June 17, 2012, 16:28 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2012, 15:32

Quote from: Karimala on June 17, 2012, 15:18
What would be helpful is if the micros allowed phrasing, so I could add "kids food" as one word instead of "kids" and "food." That way the Jello wouldn't show up when people are searching for children or goats.

Yes it would. It is problematic that some do and some don't. Istock has them, but often in a very weird way (once they've been mashed through its CA). SS seems to, but DT splits everything and list's it in alphabetical order. It also doesn't recognise anything with an apostrophe in it, splitting it into two "words" and I think SS does the same. Alamy doesn't have an automatic singular/plural condensation, I still haven't worked out which micros do or don't.

The only rational way to upload to multiple sites is to keyword and then send identical files all over, so the fact that they read keywords differently is a significant issue.

That's what I do. No way am I keywording for each individual agency. I make sure the first seven keywords are the most important (Fotolia, ease of copy/paste at Alamy), and then I include every spelling/hyphenation/apostrophe/plural variation I can think up to ensure my images are found in the worst search engines. I also make sure to add different meanings for the same word: restaurant, cafe, bistro, diner, eatery...vintage, antique, retro, old, fashioned, old-fashioned, "old fashioned"...you get the idea. Those 50 keywords add up quickly.

lisafx · « **Reply #38 on:** June 18, 2012, 15:57 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2012, 01:35

If you get a lot of keyword complaints it probably says something about your approach to keywording.

Not necessarily. Depending on what you are defining as "a lot", it could just say something about your portfolio size, and the frequency with which you show up in searches. The larger and more visible the port, the more likely to get keyword flags, especially since there are so many people erroneously flagging images.

I think you are making the assumption that because you aren't getting keyword flags that anyone who is must be guilty of bad, or at least "creative" keywording. That would only make sense if the keywords being flagged were iffy ones or conceptual ones. Not things like "apple" for a picture of an apple, which is the type of thing that people are complaining about.

lisafx · « **Reply #39 on:** June 18, 2012, 16:04 »

Quote from: pancaketom on June 17, 2012, 12:26

Probably 3/4 of my images that get reported for spam are for the main keywords - like "lake" for a picture of a lake. I am guessing these are instances where a buyer hit the wrong button (report image instead of lightbox or zoom or something). Every once in a while there is one that just doesn't belong that I somehow stuck in there. It happens, we all do it. I fix it when I see it. We also have all seen portfolios with blatant multiple serial spamming - I think the sites should drop the boom on them.

So true! I don't get a huge number of keyword flags, but a couple a month and the vast majority of the time they are flagged for the most obvious keywords in the image, and frequently from non-native English speakers, who may just be confused.

Once in a blue moon I get one on a file where the term is actually not applicable to the image - the kind where you keyword a whole series of a dog and forget to take "leash" out of the one image where the leash isn't visible.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #40 on:** June 18, 2012, 16:26 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 18, 2012, 15:57

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 17, 2012, 01:35
If you get a lot of keyword complaints it probably says something about your approach to keywording.

Not necessarily. Depending on what you are defining as "a lot", it could just say something about your portfolio size, and the frequency with which you show up in searches. The larger and more visible the port, the more likely to get keyword flags, especially since there are so many people erroneously flagging images.

I think you are making the assumption that because you aren't getting keyword flags that anyone who is must be guilty of bad, or at least "creative" keywording. That would only make sense if the keywords being flagged were iffy ones or conceptual ones. Not things like "apple" for a picture of an apple, which is the type of thing that people are complaining about.

Well, yes, I am making that assumption, but as you know I've got several thousand images there and must turn up reasonably well in searches - it looks as if I have probably had more than a million views - but I think I've had fewer than 20 keyword objections in eight years. So how does a largish, reasonably high exposure portfolio get what I think everyone would agree is very few objections, while other people are saying they get a lot of them?

What has been said about the original search term automatically being flagged, rather than the objector indicating which term they object to, could play a part in this.

It seems implausible that people are accidentally clicking the wrong button on other people's portfolios but not on mine, given the number of views I've had.

Karimala · « **Reply #41 on:** June 18, 2012, 19:12 »

Just for the record...I didn't say I receive a lot of flags for poor keywording. Out of 2,300 images, I've only had 13 flags in the five years since the keyword reporting system was initiated.

lisafx · « **Reply #42 on:** June 18, 2012, 19:55 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 18, 2012, 16:26

I think I've had fewer than 20 keyword objections in eight years. So how does a largish, reasonably high exposure portfolio get what I think everyone would agree is very few objections, while other people are saying they get a lot of them?

I get your point about not having a lot of flags, but it isn't 8 years. The program was introduced in July of 07, so it's 5 years.

Out of curiosity, did you find each and every one of the keyword objections you did get at DT to be reasonable?

Also, when Istock had the wiki program, did you get any unreasonable wikis? I know I did, and so did a lot of other people. Which suggests to me that some people will flag or wiki images that don't have keyword spam, for a variety of reasons already suggested in this thread.

If you have never had any unreasonable keyword objections, then I can certainly see how you would be skeptical that they are happening. In my case, I don't get a whole lot of keyflags, but I've had enough stupid ones to be able to take other people at their word when they say they are getting them.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #43 on:** June 19, 2012, 04:11 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 18, 2012, 19:55

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 18, 2012, 16:26
I think I've had fewer than 20 keyword objections in eight years. So how does a largish, reasonably high exposure portfolio get what I think everyone would agree is very few objections, while other people are saying they get a lot of them?

I get your point about not having a lot of flags, but it isn't 8 years. The program was introduced in July of 07, so it's 5 years.

Out of curiosity, did you find each and every one of the keyword objections you did get at DT to be reasonable?

Also, when Istock had the wiki program, did you get any unreasonable wikis? I know I did, and so did a lot of other people. Which suggests to me that some people will flag or wiki images that don't have keyword spam, for a variety of reasons already suggested in this thread.

If you have never had any unreasonable keyword objections, then I can certainly see how you would be skeptical that they are happening. In my case, I don't get a whole lot of keyflags, but I've had enough stupid ones to be able to take other people at their word when they say they are getting them.

I can't remember the details of each case. I do recall several times when I had (reluctantly) to admit the flag was correct. I also remember a couple where I thought it was stupid (but that could just have been because of the search term showing up rather than the actual objection, I don't know). I had one particularly stupid one on iStock where some bright spark of a "wiki warrior" decided that parsley was cilantro and admin agreed and changed it, there was also a bunch which I thought were vindictive, stripping references to Christmas out of high-selling pictures of roast turkey dinners. However, iStock is a bit different, since they campaigned to get people to complain and some thought it was virtuous to hunt around looking for things to lodge complaints about and you never see what they've done until after Admin approves it (and you're then banned from changing it).

I certainly don't doubt that people are being honest when they say that their flags are stupid, I just wonder if their perception of proper keywording matches the micros' guidelines. For example, I have seen a picture of a camel in a zoo with temperate vegetation behind it and keywords including Arabia, Saudi, Kuwait, Sahara, Egypt etc. which I'm sure the shooter thought were appropriate but which weren't, doubly so given that the camel had two humps and originated in Central Asia. Long, long ago, Istock wouldn't even allow me a similar keyword list on a camel (one hump) standing on a sand dune in Qatar with nothing but sand dunes visible, on the grounds the camel couldn't be in different countries and someone might know the dune wasn't in Egypt or Kuwait.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Dreamstime-Admin Action on Keywords (Read 14574 times)

BaldricksTrousers

WarrenPrice

BaldricksTrousers

WarrenPrice

pancaketom

fotografer

BaldricksTrousers

Tryingmybest

leaf

Karimala

BaldricksTrousers

Mantis

Karimala

lisafx

lisafx

BaldricksTrousers

Karimala

lisafx

BaldricksTrousers

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors