pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: more or less keywords  (Read 17186 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 28, 2013, 07:17 »
0
I'm not sure if anyone knows but what i'd like to know is for example:

1. i have 15 solid keywords for an image

2. i have 40 keywords including the 15 mentioned above with other maybe slightly less relevant keywords

If someone searches for one of the 15 keywords mentioned above, which image would appear higher in the searches?

I hope this question kind of makes sence! also how many keywords do you guys aim for per image?


« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2013, 07:22 »
0
50 (less possible junk)

« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2013, 07:36 »
0
ok, just curious if you got penalized for having more keywords...  8)

« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2013, 07:41 »
0
no idea, there are many theories around that but I don't think there is a proper study to guarantee success using less or more keywords (also can change in each agency), my advice is making them relevant, 50 is usual my aim but some I have only 30 or even less

the only fact I believe we have is using short titles in DT (interview with Tyler/Carmen) which can be no longer valid, oh agencies ;D
« Last Edit: September 28, 2013, 07:43 by luissantos84 »

cuppacoffee

« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2013, 07:46 »
0
Depends on which agency. I can't speak about all agencies but some reward higher search placement for fewer, more relevant keywords. Too many dilute the results and push you to the bottom.

Ron

« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2013, 08:11 »
0
Every site has its own search, so that question is almost impossible to answer, at least for me.

I use as many keywords as I need to describe the images. Less then 50, so be it, more than 50, delete all that are the least related to the image

I dont spam, but I am flexible on conceptual images.

calcaneus10

« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2013, 08:35 »
0
Like, Luis said, no one really knows.  But I try to brainstorm and use a thesaurus to get all 50 keywords on SS.

« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2013, 09:48 »
0
since ss provided a keyword tool, i have used that, and it comes up with the most relevant.
i have not seen any change in download numbers, whatever keyword tool I used, yuris, dusegard or now ss.
my guess is that it is teh first 20 keywords that are important, not the strange ones, such as floral and, environment.
keywords should be concrete i think.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2013, 10:13 »
0
Depends totally on the site. They have different algorithms. And on some sites, files gain or lose keyword relevancy. You can be screwed on your top keyword if buyers search and buy on one of your less relevant keywords, on some sites.

« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2013, 10:47 »
0
I use Shutterstock keyword suggestion page to select around 30. I used to have 50 but I learned that on average image got 30 on Shutterstock.

« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2013, 11:05 »
0
in theory there would be no problem even using 500 keywords, AS LONG as they're relevant.

for the average image 30-50 are usually enough.

i don't buy the fairy tales about using max 10-15 keywords,  it could work for some agencies at least for a while but what if tomorrow they tweak their search engine ?

« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2013, 11:39 »
0
DT certainly have said that fewer keywords are treated as more relevant than more keywords.  I think that makes sense - the greater the number the likelier that relevancy is being stretched.

Ron

« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2013, 12:39 »
0
DT certainly have said that fewer keywords are treated as more relevant than more keywords.  I think that makes sense - the greater the number the likelier that relevancy is being stretched.
I have images with up to 80 keywords without stretching, and struggle to remove 30 because they are relevant. It depends on what is in the image really, imo.

cuppacoffee

« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2013, 12:39 »
+9
I'm amazed at some of the words that are used all the time that I don't think are relevant. What is the difference between a healthy red apple and a red apple? Do you think someone really searches for healthy fruit or do they have their own idea of what fruit they are looking for? What is an unhealthy fruit? Even beautiful with woman is odd. Ugly might work if someone is really searching for a special concept but how many searches are really done on beautiful woman and how many results will appear? Millions. A wedding bouquet with the word celebration? What combination of terms would include celebration when searching for a wedding bouquet. Celebration with flowers? Many use the word nutrition with every image of food. Huh? Junk for food if it is, that makes sense. Child playing with toy has hobby, leisure, serene as keywords? Will a buyer search for a serene child with leisure toy? Nouns and verbs are more powerful. Conceptual words are not always a good idea because what may look fun to someone might be dangerous to others. Give the buyers some credit, they have an idea of what subjects are fun or dangerous, you don't have to do their thinking for them. Friend for a pet dog? Who searches using friend and expects to find a dog? They would search for dog. I could go on and on (maybe I'm a keymaster somewhere, maybe not but I've seen it all). Too many words on most images, IMHO.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2013, 13:10 by cuppacoffee »

« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2013, 12:50 »
0
DT certainly have said that fewer keywords are treated as more relevant than more keywords.  I think that makes sense - the greater the number the likelier that relevancy is being stretched.
I have images with up to 80 keywords without stretching, and struggle to remove 30 because they are relevant. It depends on what is in the image really, imo.

I went to 50 once on something that contained elements of a number of other keyworded images - everything was in the image but not really what the image was about if you get my drift.  Really, 80 must be stretching the boundaries of relevance but I'm open to seeing an example of any image with that many relevant keywords.

ACS

« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2013, 13:46 »
0
I wish we could have a list of agencies with their keyword/search placement preferences. For example; first 7 keywords are important in fotolia or title is important in this site, caption is important in that site etc.  It is as important as the quality of your image if you want to make money.


« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2013, 13:56 »
0
I wish we could have a list of agencies with their keyword/search placement preferences. For example; first 7 keywords are important in fotolia or title is important in this site, caption is important in that site etc.  It is as important as the quality of your image if you want to make money.

I would be happy if they don't cut us time to time, keywording isn't my "biggest" concern


Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2013, 14:06 »
+1
I can't be bothered by adhering to sites' individual rules regarding keywording images. I just keyword with what I consider relevant and appropriate for a certain images. Sure, the most important keywords first, but other than that, I follow my own methods. I keep it below 50, but at least 20 or so, without being spammy.

And I consider 'nutrition' for food images a relevant keyword. Plenty of buyers using that word to find food images, so why not? Same goes for healthy (for fruit) and beautiful (for woman). If a buyer doesn't know what kind of health-conveying image he's looking for, he might notice my 'healthy apple' image and think: "yeah, THAT'S the one!"

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2013, 15:31 »
+2
@cuppacoffee: while I agree with you in the main, I far more hate the type of keywording which has a photo of an apple keyworded 'pear, orange, grape' (hypothetical example, based on a similar type of search results) or where there are nouns which don't belong in the image. At my most charitable, I can only imagine someone has keyworded a very diverse batch of images and not divested individual images of irrelevant tags. But sometimes with non-wildlife specialists, they seem to put a wide range of species, hoping one might be right - and sometimes none of them are correct. I'm sure everyone else sees that in their own specialty.

Ron

« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2013, 15:43 »
+1
In the example of dog, there is a significant difference between dog and a mans best friend. A dog can be an isolation but a mans best friend is a conceptual image of a man and his dog. So I do see why I would keyword certain images of a dog with 'friend'

As for giving the buyer credit, its not about that, its about helping my sales, if I come up with a concept and keyword it as such a buyer might run into my image and think, 'hey, I didnt think of that, thats great'

You should see the keywords used to buy some of my images.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2013, 15:57 »
-1
i agree with cuppacoffee, concepts like "beautiful" "cute" and "gorgeous" are subjective, and we've all seen cases of it and rolled our eyes. it must drive designers nuts. How about the images that contain "london" or "new york" but don't have any connection to that city, apart from being shot there? ugh! we could go on with examples. excessive spammy keywording hurts us all.

Ron

« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2013, 16:05 »
0
^^ You are using the keyword cute and pretty yourself. In fact you keyworded and image of a girl holding an apple with cute healthy and fruit.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2013, 16:08 by Ron »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2013, 16:29 »
0
^^ You are using the keyword cute and pretty yourself. In fact you keyworded and image of a girl holding an apple with cute healthy and fruit.
Fruit is factually correct for apple.

Ron

« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2013, 16:34 »
0
^^ You are using the keyword cute and pretty yourself. In fact you keyworded and image of a girl holding an apple with cute healthy and fruit.
Fruit is factually correct for apple.
Of course!! But cuppacoffee was mentioning healthy fruit is pleonasm and Gillian agrees with cuppacoffee.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2013, 16:54 »
0
How about the images that contain "london" or "new york" but don't have any connection to that city, apart from being shot there? ugh! we could go on with examples. excessive spammy keywording hurts us all.
And the beaches with any or all these keywords  France, Italy, Spain, Caribbean, (+named islands), Mediterranean (+named islands), Indian Ocean (+named islands), Thailand
When these get caught out it just hurts the reputation of the agencies, which is why I'm surprised they don't clamp down more on bad keywording.

There's one high-ranking iStocker who specialises in model shoots, but sometimes shoots birds. I don't know how many times I've seen his files with the correct species name in the title, but three or more wrong species names (totally unrelated and random, usually) in the keywords, and sometimes the correct species from the title isn't in the keywords. That flummoxes me no end! What's the game there?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5929 Views
Last post February 03, 2011, 04:11
by Punit Patel
2 Replies
1870 Views
Last post July 31, 2012, 09:04
by sgoodwin4813
Keywords

Started by Poncke DepositPhotos

8 Replies
3715 Views
Last post November 26, 2013, 18:00
by Ron
9 Replies
5930 Views
Last post January 07, 2015, 20:08
by ArenaCreative
2 Replies
4332 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 12:27
by einstein

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle