MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: more or less keywords  (Read 17188 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the only fact I believe we have is using short titles in DT (interview with Tyler/Carmen) which can be no longer valid, oh agencies ;D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?

« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2013, 17:29 »
+2
I just put as many keywords I find relevant. For some images it's only 10, for some 25 and for some 47.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2013, 18:10 »
+1
I generally apply between 20-30 keywords, sometimes less.  Since I shoot primarily macro I don't see the need to apply more than that as my subject matter is pretty simple.  In looking at keyword relevance (based on buyer behavior) at iS and Image Gallery stats at SS it I get the impression that minutia isn't necessary when keywording....it's usually the obvious that grabs the buyer.


« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2013, 17:03 »
+2
There is no 'perfect number of keywords'. Just stop keywording before you start adding words which you think 'might be applicable'. If you don't *know* those keywords apply to the image, you've added too many :)

« Reply #28 on: October 07, 2013, 17:34 »
0
I've tracked keywords bing used on the 100+ symbiostock sites (something no agency helps with).  I only track keywords used at least 5 times on a given site:

here are the 4000+ most used keywords:
http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=401

the keywords used on the most sites:
http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=401

alphabetical list of keywords used:
http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=403


« Reply #29 on: October 07, 2013, 21:24 »
0
But there is places that can only use photos made in their area, such as the Ontario government agencies only allows photos in their brochures of people from Ontario and shot in Ontario.  A photo of a dandelion and someone blowing on it must be shot in Ontario and the model be from Ontario.  Government of Canada has some agencies that do the same, the models, photographer, and people in the photos must be from Canada and in Canada, any scenes (prints on a wall in offices) for decorating, etc all must be shot in Ontario or Canada respectively.  I'm unsure if other provincial governments also do this but it is practiced.  There are businesses that will for what ever reason want only local shots even if it's not obvious so putting in where the shot was taken could be relevant even when not obvious.

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.

Me


« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2013, 23:38 »
0
I've tracked keywords bing used on the 100+ symbiostock sites (something no agency helps with).  I only track keywords used at least 5 times on a given site:

here are the 4000+ most used keywords:
http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=401

the keywords used on the most sites:
http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=401

alphabetical list of keywords used:
http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=403


To confirm, these are keywords the photographers had applied to their images, NOT what customers have used to search with?

« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2013, 07:10 »
+1
To confirm, these are keywords the photographers had applied to their images, NOT what customers have used to search with?


Yep.
Like that list, but for searches I have here: http://picworkflow.com/blog/research/top-2000-image-buyers-searches-vs-keyword-popularity/

« Reply #32 on: October 08, 2013, 08:06 »
0
Probably relevant is the best not to annoy the client.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2013, 12:45 »
0
Whatever it takes to cover the image and everything that's in it. I'm still against adding words that no one will ever search for, just because they are more words.

If someone wants something red, they will search for red. If they want a tomato they will search for that, not Solanum lycopersicum crimson (cardinal, cinnabar or erythraean) Why do people waste so much time and effort trying to get trick words into keywords?

Let me put it another way... KEY words.

Whatever it takes to describe the image accurately. It's not a number it's a condition.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: October 10, 2013, 05:17 »
0
If someone wants something red, they will search for red. If they want a tomato they will search for that, not Solanum lycopersicum crimson (cardinal, cinnabar or erythraean) Why do people waste so much time and effort trying to get trick words into keywords?
The scientific name is not 'trick words'. It enables people whose first language is not English to find what they want. It makes sure that where they are looking for something specific, they get what they want, e.g. there are many species of 'Robin'.

Granted, I label all my birds with their specific recommended English vernacular, common English vernacular and Latin names, yet the top keyword on my gull pics is inevitably 'seagull', a word so beneath contempt that I didn't even use it as a keyword for a couple of years after I started.

Still, there might be someone who's grateful for the scientific name; and it is uber accurate, unlike the spam on most uploaded files these days at iS, but judging by results, at the others, though SS usually makes a good whack at filtering out spam.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #35 on: October 10, 2013, 06:30 »
0
Real simple as many as possible and sometimes that is well over 50 and close to 100.

What is found in the image?
Where are the items?
What is the condition or state of the items?
What actions or moods are taking place or implied?
What colors are present?
What textures are found?
What shapes are found?
What concept, theme or idea is found?"

cuppacoffee

« Reply #36 on: October 10, 2013, 07:01 »
0
"...and it is uber accurate..."

No, not uber. Some look up what they think is a certain species, bird, butterfly, etc. on Wikipedia and use that info whether or not it is actually correct just to add keywords without knowing the true identity of the beast. I've seen it. There are many variations in species and not all uploaders take the time to find the correct scientific name. I've seen grasshoppers keyworded as grasshoppers where they should/could be katydids or locusts. If I were a true scientist I would not trust the scientific names on many microstock images. That being said, if they really knew what they were looking for I bet that they would first search for grasshopper and then maybe Orthoptera Caelifera. Grasshopper and the scientific name would be in the same search.

Perhaps this is a more accurate place for those kinds of photos? http://www.sciencephoto.com/aboutSPL.html
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 07:07 by cuppacoffee »


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: October 10, 2013, 07:14 »
0
"...and it is uber accurate..."

No, not uber. Some look up what they think is a certain species, bird, butterfly, etc. on Wikipedia and use that info whether or not it is actually correct just to add keywords without knowing the true identity of the beast. I've seen it. There are many variations in species and not all uploaders take the time to find the correct scientific name. I've seen grasshoppers keyworded as grasshoppers where they should/could be katydids or locusts. If I were a true scientist I would not trust the scientific names on many microstock images. That being said, if they really knew what they were looking for I bet that they would first search for grasshopper and then maybe Orthoptera Caelifera. Grasshopper and the scientific name would be in the same search.

Perhaps this is a more accurate place for those kinds of photos? http://www.sciencephoto.com/aboutSPL.html I don't know anything about them.


OK, accepted, if the person misidentifies the species, adding the latin of the species doesn't help.
I just wikied (to what purpose) a few days ago a bird which was a genuine misidentification (i.e. no other bird was spammed). The tog had gone to the bother of copying a description of the wrong species from somewhere, by which I was left wondering - 'how on earth did they arrive at that identification from that description?' as so many key features from the description were not visible on the bird. Although it was a species not known to me, it didn't take me long to have a positive ID on it. But I suppose it helps if you know where to start.

It's usually not difficult to get an ID. Only last week I had a photo of a Hoverfly I needed IDd. I put it onto Flickr, got a well-meaning suggestion which turned out to be a blind alley, then within an hour of upload, the correct identification from a real top expert in the field (I Googled him!).

I also agree that most people needing accuracy will go to specialist agencies. A clear example of how the clueless and the evil (spammers) have spoiled it for the rest of us.

cuppacoffee

« Reply #38 on: October 10, 2013, 08:59 »
+1
Just from your persona here I'm sure that all of your images are keyworded extremely well. Take a look at the sciencephoto.com site and see if it is worth your while to become a contributor there. I think that would be a perfect fit.

http://www.sciencephoto.com/static/media/contact/SPL_DigitalGuidelines.pdf

« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2013, 09:23 »
0
Proper keywording takes a lot of time especially when you trying to find right description of some animal or plant. I usually start with Shutterstock keywords suggestions, then Google image search and wikipedia. Sometimes it is almost impossible like once when I got photo of some dragonfly. Likely it was very specific to the location when I took a shot.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2013, 10:32 »
0
Just from your persona here I'm sure that all of your images are keyworded extremely well. Take a look at the sciencephoto.com site and see if it is worth your while to become a contributor there. I think that would be a perfect fit.

http://www.sciencephoto.com/static/media/contact/SPL_DigitalGuidelines.pdf


Thanks for the link.

« Reply #41 on: October 10, 2013, 13:14 »
0
The "Buyer searched for" column in earnings on Dreamstime is revealing

A FEW EXAMPLES OF RECENT SALES ARE DIRECTLY FROM BASIC KEYWORDS

Title: Burlap texture
Searched for: texture

Title: Bowlerl hat
Searched for: hat

Title: Maple leaf
Searched for: fall leaf

Title: Empty head
Searched for: memory

Title: Sunglasses
Searched for: sunglasses

BUT THERE ARE A FEW ODD ONES

Title: Rowing team
Searched for: care (care was not a keyword)

Title: Beach umbrella
Searched for: house for sale (no keyword here)

Title: Clef and star
Searched for: broadway sign (broadway was a keyword)

I've begun to think you don't need 50 keywords - 30 should be plenty.



cuppacoffee

« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2013, 13:24 »
0
From the DT FAQs

Q A BUYER FOUND MY IMAGE USING KEYWORDS THAT ARE NOT PRESENT IN MY IMAGE INFO. WHY IS THAT?

A Buyers may navigate several pages before buying an image so you may sometimes see that the "buyer searched for" section lists keywords which are not included in your info, may be unusual or completely unrelated to your image. You could use these keywords to identify the concept as in some cases unrelated keywords can reveal more about the buyers' project. Although they start from a search based on keywords, the buyers may then navigate the "similar images" or the "more images with this model" sections. A search for "smiling woman" can continue in the "images with the same model" section from where the buyer can move to a different expression and end up downloading an "upset man". If the keywords are never changed while navigating these pages, then the initial "smiling woman" set is saved and shown as used by the buyer. The "buyer searched for" feature is designed to help you better understand how searches are made and which of your keywords are most relevant sale-wise speaking. You can use it as guideline and edit the image info to include relevant or obvious keywords you may have missed. We do ask you to keep in mind the visual search explanation above and NOT include unrelated or irrelevant terms. Spam is not allowed so make sure all keywords apply to your image. If a buyer downloads your "dog looking up" but initially searched for "business man looking up," the only keywords you can add to your image are "looking" and "up" in case they are missing.

« Reply #43 on: October 10, 2013, 16:34 »
0

The scientific name is not 'trick words'. It enables people whose first language is not English to find what they want. It makes sure that where they are looking for something specific, they get what they want, e.g. there are many species of 'Robin'.

Granted, I label all my birds with their specific recommended English vernacular, common English vernacular and Latin names, yet the top keyword on my gull pics is inevitably 'seagull', a word so beneath contempt that I didn't even use it as a keyword for a couple of years after I started.

Still, there might be someone who's grateful for the scientific name; and it is uber accurate, unlike the spam on most uploaded files these days at iS, but judging by results, at the others, though SS usually makes a good whack at filtering out spam.

 just had several images rejected by SS because captions 'must be in english' -- only non-English words were the scientific names!

I think sci names are one of the exceptions to not being too specific

« Reply #44 on: October 10, 2013, 16:39 »
0
I've tracked keywords bing used on the 100+ symbiostock sites (something no agency helps with).  I only track keywords used at least 5 times on a given site:

here are the 4000+ most used keywords:
http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=401

the keywords used on the most sites:
http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=401

alphabetical list of keywords used:
http://cascoly.com/symbio/list.asp?list=403


To confirm, these are keywords the photographers had applied to their images, NOT what customers have used to search with?


correct - these keywords come from the image files symbio creates.  soon(?) there will be a file that records searches and we'll be able to do comparisons

steve

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #45 on: October 10, 2013, 16:44 »
0
just had several images rejected by SS because captions 'must be in english' -- only non-English words were the scientific names!
Is that general on SS or an eejit inspector?

Hmmm, not sure what the 'caption is there.
I just found one:
Stock Photo: Lesser redpoll, Carduelis cabaret, single bird on branch, Gloucestershire

Is that the caption or the title?

Image ID:

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #46 on: October 10, 2013, 17:16 »
0
Then again, on iStock (stupidly), although many scientific names map to that species, in far too many others, the scientific maps to a generic. So for example "Vespula vulgaris" (common wasp, the clue's in the name) maps only to 'wasp', so a person knowing that they want to look for Vespula vulgaris has to wade through all wasps. I forgot about this; I've seen lots of examples of the same thing. The worst about this is because it's in the CV, you can't do "Vespula vulgaris" and get only that, as you could if it was a non-CV term.


« Reply #47 on: October 10, 2013, 17:56 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:16 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #48 on: October 10, 2013, 18:10 »
0
just had several images rejected by SS because captions 'must be in english' -- only non-English words were the scientific names!
Is that general on SS or an eejit inspector?

Hmmm, not sure what the 'caption is there.
I just found one:
Stock Photo: Lesser redpoll, Carduelis cabaret, single bird on branch, Gloucestershire

Is that the caption or the title?

Image ID:

I usually get the latin names approved
SS pulls their caption from the iptc caption metadata

this was the same reviewer who rejected thunderstorm and backlit mountains with rainbow for 'lighting' problems

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #49 on: October 10, 2013, 18:20 »
+1
Then again, on iStock (stupidly), although many scientific names map to that species, in far too many others, the scientific maps to a generic. So for example "Vespula vulgaris" (common wasp, the clue's in the name) maps only to 'wasp', so a person knowing that they want to look for Vespula vulgaris has to wade through all wasps. I forgot about this; I've seen lots of examples of the same thing. The worst about this is because it's in the CV, you can't do "Vespula vulgaris" and get only that, as you could if it was a non-CV term.
Contributors aren't experts on these things and neither are the inspectors.  The issue (of imperfect mapping) can be fixed by sitemailing the keywording admin or posting in the keywording forum
Yeah, but I've been banned for almost three years, so that can't happen.

Quote
but nothing will fix bad keywording. 

BTW compare the results you get at Shutterstock to Istock, which would you rather see if you were a buyer?  It at least shows that not very many people will put in the scientific name on their own.  On Shutterstock Vespula Vulgaris 69 results, common wasp 103 results, wasp 8,000+ results.  The best search for that subject looks like the istock one and the shutterstock one for 'wasp'.

Searching SS for Vespula vulgaris, I get 69 results and most of them are actually common wasps. On iS I get 4000 random wasps and hornets that I have to really look at and various other insects . (the 'various other insects' are spamming, of course.)
So if I were a buyer and Vv was what I wanted, SS would be preferable.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #50 on: October 10, 2013, 18:24 »
+2
Contributors aren't experts on these things and neither are the inspectors. 
Are we professional or are we not?
Is it really acceptable to keyword, and inspect a dragonfly as a wasp? (Don't get me started).
I know it's not a specialist agency, but would it be acceptable to keyword a little girl as an old man*? And they are at least the same species.
If an agency accepts any sort of file, they should make some effort to make that genre accurately searchable.
*Nowadays probably 'yes', unless you get Keywordzilla.

« Reply #51 on: October 10, 2013, 18:33 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:15 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #52 on: October 10, 2013, 18:55 »
+1
Contributors aren't experts on these things and neither are the inspectors. 
Are we professional or are we not?
Is it really acceptable to keyword, and inspect a dragonfly as a wasp? (Don't get me started).
I know it's not a specialist agency, but would it be acceptable to keyword a little girl as an old man*? And they are at least the same species.
If an agency accepts any sort of file, they should make some effort to make that genre accurately searchable.
*Nowadays probably 'yes', unless you get Keywordzilla.
I was talking about scientific names.  You asked "are we professional or not?", last time I asked that question around here I was told resoundingly we are not.
My real point, from which I digressed  :-[, was why on earth iS would map a specific to a general term, thereby confounding buyers from seeing only what they wanted to see. Even if everyone had keyworded properly, iS is still mapping a specific species of wasp to all wasps. If a buyer just wants any wasp, they can search on wasp. If they want a specific, let them only see that specific. If it's not available or they don't like what's available, they can decide if they want to look for other wasps or look elsewhere if they need the correct species. Why p*ss off buyers?
Oh, I forgot, they're not there to serve buyers' needs. "The Buyers" are just a convenient hanger as an excuse for bizarre changes they make. Can anyone really believe that Collections, as implemented, meets the buyers needs in any way that was suggested at its introduction?
"Our buyers want simplicity and qualitybut over time weve accumulated 7 collections at iStock. At this point, the differences and advantages between them are murky at best, especially from the customers vantage point. Bottom line to be successful we need to help different customers with different needs find the content they are looking for at the price that reflects the quality of the image... "
Ooops, I digress again, and that was seriously off-thread.
Except that it does concern the issue of almost all the inspectors accepting almost any random keywords attached to any photo (I've wikied over 20 non-disputable nouns from some recent uploads, and put a note 'etc' in the notes to indicate questionable adjectives.)

« Reply #53 on: October 10, 2013, 18:59 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:14 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #54 on: October 10, 2013, 19:01 »
0
Contributors aren't experts on these things and neither are the inspectors. 
Are we professional or are we not?
Is it really acceptable to keyword, and inspect a dragonfly as a wasp? (Don't get me started).
I know it's not a specialist agency, but would it be acceptable to keyword a little girl as an old man*? And they are at least the same species.
If an agency accepts any sort of file, they should make some effort to make that genre accurately searchable.
*Nowadays probably 'yes', unless you get Keywordzilla.
I was talking about scientific names.  You asked "are we professional or not?", last time I asked that question around here I was told resoundingly we are not.

what a scandal! you are an iStock/GI exclusive, therefore you are a professional, don't let anyone tell you otherwise ;)

« Reply #55 on: October 10, 2013, 19:03 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:14 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #56 on: October 10, 2013, 19:11 »
0
I haven't looked at this issue as in depth as it sounds like you probably have but my guess is that since most people aren't experts on this there was an error.  This specific species is a 'common wasp' which sounds to me like a wasp, I guess the common wasp is not synonymous with wasp but I can see how that would be confusing or easily overlooked.  It should be a subcategory instead of a synonym but I think you can see how it would be easy to confuse that.  You could try to ask nicely if Lobo will let you back on the forums and then get this fixed.

This is by no means the only example where a specfic maps to a general. It makes no sense whatsover.
I have no means to contact Lobo, and I'm past caring. The site is largely pointless for me nowadays. 1 dl on each of Monday and Tuesday (XS and S respectively); 0 today. Yesterday I guess my deconnector failed  ;) as I did manage to get up to a whole 9 dls. Ha - back in the day that would have been an average day, nowadays it's unbelievably excellent.


« Reply #57 on: October 10, 2013, 19:15 »
0
what a scandal! you are an iStock/GI exclusive, therefore you are a professional, don't let anyone tell you otherwise ;)
Thank you Luis you know how I value your opinion.

same here! ;D

« Reply #58 on: October 10, 2013, 19:16 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:14 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #59 on: October 10, 2013, 19:41 »
0
You can probably contact him through Contributor Relations or send him a personal message on this site.  You really can't see how 'common wasp' gets confused with 'wasp'?
What would the point be? Anyway, I don't do grovelling.
No, I don't see it, but that's only one example out of very, very many.
If they hadn't mapped them, it would be a better seach for the buyer.
Anyway, I pointed out years ago that 'berg', German for 'mountain' maps to 'iceberg' and it still does, though to be fair, they did work on lots of my suggestions.
Again, that hardly matters with all the spam which gets in. They really don't care.

« Reply #60 on: October 10, 2013, 19:45 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:14 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #61 on: October 10, 2013, 19:52 »
0
You can probably contact him through Contributor Relations or send him a personal message on this site.  You really can't see how 'common wasp' gets confused with 'wasp'?
What would the point be? Anyway, I don't do grovelling.
No, I don't see it, but that's only one example out of very, very many.
If they hadn't mapped them, it would be a better seach for the buyer.
Anyway, I pointed out years ago that 'berg', German for 'mountain' maps to 'iceberg' and it still does, though to be fair, they did work on lots of my suggestions.
Again, that hardly matters with all the spam which gets in. They really don't care.
'berg' is all mountains, I don't see any icebergs
Good try, Horatio, but it's disingenuous all the same.
Look up iceberg and see all the bergs.
I said berg mapped to iceberg, not iceberg mapped to berg.

« Reply #62 on: October 10, 2013, 19:53 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:14 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #63 on: October 10, 2013, 20:04 »
0
You can probably contact him through Contributor Relations or send him a personal message on this site.  You really can't see how 'common wasp' gets confused with 'wasp'?

What would the point be? Anyway, I don't do grovelling.
No, I don't see it, but that's only one example out of very, very many.
If they hadn't mapped them, it would be a better seach for the buyer.
Anyway, I pointed out years ago that 'berg', German for 'mountain' maps to 'iceberg' and it still does, though to be fair, they did work on lots of my suggestions.
Again, that hardly matters with all the spam which gets in. They really don't care.

'berg' is all mountains, I don't see any icebergs

Good try, Horatio, but it's disingenuous all the same.
Look up iceberg and see all the bergs.
I said berg mapped to iceberg, not iceberg mapped to berg.

No, 'berg' maps to mountain.  You need to do the search in german (Deutsch) not in English, because you are searching using a german word.  It's the same at Shutterstock an English search of 'berg' gets icebergs but a german search of 'berg' gets mountains.

Watch my lips: I'm not complaining about there being icebergs in the berg search.
I'm complaining because searching on icebergs bring up lots of bergs.
If someone from Germany, Austria or Switzerland puts, correctly in German, berg meaning mountain, it automaps, with no other option, to Iceberg, as the system interprets the German word Berg as being US English (apparently) for 'iceberg'. So there are lots of Alpine mountains in the iceberg search.

(Screendumped from a recent upload by a German speaking contributor of a berg/mountain appearing in the iceberg search, which I'm not referencing as it's not his/her fault.)
And don't get me started on the glaciers which are wrongly keyworded iceberg. You might as well have a photo of a woman keyworded baby (which is not in the photo). But that's a spam issue, berg is a CV issue.

Anyway, past 2 a.m. and I'm going to have an early night.
Lala salama.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 20:07 by ShadySue »

« Reply #64 on: October 10, 2013, 20:10 »
0
'berg' is a legitimate slang for iceberg -- in English, it's the only definition

from dictionary.com:

berg
  [burg] 

noun Oceanography . 
iceberg

Origin: 
181525;  by shortening

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #65 on: October 10, 2013, 20:22 »
0
^^ Fair enough, but it doesn't help Germans trying to keyword a mountain.

« Reply #66 on: October 10, 2013, 20:23 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:14 by Audi 5000 »


« Reply #67 on: October 10, 2013, 20:24 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:13 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #68 on: October 11, 2013, 04:20 »
0
You can probably contact him through Contributor Relations or send him a personal message on this site.  You really can't see how 'common wasp' gets confused with 'wasp'?

What would the point be? Anyway, I don't do grovelling.
No, I don't see it, but that's only one example out of very, very many.
If they hadn't mapped them, it would be a better seach for the buyer.
Anyway, I pointed out years ago that 'berg', German for 'mountain' maps to 'iceberg' and it still does, though to be fair, they did work on lots of my suggestions.
Again, that hardly matters with all the spam which gets in. They really don't care.

'berg' is all mountains, I don't see any icebergs

Good try, Horatio, but it's disingenuous all the same.
Look up iceberg and see all the bergs.
I said berg mapped to iceberg, not iceberg mapped to berg.

No, 'berg' maps to mountain.  You need to do the search in german (Deutsch) not in English, because you are searching using a german word.  It's the same at Shutterstock an English search of 'berg' gets icebergs but a german search of 'berg' gets mountains.

Watch my lips: I'm not complaining about there being icebergs in the berg search.
I'm complaining because searching on icebergs bring up lots of bergs.
If someone from Germany, Austria or Switzerland puts, correctly in German, berg meaning mountain, it automaps, with no other option, to Iceberg, as the system interprets the German word Berg as being US English (apparently) for 'iceberg'. So there are lots of Alpine mountains in the iceberg search.

(Screendumped from a recent upload by a German speaking contributor of a berg/mountain appearing in the iceberg search, which I'm not referencing as it's not his/her fault.)
And don't get me started on the glaciers which are wrongly keyworded iceberg. You might as well have a photo of a woman keyworded baby (which is not in the photo). But that's a spam issue, berg is a CV issue.

Anyway, past 2 a.m. and I'm going to have an early night.
Lala salama.

If you are German, switch to the German site and type in 'berg' it will come up with the correct German search.  You are searching the English word berg http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/berg
Noun

berg (plural bergs)

    Mountain, a large mass or hill.  [quotations ▼]
    An iceberg.  [quotations ▼]

If you go to the German site it will look for the German word.  It works the same way at Shutterstock.  Try your search here:  http://deutsch.istockphoto.com


OK, I know you want to defend iS, no matter what; but this takes the biscuit.

I am on the UK English site.
I search for 'iceberg' in UK English and I get a lot of alpine mountains in among the icebergs, glaciers, lettuces and cocktails.
When I go into any of the alpine mountains to wiki, I find that the German speaker has keyworded 'berg', presumably expecting it to be a mountain, but it turns it into an iceberg.
I can't wiki it from the UK English site, because that's the only option given from my side. Normally while I'm in the UK English site, if a German has used a wrong keyword, I can wiki it in the normal manner.

This is not a complaint about Team Metadata. I always found both Keywords and DuckSandwich to be extremely pleasant and helpful back in the day. They must be totally overstretched nowadays. I thought iS had given up on  keywording standards, based on what's currently coming through; but I heard of a bulk wiki they did at the beginning of this week. So I guess the policy must be 'let it all in and Team Metadata will sort it out'. I hope they expanded their staff to cope. Insanity.

I checked SS ('new') and although there are lettuces, glaciers, a seal and icy illustrations which are not icebergs, that's spam, the curse of all sites. I don't see any Alpine mountains / meadows without glaciers, which would have been keyworded 'berg'.

« Reply #69 on: October 11, 2013, 06:26 »
0
I am on the UK English site.
I search for 'iceberg' in UK English and I get a lot of alpine mountains in among the icebergs, glaciers, lettuces and cocktails.

I have slightly lost track of this argument. Are you deliberately searching by newest which, as we know, is flawed ? Because when I search for iceberg by best match I get page after page of icebergs and iceflows in general. Sea and ice, lots of blue - pretty much what I would expect. And, to the credit of the photographers, there are some great pictures. Too many if anything. Fresh match is pretty good too to be fair.

Yes there are lots of things which are deeply frustrating and which we probably all wish were different at this point. But we also have to be objective or else it all just turns to whine. And those search results look okay to me. They look like the sort of results we should expect to see.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #70 on: October 11, 2013, 06:44 »
0
My argument wasn't orginally about search results. It was just an example of a bad CV mapping.
Searching by newest is only flawed because spam is getting through. Though Keywordzilla is still at it: this very morning I had 'disease' removed from a photo showing the signs a particular disease, explained with the correct scientific name in the description.
The fact that Newest is 'flawed' by spam and ignorance means it's not likely to be used much by buyers. I did say in my post that I was comparing New on SS with Newest on iS to illustrate the issue I was hightlighting.

The fact that best match penalises new files so they'll never be seen, and Fresh Match seems to have reverted to be as it was when it was announced, i.e. that it shows new-er-ish files which have built up keyword relevancy, and even then only on single word files, means that new files have virtually no hope of being found on any keyword with more than, say 400 or 600 hits, maybe even as few as 200. This has been the case for a year now - it was early October last year that I uploaded a batch of photos and found they sank to about mid-search within 48 hours of acceptance. But nowadays it's as soon as they get into the database.
iStock via Lobo has asserted that very few (of their) buyers use more than one keyword or keyword phrase when searching.
It has often been said the buyers only look at one or two pages of results, but I don't know how 'official' that is. My stats at Alamy suggest otherwise, but that's a different group of buyers.

« Reply #71 on: October 11, 2013, 08:04 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:13 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #72 on: October 11, 2013, 08:36 »
+1
Anyway, I pointed out years ago that 'berg', German for 'mountain' maps to 'iceberg' and it still does, though to be fair, they did work on lots of my suggestions.

This is what you were talking about ShadySue.  It is an English word and a German word, in English it means iceberg and in German it means mountain.  When you search on the English site it uses the English definition.  When you search on the German site it uses the German definition. 
English site using English word 'berg'
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/berg/filetypes/photos
German site using German word 'berg'
http://deutsch.istockphoto.com/search/text/berg/filetypes/photos


I know and understand that.
It's a simple translation mistake.
You keep choosing not to see, though I've repeated it many times, that I'm talking about the 'iceberg' search in English, not the 'berg' search in German or English.
It's odd that an American slang term or abbreviation should trump a 'proper' English translation.
It has a double whammy outcome:
If a German contributor correctly keywords 'berg' meaning mountain, on the UK English site that file shows up as iceberg, but on the UK English site, it doesn't show on a search for 'mountain'.
Check by searching newest on both, and if yours is different, it must be the geographical bias, because of the 'bergs' showing up on newest for iceberg, none is on the newest for mountain here.
E.g. on the top line for iceberg in the UK English search, by Newest, are several mountains on Gran Canaria uploaded by 'vora' and keyworded 'berg' in German.
These files do not show up on the UK English search for 'mountain'.

Oh, I give up. These files have also been keyworded 'berge', the German plural of berg, which maps to mountain  ::), but they still don't show up in the Mountain search, by newest, in the most recent 1000,whereupon file 1000.

So I tried an exclusive file, this time by querbeet. This has berg only, not berge, so it only maps to iceberg.
It's about halfway down the Newest search for iceberg, but again isn't in the most recent 1000 'mountains' in the UK 'English search, despite having been uploaded on the 7th, so with a newer acceptance date than vora's.

NB, I'm not dissing vora or querbeet, who have done nothing wrong. But I can't explain this problem without giving examples.

« Reply #73 on: October 11, 2013, 08:47 »
0
.

 
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:13 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #74 on: October 11, 2013, 08:56 »
+2
I guess I just don't see what the problem is, maybe I just can't keep up with you?  Are you talking about 'berge' now?  It seems to work as I would expect it to.  If you write German keywords on the German site then they map to the German meaning and if you type English words on the English site they map to the English meaning.
Have it your way. You are talking about something totally different, and you're not reading what I'm writing.
The loving scales that shield your eyes from anything bad about iS will keep you in your happy place and that's fine, and good, for you.

« Reply #75 on: October 11, 2013, 11:44 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:12 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #76 on: October 11, 2013, 11:48 »
0
LMFAO !!!


w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #77 on: October 11, 2013, 13:00 »
0
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a German keyworded his image on the German site, isn't the system supposed to automatically translate his words into English when viewing his work on an English site?  At the same time, if he were to keyword on the English site using German words instead of English, the English site would assume whatever he enter was an English word and not German.

So the question becomes was the keyword added in the wrong language on an English site, or is the automatic translator not always working properly, assuming a word in one language is the identical to the same word in another language, even thought the two words have totally different meanings in their respective languages.

« Reply #78 on: October 11, 2013, 13:04 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:12 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #79 on: October 11, 2013, 16:26 »
+1
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a German keyworded his image on the German site, isn't the system supposed to automatically translate his words into English when viewing his work on an English site?  At the same time, if he were to keyword on the English site using German words instead of English, the English site would assume whatever he enter was an English word and not German.

So the question becomes was the keyword added in the wrong language on an English site, or is the automatic translator not always working properly, assuming a word in one language is the identical to the same word in another language, even thought the two words have totally different meanings in their respective languages.

That sounds correct to me.  I think iStock's site will translate lots of foreign words if you enter them on the English site but there is no reason to translate words that already show up in English such as 'berg'.  I would think people keywording in German would be using the German site instead of the English one.  On the German site 'berg' does map to mountain:  "Remove Tag   berg    Deutsch   Mountain (Land Feature)"

NO, there is a mistake on iStock's side.
I went to the German site and keyworded 'berg' on one of my files.
It did indeed map to mountain. In English.
(Aside: When someone using one of the community languages to keyword, do they have to do the DAing in English? I haven't a clue as I've never tried, but it seems unreasonable if so)
But when I went back to the English site, only 'iceberg' shows.
Then when I ticked back to the German site, it's showing as berg > Iceberg

(Note that I only went to one of my random photos, changed to German to try berg, but all the other keywords were obviously already there in English. And I remembered to take 'berg' out again!)

If I were a German contributor and had correctly keyworded 'berg', I'd be upset at contaminating the iceberg search in English, but I'd also be furious that my image would not be seen by English speakers on a search for 'mountain'.

« Reply #80 on: October 11, 2013, 16:36 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:12 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #81 on: October 11, 2013, 17:07 »
0
I'm guessing it always does it, hence all these German mountains landing as iceberg, when that seems not to be an available DA in German.

Ron

« Reply #82 on: October 11, 2013, 17:41 »
0
This is what I think of the whole thing


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #83 on: October 11, 2013, 17:46 »
0
 8)


 

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
4334 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