Author Topic: Photo Description and SEO (Read 7373 times)

rimglow · « **on:** October 24, 2014, 08:22 »

I've read that unique and detailed descriptions are important to SEO. My question is what if your descriptions were poor on older submissions? Can going back and updating the Description field increase your SEO? Do you get a do over or does it only count when you first upload the photo?

Lightrecorder · « **Reply #1 on:** October 24, 2014, 09:17 »

Ask Stocktal, they will say yes.

Also symbio site users worked this principle.

I am not sure of the effects. Google does as they please, tomorrow all could be futile again.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #2 on:** October 24, 2014, 10:56 »

What do you mean unique and detailed? Are you suggesting "juicy ripe red delicious apple carefully isolated with clipping path over white background" over "apple isolated on white"? If not, can you give example of what you mean?

I always thought keep it simple was better. If that's not true, I want to know what I should be doing?

U11 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 24, 2014, 11:40 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on October 24, 2014, 10:56

What do you mean unique and detailed?

as per IS :

Bad description: "Boy on a beach with dog"

Good description: "An adorable little boy and dog build a sandcastle together on the beach off the cost of Oregon. (And the playful dog destroys the castle with his paw!) Shot with Canon 20D , ISO 100, heavy processing for retro bleached look, slight vingette added."

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** October 24, 2014, 11:52 »

Quote from: U11 on October 24, 2014, 11:40

Quote from: PixelBytes on October 24, 2014, 10:56
What do you mean unique and detailed?

as per IS :

Bad description: "Boy on a beach with dog"

Good description: "An adorable little boy and dog build a sandcastle together on the beach off the cost of Oregon. (And the playful dog destroys the castle with his paw!) Shot with Canon 20D , ISO 100, heavy processing for retro bleached look, slight vingette added."

I really laughed at that one. (for those who don't know, it's the latest iS wheeze to try to win sales back). That description might well fit that image at a stretch, (with a specially-trained sandcastle-building dog) but it's exactly what they used to tell us not to say - 'if it's not in the image, don't say it'. That 'good description' could be good for a video clip, but not for this still.
The way they have described what might but probably isn't what that pic is about is like a primary school exercise where you use an image to stimulate 'imaginative writing'. 'How did the story start?', 'What might have happened before?', 'What might happen next?'

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #5 on:** October 24, 2014, 13:05 »

Something somewhere inbetween what U11 suggested.

The first is too limited the second is a bit verbose.

I tend to look at things similar to ShadySue. Everything that's needed to describe the image and what's honestly in it. (main subject and theme) and nothing more.

"Happy grinning young boy at the beach on a sunny day, dog digging in the white sand seashore."

Quote from: PixelBytes on October 24, 2014, 10:56

What do you mean unique and detailed? Are you suggesting "juicy ripe red delicious apple carefully isolated with clipping path over white background" over "apple isolated on white"? If not, can you give example of what you mean?

I always thought keep it simple was better. If that's not true, I want to know what I should be doing?

U11 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 24, 2014, 13:41 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 24, 2014, 13:05

Something somewhere inbetween what U11 suggested.

just to make it clear it is not my suggestion but IS (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1782&sp_rid=&sp_mid=7220692)

cascoly · « **Reply #7 on:** October 24, 2014, 13:45 »

probably noy worth redoig for agencies, since the agency itself has a greater effect -- eg, 123 does a very good job at getting images highly placed (not necessarily relected in sales though)

also, there's a distinction between indexed pages and indexed images -- eg the latter you should submit a separate image sitemap (symbiostock does this and wordpress also has a free plugin from yoast which does an excellent job. yoast also has immediate feedback on how well your wordpress page is optimized for SEO -- there's a discussion of using these tools in the symbiostock forum)

images however have an additional hurdle, since scoring high for your image of 'grilled shrimp' will also pull in anyone searching for recipes, etc. that's why adwords isn't the greatest way to get real buyers to your site.

rimglow · « **Reply #8 on:** October 24, 2014, 15:46 »

By "unique" I simply mean not copying and pasting a description that appears somewhere else on the internet.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #9 on:** October 24, 2014, 16:12 »

Overly happy caucasian, laughing young boy and his pet dog playing in the sand on the beach during a summer day.

On SS that would have been nailed for lighting/WB, OOF and composition if not more.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #10 on:** October 24, 2014, 19:46 »

Gave you a heart for that one and sorry. I did see the comment that an agency had suggested it, but didn't follow.

Let me restate my opinion as, IS suggests that artists use more

in conflict with their keyword policies.

Really I'm trying to be a fan of CV but this is just odd because of the camera, iso, filter, and somewhere stretching the facts. (if they are building a sandcastle together, how is the dog destroying it. Then they aren't building anything TOGETHER) I see a happy kid and a dog, digging in the sand?

Quote from: U11 on October 24, 2014, 13:41

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 24, 2014, 13:05
Something somewhere inbetween what U11 suggested.

just to make it clear it is not my suggestion but IS (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1782&sp_rid=&sp_mid=7220692)

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** October 24, 2014, 19:52 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 24, 2014, 19:46

I did see the comment that an agency had suggested it, but didn't follow.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1782

OM · « **Reply #12 on:** October 24, 2014, 19:54 »

Boy and dog on sandy beach. Dog has found something interesting to canines where sandcastle of boy once stood. (This explains 'ex-sandcastle' in keywords).

wds · « **Reply #13 on:** October 24, 2014, 21:01 »

I find it hard to believe that this would have a significant impact on sales.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #14 on:** October 24, 2014, 23:19 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 24, 2014, 11:52

Quote from: U11 on October 24, 2014, 11:40
Quote from: PixelBytes on October 24, 2014, 10:56
What do you mean unique and detailed?

as per IS :

Bad description: "Boy on a beach with dog"

Good description: "An adorable little boy and dog build a sandcastle together on the beach off the cost of Oregon. (And the playful dog destroys the castle with his paw!) Shot with Canon 20D , ISO 100, heavy processing for retro bleached look, slight vingette added."

I really laughed at that one. (for those who don't know, it's the latest iS wheeze to try to win sales back). That description might well fit that image at a stretch, (with a specially-trained sandcastle-building dog) but it's exactly what they used to tell us not to say - 'if it's not in the image, don't say it'. That 'good description' could be good for a video clip, but not for this still.

OMG! Seriously?! Its worse than I thought. Don't some of the micros punish us in the search if our description is too wordy! Now we have to write some syrupy maudlin epic for each upload? Good Lord.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #15 on:** October 24, 2014, 23:27 »

Okay, I have it. Dog on sunny beach scratches at the sand to cover his recent dump while adorable little boy looks on and laughs.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #16 on:** October 25, 2014, 08:42 »

Good one. Lets go really Micro keyword on this, Woman in red sweater with her daughter, misty day on the seashore, watching a passing ship.

Quote from: PixelBytes on October 24, 2014, 23:27

Okay, I have it. Dog on sunny beach scratches at the sand to cover his recent dump while adorable little boy looks on and laughs.

U11 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 25, 2014, 10:11 »

Quote from: wds on October 24, 2014, 21:01

I find it hard to believe that this would have a significant impact on sales.

but in can help IS look more unique in google "eyes"

U11 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 25, 2014, 10:18 »

another SEO suggestion to IS: ask photographer to provide alternative descriptions for different holidays: halloween , xmas, valentine etc.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 25, 2014, 10:51 »

iS/Getty need to fix their weird search terms problem. The art director I'm working with has been complaining about it all week. She hates whatever they've done to "improve" the search there. She says it's harder to find what she needs. I see her going back every day and trying to figure out what phrases she needs to input to find what she's looking for. Which annoys me, because the longer it takes her to find images the less time she has to brainstorm with me.

rimglow · « **Reply #20 on:** October 25, 2014, 11:16 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 25, 2014, 10:51

iS/Getty need to fix their weird search terms problem. The art director I'm working with has been complaining about it all week. She hates whatever they've done to "improve" the search there. She says it's harder to find what she needs. I see her going back every day and trying to figure out what phrases she needs to input to find what she's looking for. Which annoys me, because the longer it takes her to find images the less time she has to brainstorm with me.

I think that has more to do with Keywords, than Photo Description and SEO.

ShadySue · « **Reply #21 on:** October 25, 2014, 11:32 »

Quote from: rimglow on October 25, 2014, 11:16

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 25, 2014, 10:51
iS/Getty need to fix their weird search terms problem. The art director I'm working with has been complaining about it all week. She hates whatever they've done to "improve" the search there. She says it's harder to find what she needs. I see her going back every day and trying to figure out what phrases she needs to input to find what she's looking for. Which annoys me, because the longer it takes her to find images the less time she has to brainstorm with me.

I think that has more to do with Keywords, than Photo Description and SEO.

And the fact that all manner of spam has getting in for the same length of time as standards were relaxed and that's been polluting certain searches and sorts.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #22 on:** October 25, 2014, 11:51 »

No, she's not complaining about the wrong keywords, but the boxes she has to click to the left and the phrases (disambiguation). Whatever Getty changed about their search in the past year is slowing her down.

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** October 25, 2014, 12:05 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 25, 2014, 11:51

No, she's not complaining about the wrong keywords, but the boxes she has to click to the left and the phrases (disambiguation). Whatever Getty changed about their search in the past year is slowing her down.

If they're working as intended, the process should help speed up search. It seems to work better than it did a few months back.

This is clearly dated, but might help:http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1409

Other than that, we'd need to know what her precise problem/s is/are.

Tror · « **Reply #24 on:** October 25, 2014, 18:07 »

LOL "Young boy screams in panic as he has to go urgently to the bathroom while a angry homeless dog is blocking the way. Image heavily processed with retro filters and screwed up white balance as a attempt to get in to Stocksy."

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photo Description and SEO (Read 7373 times)

rimglow

Lightrecorder

PixelBytes

U11

ShadySue

Uncle Pete

U11

cascoly

rimglow

ruxpriencdiam

Uncle Pete

ShadySue

OM

wds

PixelBytes

PixelBytes

Uncle Pete

U11

U11

Shelma1

rimglow

ShadySue

Shelma1

ShadySue

Tror

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors