pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime suspended our account  (Read 26445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ArtmannWitte

« on: August 29, 2007, 09:10 »
0
They suspended our account without prior advice. Is this the way dreamstime treats its photographers???

Today I received the following e-mail from dreamstime.
______________________________________________________________
 
Please be notified that following review of your portfolio, we have suspended your account. Your images are no longer online.
 
We advise you to revise the keywords of your images and remove all irrelevant info. Please find three examples of images with Ids 682156, 659939, 680147 that contain a lot of irrelevant info which we would kindly ask you to remove. We would like to mention that there are many more others.
 
Note that we will not unblock your account until you have reviewed it and we have had the proof of you doing so. After you finish removing all the irrelevant info, send an e-mail, we will check your portfolio and let you know if the suspension is removed.
 
 
 
Sincerely yours,
Carmen Pietraru
Quality Assurance and Support Dreamstime
______________________________________________________________


Yes, there were too many irrelevant keywords. I uploaded this images that they want to be revised at my beginnings at microstock. So I would have revised the keywords if they kindly would have asked me too. What they did know is really shocking. First thing I did was a request of payment of my earnings at dreamstime.

By the way - not too long ago there disappeared about three dollars from my account when I was sitting in front of my computer. I sent them an e-mail asking them what happened. They told me that the e-mail was forwarded to another section. After controlling my images I found out from which image the dollars disappeared and sent them another e-mail. I never received an answer


« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2007, 11:05 »
0
Don't get me wrong, but I do not like keyword spamers, so they were right when they suspended your acc, that is your punishment, and in the future do not be so rude to spam with keywords.

There is nothing worse, when I type (for example) "computer" in serach, and get strawberies as a result.... that really piss me off.

« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2007, 11:11 »
0
I am sorry about what happened to your account.but as we all know keyword spamming is a serious issue in stock photography market.I guess this was a serious warning to all spammers and  those who even thinks about it.

I hope you will sort it out with them.
good luck

« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2007, 11:24 »
0
Keyword spammers really piss me off too. Occasionally I go through a search of keywords of my best sellers at DT, and yes, there they are, the blatant spammers. They even come up in front of other (and your own) relevant pictures. And sure, they get some sales, because that's all what spamming is about. Spamming is a big pain in the neck when searching as a designer (and it hurts the site), but now and then those morons get an occasional sale. It's like email spam. Obnoxious, but I read that those spammers actually have a hit in 1/10,000 and that's why they do it for.

Every time I find some obnoxious spam at DT, I report it. At least DT provided a way to do it. Other sites don't. If DT blocked you because of spam, I'm sure they have a good reason to do it, and it won't be that occasional mistake or borderline tag, but a system. You probably will have had many flags by loads of annoyed users.

Don't come whine here please. Death to spammers! It hurts the sites and the vast majority of honest photogs.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 11:26 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2007, 11:54 »
0
ArtmannWitte, I hope that you didn't intentionally spam, and can sort through your portfolio easily and make it live again.

Regarding spamming, sometimes the reviewers can make some mistakes.  I'm not speaking about DT here, but today I had an image rejected at IS because the keywords used didn't appear to be fully relevant to the subject.  The keywords in question were "beach, ecology, environment, environmental, power, white ETC..."  I uploaded this picture specifically for the environmental concern on part of the French Atlantic beach, where a few blocks of a village already went into the sea, and this house is the next one to go:

The Ocean is just behind the dune on the left.  I know the place very well and witnessed the drastic changes and the power of the elements over the years.  The house is white, but with the sunset it looks cream.  I always check thoroughly my keywords before submitting.  I thought that the keyword 'white' was appropriate.   The purpose of this shot for me was to convey the disasters happening now due to the sand erosion, but it didn't work out.

Just to say that there can be some keywords that could be considered as spamming by the reviewers, because the angle the picture is shown doesn't convey enough of the reality, which is probably the case for this picture, but in fact are not intentional spamming.  In this case, I consider it my mistake to suppose that the reviewers knew what I saw but unfortunately I couldn't capture enough from one single spot.

I agree wholeheartedly that intentional spamming is a no-no.

Edited to add how the picture was received on the other sites:  FP, LO and SS approved it (they probably saw the concept I wanted to convey), BS and SS still in the pending mode, 123RF refused it without explanation, DT refused it for "Lack of composition", FL for "Your photographic work is excellent but does not meet the needs of the Fotolia customer base", and of course StockExpert refused it for "Thanks, but we are not looking for such image..."
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 12:13 by berryspun »

« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2007, 12:16 »
0
sorry berry, but all those words doesn't describe that image.  house, forest, clouds, real eastate, ... something like that. 

But beach ???  you should only describe the MAIN subject wat you SEE.

I think keywords will be the next big thing.  So the last 6 months I pay close attention to them.

« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2007, 12:27 »
0
Perrush, I understand.  I included the word 'beach' because if a buyer wanted to do a search on 'beach erosion', I thought that this picture would be appropriate.  For me 'forest' is definitely not an appropriate keyword, knowing that there is quite a cliff with strong waves at its basis just behind this line of the trees you see, and which won't be there soon.

As I said, my mistake was not to convey enough into the pictures what my eyes saw.

« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2007, 15:26 »
0
I agree with Perrush.

I'll take your word that there's a beach behind the house somewhere, and that it's being eroded, but that isn't what this image is showing me - I see a large country house surrounded by forest on a cloudy day.

« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2007, 15:37 »
0
Sometimes it is difficult to remove yourself from the photo - because you see the big picture.  The buyer only sees what is in the photo.  They have no use to know that a plane crashed just out of the frame and it will do you no good to add information about it.

I think that keyword spamming is pretty easy to do innocently.  There was a photo on LO this week that was scorned upon for spamming.  It was a gorgeous b&w shot from above of a couple holding hands in the upper right corner of a vast industrial type of walkway.  The (dozens of) keywords mentioned airline, travel, flight, trip, etc.  Innocent, because the photographer must have taken them in an airport - spamming because there was no indication of airport by looking at the photo.  The photographer who was there wasn't keywording the photo, but where he took the photo.

« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2007, 18:15 »
0
Yes Pixart, in some circumstances we do have to think 'inside the box'...   :)

« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2007, 18:20 »
0
Sometimes it is difficult to remove yourself from the photo - because you see the big picture. ...
I think we're all guilty of this. I make it a habit to regularly revisit the keywording on my IS images. My portfolio is still small enough there and the selling prices high enough to make it worth my time. I can't yet chalk it up to better keywords, but I usually get a few sales on the images I "improve".

« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2007, 04:35 »
0
I think we're all guilty of this.

Yes of course. People like the OP that came out about it most definitely don't spam on purpose, rather by inexperience or by mistake. I blamed a guy on LO for having "valentine, wedding, proposal, propose" on a Yosemite landscape shot. He mailed me back privately telling he was maybe a bit greedy but he apologized. I explained him that spamming would hurt his credibility in the long run with customers, and I rekeyworded his (great) shot because he forgot "nature landscape forest Yosemite 'national park'".

Earlier this year I came across somebody that had the tag "lesbian sexy" in most of his shots, which were city views. I can't imagine that happened by accident or ignorance.

I didn't follow the discussion on CanStockPhoto, but it seems they will limit the tags to 15 only. It does make sense. You will be forced to concentrate on the essential, and spam will be more difficult.

« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2007, 07:05 »
0
I'm not surprised that they decided to  suspend you until this was sorted out as I just read on the DT forums that you had over 200 keywords on a close up of a leaf with dew drops.  I dindn't see the keywords as they were already deleted but I would say that it would be virtually impossible to come up with 50 relevant keywords on that image let alone over 200.
How did you manage to get that many on as the max. is 80?  I have looked at some of your other images and they don't seem to be too bad, maybe you have already edited them or the other photo was a one off.
In all fairness I think that most of us get it wrong at the beginning.  When istock started the wikki programme I went through all my images and cringed at some of the bad keywording that I had to delete on some of my older images.

« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2007, 10:17 »
0
I see the guys point. If the keywords are wrong, you send a warning, dont you? This is someone's living. We all sometimes put words which with hindsite werent necessary. At the most, the guy should have been given a week to fix his keywords. This is a typical example of dreamstime pushing their weight around.
This site acts in the way that we all hate- they treat us like a bunch of slaves, like theyre the big powerful corporation. They spy on forums that they dont run. They keep images for 6 months after we upload them. Sod them, I say. If they were as big as istock, theyd be a lot more hated. Fortunately for us, the other sites still understand that you have to at least act like you respect your contributors. Dreamstime dont. And Im sure theyre reading this post- so let me take this opportunity to say "screw you".

ArtmannWitte

« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2007, 14:18 »
0
Hi fotografer and thank you for your advice to the forum of dreamstime. Someone in the forum said that it was still possible to add keywords to my image with more than 200 keywords!!! I myself was surprised of the number of keywords this image had. Unfortunately Ive never seen them because when I received an e-mail from dreamstime and I wanted to edit them it was blocked. Dreamstime himself deleted the keywords.

My fault was that I never controlled the keywords that were automatically added to my images. This doesnt mean that especially at my beginning at microstock I added some irrelevant keywords.

I just deleted some keywords that were added today to another image.

Is it possible to avoid the adding of  keywords from other people? I dont want to spend time and effort to control this. I prefer to take photos outside.  :D

« Reply #15 on: August 30, 2007, 14:56 »
0
I think that whoever it was that made a public announcement about your keywords on the DT forum would have been kinder if they had left a private comment on one of your images warning you about the situation and then this would never have happened as you could have changed it before it came to the attention of the DT staff.
I don't think that anybody can add keywords to your images without getting them approved by Dt reveiwers. Are you keywording in another language that is causing weird translations?

« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2007, 15:06 »
0
FFBE, would you please stop making posts that make me laugh - I've just been reading this thread over my morning coffee, and when I came across your 'screw you' announcement I spat the coffee all over my desk!


« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2007, 16:44 »
0
I just deleted some keywords that were added today to another image.

Is it possible to avoid the adding of  keywords from other people?

I guess only inspectors and staff can add or remove keywords.  People can suggest new keywords and spam keywords, but these changes are not automatic. 

I have never checked my images about this.  I thought any changes would be informed (like IS does) at least saying which image was edited.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2007, 18:04 »
0
I see the guys point. If the keywords are wrong, you send a warning, dont you? This is someone's living. We all sometimes put words which with hindsite werent necessary. At the most, the guy should have been given a week to fix his keywords. This is a typical example of dreamstime pushing their weight around.
This site acts in the way that we all hate- they treat us like a bunch of slaves, like theyre the big powerful corporation. They spy on forums that they dont run. They keep images for 6 months after we upload them. Sod them, I say. If they were as big as istock, theyd be a lot more hated. Fortunately for us, the other sites still understand that you have to at least act like you respect your contributors. Dreamstime dont. And Im sure theyre reading this post- so let me take this opportunity to say "screw you".

I completely agree with you and have sympathy for ArtmannWitte.

All of you throwing stones live in glass houses.

You're hypocrites.

I could go to any of your portfolios and find plenty of keywords that could be considered spam.  Anyone want to volunteer?

As a matter of fact, maybe I will.  Maybe I will get on DT and start to use that little red flag and start flagging some of your portfolios.  Then when your portfolio gets locked by DT you will be more considerate of your fellow photographer.

« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2007, 18:55 »
0
Stockmaniac,

I'm sure we all have questionable words in our images - I surely do.  There is a very subtle border, in my opinion, between stretching a concept and keyword spamming.  I put some keywords in my images that I sometimes don't find so correct, but then most of the similar ones have them, so I may be harming my chances if I don't do that too.  But you won't see me adding "woman" in an image without any person, "blue" in an image without that color, "television" in an image of a sofa, or "sexy" in an image of a coconut tree.

I haven't seen ArtmannWitte images and keywords, but unless DT was very wrong and disrespectful in this case, I would imagine that problems were very obvious for them to take such a drastic measure.  It wasn't probably just a few images, but a high number of them. At least, that's what I would expect.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2007, 19:04 »
0

I could go to any of your portfolios and find plenty of keywords that could be considered spam.  Anyone want to volunteer?

I agree with that, all of us(including myself) might have some keyword that may  be considered irrelevant to the photograph and some would call it keyword spam too. I think the point here is to what extend this is happening .if a person has a lot of irrelevant keyword attached to photo you can say it is an intentional spamming but this is not alway the case. for instance a had a picture of fish placed on a plate and I had the keyword marine life ( I considered fish was a part of it,and the term was describing the photo) but this keyword was removed by  the IS crew for being irrelevant (ok I respect that when I consider it now perhaps they were right to do so.but was I  spamming,I don't think so .some could only call it bad keywording but had I had the keyword business for this photo than I'd be called a  spammer.
I agree with some points FreedomFriesnBruisedEgos  made,too like the guy could have been warned first either by the person who pointed his/her finger at him or by DT.
and in my earlier post I was reffering to general keyword spamming problem and I did not have an intention to judge an individual,I hope none of us did either.


« Last Edit: August 30, 2007, 19:07 by stokfoto »

« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2007, 05:02 »
0
FFBE, would you please stop making posts that make me laugh - I've just been reading this thread over my morning coffee, and when I came across your 'screw you' announcement I spat the coffee all over my desk!
Any reason why it makes you laugh? Do me a favour- if you disagree with what I say- at least learn how to debate, and give me a reason. If you have a problem with my language- it isnt relevant at all.

« Reply #22 on: August 31, 2007, 22:40 »
0
FFBE, would you please stop making posts that make me laugh - I've just been reading this thread over my morning coffee, and when I came across your 'screw you' announcement I spat the coffee all over my desk!
Any reason why it makes you laugh? Do me a favour- if you disagree with what I say- at least learn how to debate, and give me a reason. If you have a problem with my language- it isnt relevant at all.
I'm not going to lie, it made me crack up too. It reminded me of the quiting scene in the movie Half Baked. I don't think hatman was attacking you. I very much liked the post and I had the same reaction.

« Reply #23 on: September 01, 2007, 04:27 »
0
Sure sounded like an attack to me! Maybe you guys should quit listening to the way things are said, and start listening for what is being said.

And in case you couldnt tell: What Im saying is, I very much dislike that company- and I think theyre the worst of the lot.

« Reply #24 on: September 01, 2007, 19:02 »
0
Sure sounded like an attack to me! Maybe you guys should quit listening to the way things are said, and start listening for what is being said.

And in case you couldnt tell: What Im saying is, I very much dislike that company- and I think theyre the worst of the lot.

I'm not listening to the way things are said, I am reading what is written. It was obvious you hate them. I personally don't understand how any of the things they do are evil, but that's just me.  I wasn't laughing at you, I was laughing  because most people aren't that blunt. It reminded me of this scene:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1IEGEs0lIk" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1IEGEs0lIk</a>


As far as why you hate them:
1) All the agencies read what is written on other forums, or at least they should.
2) Yes they keep photos for 6 months, but everyone knows that when they upload them because it is in their terms. If people don't read the terms they're agreeing to that's not Dreamtime's fault.
3) Kicking blatant keyword spammers off is something everyone should support.

« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2007, 02:12 »
0
I'm a bit amazed anybody should hate DreamsTime. First of all, it's unjust because it's a very well run business. And then, it's a business not a Mother Theresa social support group. I expect them to sell my photos, and so they do. If I have a different view on a rejection, I solve it by private email to support, and they've always been very responsive.

If I want hugs and wows and aaahs, I go to my Flickr account. But I didn't see any payout from Flickr yet.

« Reply #26 on: September 02, 2007, 02:39 »
0

I'm not listening to the way things are said, I am reading what is written.


Unfortunately, this is exactly what Im talking about. People with a limited intellectual capacity are fascinated by the way things are said, rather than the underlying meaning. What youve just given me is another example. It isnt that relevant how I speak (or if it makes it easier for you to picture, write). What is relevant is what is being said (edited to clarify:written).
Unfortunately, you wont defeat any arguements by giggling like a schoolgirl at the combination of words. All it does is waste time and distract attention from the debate, and because every attack needs a defense, I find myself having to lower myself to the same kind of purile, childish banter to explain myself. So, lets get on with it, and dont bother mocking any spelling mistakes/grammatical errors I may have made above.

As far as why you hate them:
1) All the agencies read what is written on other forums, or at least they should.

Its not simply a case of reading other forums. Dreamstime has, many times, read criticisms in forums like this one (forums that they dont run), and emailed the person in question to threaten them that if they criticize them again, they will be booted off their site. Do you think that this is fair?
« Last Edit: September 02, 2007, 03:28 by FreedomFriesnBruisedEgos »


« Reply #27 on: September 02, 2007, 04:13 »
0
Unfortunately, this is exactly what Im talking about. People with a limited intellectual capacity are fascinated by the way things are said, rather than the underlying meaning. What youve just given me is another example. It isnt that relevant how I speak (or if it makes it easier for you to picture, write). What is relevant is what is being said (edited to clarify:written).
Unfortunately, you wont defeat any arguements by giggling like a schoolgirl at the combination of words. All it does is waste time and distract attention from the debate, and because every attack needs a defense, I find myself having to lower myself to the same kind of purile, childish banter to explain myself. So, lets get on with it, and dont bother mocking any spelling mistakes/grammatical errors I may have made above.

Its not simply a case of reading other forums. Dreamstime has, many times, read criticisms in forums like this one (forums that they dont run), and emailed the person in question to threaten them that if they criticize them again, they will be booted off their site. Do you think that this is fair?
Well where to start? First, resorting to calling a person stupid hardly makes you look like a rational, intelligent person who is actually trying to debate (but your first posting took care of that). Second, there was no giggling. There was laughter at what was a rambling rant of a very pissed off person.  Third, I don't think it is fair if Dreamstime is actually doing such things. Finally, how people write is typically indicative of their cognitive abilities. Since you hijacked a thread that was originally about keyword spammers, perhaps we could get back to that.

P.S. Don't worry about lowering yourself. I hope telling people to piss off and then calling other people stupid is pretty much the bottom.

« Reply #28 on: September 02, 2007, 06:27 »
0
yingyang0:

I'm glad that you volunteered your portfolio for criticism.  It's good to have a representative from IS be the first.  IS does truly blaze the way.

Let's take a look at your most popular photo with a total of (drum roll please) 11 downloads.

It's a photo of a turtle on a beach.



Being that you are a true "wiki warrior" (that sounds so cool - is that some sort of ninja?), you should know that the following keywords are spam:

green, wake, wave, tortoise, big island, sea

Yes, spam is a delicacy in Hawaii, but at IS it leaves a foul taste on a designer's fine palate.

I am sure that you will agree that this should call for an immediate suspension of your account until you can explain your obvious malicious actions.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2007, 06:39 by StockManiac »

« Reply #29 on: September 02, 2007, 06:51 »
0
^^ A good point from the man above. Most people spam unintentionally (or maybe intentionally). Often its a case of inexperience, or just trying too hard. Its not something to be kicked off a site for. Sure, istock could give you a warning, but to kick you off would be unfair.

Well where to start? First, resorting to calling a person stupid hardly makes you look like a rational, intelligent person who is actually trying to debate (but your first posting took care of that). Second, there was no giggling. There was laughter at what was a rambling rant of a very pissed off person.  Third, I don't think it is fair if Dreamstime is actually doing such things. Finally, how people write is typically indicative of their cognitive abilities. Since you hijacked a thread that was originally about keyword spammers, perhaps we could get back to that.

P.S. Don't worry about lowering yourself. I hope telling people to piss off and then calling other people stupid is pretty much the bottom.

The idea that I "hijacked a thread" is nonsense- I was perfectly on topic. This thread is as much about "keyword spammers" as it is about Dreamstime's treatment of their contributors. I was talking about this- until I was attacked by two people who found the kind of language I was using terribly amuzing. One thing you say may be true: "how people write is typically indicative of their cognitive abilities." But lets be clear about this- its not relevant to the debate, and neither was your original post. Youre concentrating on the person speaking (writing), and the way they speak (write) rather than the meaning. In other words, youre off topic. You do say "I don't think it is fair if Dreamstime is actually doing such things." which implies that you agree with the substance behind the words, so I dont really see what point youre making.

There are a few posts somewhere on this site about Dreamstime spying on forums and making threats. Take a look if you havent already- youll see that its a lousy company.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2007, 07:16 by FreedomFriesnBruisedEgos »

« Reply #30 on: September 02, 2007, 12:52 »
0
yingyang0:

I'm glad that you volunteered your portfolio for criticism.  It's good to have a representative from IS be the first.  IS does truly blaze the way.

Let's take a look at your most popular photo with a total of (drum roll please) 11 downloads.

It's a photo of a turtle on a beach.



Being that you are a true "wiki warrior" (that sounds so cool - is that some sort of ninja?), you should know that the following keywords are spam:

green, wake, wave, tortoise, big island, sea

Yes, spam is a delicacy in Hawaii, but at IS it leaves a foul taste on a designer's fine palate.

I am sure that you will agree that this should call for an immediate suspension of your account until you can explain your obvious malicious actions.

1) I didn't volunteer.
2) It's a green sea turtle that was photographed on the big island of hawaii. Of course you knew that from the description on the photograph. That white stuff on top is the wake from a wave.

If you think that's spam you're insane. Spam is something that isn't in or related to the photo. If I had "business" in there then you would have been making a valid point instead of making a bad attempt at attacking someone.

P.S. That is not my most popular photo, and I take offense at someone trying to single me out when they could easily read the description to find out nothing there was spam . If you want to show examples then provide a link to your own portfolio.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2007, 12:58 by yingyang0 »

« Reply #31 on: September 02, 2007, 13:15 »
0
The idea that I "hijacked a thread" is nonsense- I was perfectly on topic. This thread is as much about "keyword spammers" as it is about Dreamstime's treatment of their contributors. I was talking about this- until I was attacked by two people who found the kind of language I was using terribly amuzing. One thing you say may be true: "how people write is typically indicative of their cognitive abilities." But lets be clear about this- its not relevant to the debate, and neither was your original post. Youre concentrating on the person speaking (writing), and the way they speak (write) rather than the meaning. In other words, youre off topic. You do say "I don't think it is fair if Dreamstime is actually doing such things." which implies that you agree with the substance behind the words, so I dont really see what point youre making.

There are a few posts somewhere on this site about Dreamstime spying on forums and making threats. Take a look if you havent already- youll see that its a lousy company.


Can you provide actual examples of people being mistreated? How were you mistreated?

I found this thread: http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=1581.0

But that just shows that stockmaniac and you are both anonymous posters who some people believe are actually employees or creators of competing agencies.

People who are unwilling to provide links to their own portfolios shouldn't talk (that's directed at stockmaniac).
« Last Edit: September 02, 2007, 13:44 by yingyang0 »

« Reply #32 on: September 02, 2007, 15:14 »
0
Sorry, dupe post...
« Last Edit: September 02, 2007, 15:21 by GeoPappas »

« Reply #33 on: September 02, 2007, 15:16 »
0
What does everyone consider "spamming" anyway?

To me, the word "spam" seems to be a little overused.

I think that spamming is adding an obviously blatant keyword, such as the keyword "sex" to a photo of a carrot, or the word "business" to a photo of a landscape.

And it seems that the definition of "spam" has changed over the last year or so.

Stock agencies used to recommend adding "additional" keywords to the image that would describe the emotion or where the image was taken.  Now some of them just want you to add the keywords for what is seen in the image.

What do you think?
« Last Edit: September 02, 2007, 15:20 by GeoPappas »

« Reply #34 on: September 02, 2007, 15:23 »
0
People who are unwilling to provide links to their own portfolios shouldn't talk (that's directed at stockmaniac).

And people who spam keywords shouldn't be "Wiki Warriors".

You're a hypocrite.  You go around telling people that they are spamming and should have their accounts closed, when you yourself do the same thing.

« Reply #35 on: September 02, 2007, 15:32 »
0
allright, due to at least as much insulting and 'bickering' back and forth as there is discusison, this thread is now locked.

What keyword spam is, or what good keyword is, is an interesting discussion mind you...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
16185 Views
Last post October 02, 2011, 07:03
by leaf
17 Replies
4777 Views
Last post September 18, 2012, 15:44
by tavi
83 Replies
16125 Views
Last post December 18, 2016, 04:37
by 50%
6 Replies
4179 Views
Last post February 02, 2017, 09:27
by Chichikov
4 Replies
4298 Views
Last post July 18, 2018, 08:25
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle