Author Topic: Dumb rejections (Read 17312 times)

stock shooter · « **on:** May 09, 2009, 11:44 »

istock has rejected most of my images lately for wrong keywords and some of their decisions to me seem to defy logic. I could be wrong, maybe i'm the idiot, but one example and you can tell me if i'm missing something obvious.
the picture was of hand cuffs, just a run of the mill still life of handcuffs and the keywords they are suggesting are wrong are:

Human Hand (The Human Body), Police Officer, Prison, Prisoner, Trapped, Trapped, Unlocking, Arrest, Criminal, detention, Bondage, Fetishes, Law, Authority, Law, Security, Security System (Security Equipment), Security, Crime

OK, so maybe they want only 100% literal keywords but some of the words they faulted me for seem pertinent. Not to mention these words are used for similar images on many other stock sites. sigh, if it wasn't for the fact that istock earns more for me than the other agencies, i would drop them in a second. For me they are the most annoying and difficult agency of all the micros.

runamock · « **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2009, 11:55 »

As you said the picture was of ‘handcuffs’ not a Police Officer etc! I’d agree with what they said.

stacey_newman · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2009, 12:22 »

try to be more literal with your keywording. then once it is accepted, you can add some more peripheral words. I wouldn't have included the following initially, but you could probably add them afterwards safely.

Police Officer, Prison, Trapped, Trapped, Unlocking, Bondage, Fetishes, Law, Authority, Law, Security, Security System (Security Equipment), Security

fullvalue · « **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2009, 12:28 »

I've had them delete keywords that are working based on feedback from DM. But I've given up emailing "keywords @" since I never got any response. The ones I highlighted in red are the one I think are valid for the image as you described.

Human Hand (The Human Body), Police Officer, Prison, Prisoner, Trapped, Trapped, Unlocking, Arrest, Criminal, detention, Bondage, Fetishes, Law, Authority, Law, Security, Security System (Security Equipment), Security, Crime

stockastic · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2009, 13:11 »

The keyword "arrest" is in their approved vocabulary. But if you can't use it with a picture of someone in handcuffs, when can you use it?

I recently had a similar keyword rejection that left me wondering what the heck I actually could use.

Maybe their new system is trying to assign concepts on its own. For example, maybe if you search on "arrest" IS will show you pictures including the keyword "handcuffs". But I doubt it.

Here is what really p!sses me off: why don't they just remove the keywords they don't want, and accept the image? Why punish contributors with this dumb guessing game, and another 2 week review cycle? I'm trying to keyword honestly, and imaginatively, to help them sell photos. I'm not gaming their system.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #5 on:** May 09, 2009, 13:35 »

don't IS penalize you for using caps too? i recall being once rejected for using caps in keywords and titles.

bittersweet · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2009, 23:14 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 09, 2009, 13:11

The keyword "arrest" is in their approved vocabulary. But if you can't use it with a picture of someone in handcuffs, when can you use it?

There is no "someone" in these handcuffs??

These keywords are way way beyond what is in the photo and I would be ticked off to see a pair of handcuffs with nothing else in the frame during a search for many of those words.

Sorry, but this one isn't istock's fault.

fotografer · « **Reply #7 on:** May 11, 2009, 00:49 »

I agree with you If for instance I was looking for a picture of a human hand and got handcuffs I would be very annoyed.

Quote from: whatalife on May 10, 2009, 23:14

These keywords are way way beyond what is in the photo and I would be ticked off to see a pair of handcuffs with nothing else in the frame during a search for many of those words.

Sorry, but this one isn't istock's fault.

Karimala · « **Reply #8 on:** May 11, 2009, 01:52 »

I had an image of an Asian man rejected just yesterday for the keyword "Asian".

Caz · « **Reply #9 on:** May 11, 2009, 05:43 »

Quote from: stock shooter on May 09, 2009, 11:44

the picture was of hand cuffs, just a run of the mill still life of handcuffs :
Human Hand (The Human Body), Police Officer, Prison, Prisoner, Trapped, Trapped, Unlocking, Arrest, Criminal, detention, Bondage, Fetishes, Law, Authority, Law, Security, Security System (Security Equipment), Security, Crime

Lots of those keywords you've added are a great idea for an image for you to shoot next time, but they're not relevant to an image of "just a run of the mill still life of handcuffs" Put a person in there and you could have human hand, police officer, prisoner, criminal. When I'm searching for images to buy that contain either a police officer, a prison or a criminal you can be certain that's what I want to see in the images returned for my search for those words. I don't understand how you could posssibly think these are acceptable keywords for a still life of some empty handcuffs.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #10 on:** May 11, 2009, 06:25 »

... and once again, ranting about keyword rejections without showing the image in question is useless.

gostwyck · « **Reply #11 on:** May 11, 2009, 06:41 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 06:25

... and once again, ranting about keyword rejections without showing the image in question is useless.

True enough ... but then ranting about it at all is generally pointless.

I've had a couple of really ridiculous rejections for keywords recently but I've just put it down to either the reviewer has a poor understanding of English or they're simply being vindictive or protective of their own best-sellers. The images invariably get approved the second time around with the same keywords.

Shrug & move on.

null · « **Reply #12 on:** May 11, 2009, 07:19 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 09, 2009, 13:11

why don't they just remove the keywords they don't want, and accept the image?

Because they want to teach you a lesson and to spank you.

MichaelJay · « **Reply #13 on:** May 11, 2009, 07:24 »

Quote from: Karimala on May 11, 2009, 01:52

I had an image of an Asian man rejected just yesterday for the keyword "Asian".

I'd wonder if you had this disambiguated correctly? An Asian person should be DA'd as "Asian Ethnicity" not "Asia". Then I'd be surprised to get a rejection, too - but honestly, mistakes happen to all of us at times as well, right?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** May 11, 2009, 08:07 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 11, 2009, 06:41

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 06:25
... and once again, ranting about keyword rejections without showing the image in question is useless.

True enough ... but then ranting about it at all is generally pointless.

Well, no. Hopefully the OP will learn from this that it is not ok to, for example, keyword a object image as if there were people in it.

gostwyck · « **Reply #15 on:** May 11, 2009, 08:22 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 08:07

Quote from: gostwyck on May 11, 2009, 06:41
Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 06:25
... and once again, ranting about keyword rejections without showing the image in question is useless.

True enough ... but then ranting about it at all is generally pointless.

Well, no. Hopefully the OP will learn from this that it is not ok to, for example, keyword a object image as if there were people in it.

Good point!

stock shooter · « **Reply #16 on:** May 11, 2009, 08:32 »

I have images with Getty, Acclaim and Alamy in addition to many of the micros, and so I tend to think conceptually when it comes to keywords, and since I haven't uploaded to iStock for a while it caught me off guard that they became so sever in their policy of only wanting literal keywords. I had 20 out of 24 images rejected for keywords, that is such a waste of time. What they should do is accept the image, send an email scolding you for the keyword infraction, list the offending keywords and remove them. Saves everyone a whole bunch of time and still gets the point across.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #17 on:** May 11, 2009, 08:58 »

Quote from: stock shooter on May 11, 2009, 08:32

I have images with Getty, Acclaim and Alamy in addition to many of the micros, and so I tend to think conceptually when it comes to keywords, and since I haven't uploaded to iStock for a while it caught me off guard that they became so sever in their policy of only wanting literal keywords. I had 20 out of 24 images rejected for keywords, that is such a waste of time. What they should do is accept the image, send an email scolding you for the keyword infraction, list the offending keywords and remove them. Saves everyone a whole bunch of time and still gets the point across.

How would it get the point across? People'll still do it next time, if there was no penalty.

fotografer · « **Reply #18 on:** May 11, 2009, 09:52 »

The same way as it does for exclusives.

Although in my opinion it is perfectly acceptable to refuse an image for spamming and I think they should do it more often.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 08:58

How would it get the point across? People'll still do it next time, if there was no penalty.

stockastic · « **Reply #19 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:30 »

Ok, so let's say the keywords can only literally describe what's in the picture. They still require a minimum number of keywords, right? At least that's what DeepMeta is telling me. So how many synonyms can you think up for "handcuffs", that are in IStock's controlled vocabulary? And for every wrong guess, another 2 weeks in the penalty box.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #20 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:47 »

Quote from: stock shooter on May 09, 2009, 11:44

istock has rejected most of my images lately for wrong keywords and some of their decisions to me seem to defy logic. I could be wrong, maybe i'm the idiot, but one example and you can tell me if i'm missing something obvious.
the picture was of hand cuffs, just a run of the mill still life of handcuffs and the keywords they are suggesting are wrong are:

Human Hand (The Human Body), Police Officer, Prison, Prisoner, Trapped, Trapped, Unlocking, Arrest, Criminal, detention, Bondage, Fetishes, Law, Authority, Law, Security, Security System (Security Equipment), Security, Crime

OK, so maybe they want only 100% literal keywords but some of the words they faulted me for seem pertinent. Not to mention these words are used for similar images on many other stock sites. sigh, if it wasn't for the fact that istock earns more for me than the other agencies, i would drop them in a second. For me they are the most annoying and difficult agency of all the micros.

Oh no no no. You're not missing anything. When buyers search for "police officer", a person wearing a police uniform, I'm sure they would be really excited to see pages upon pages of handcuffs.

How dare those dumb Istock inspectors reject stuff where the the majority of the keywords are nowhere to be found in the images.

ShadySue · « **Reply #21 on:** May 11, 2009, 11:34 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 10:30

Ok, so let's say the keywords can only literally describe what's in the picture. They still require a minimum number of keywords, right? At least that's what DeepMeta is telling me. So how many synonyms can you think up for "handcuffs", that are in IStock's controlled vocabulary?

Clearly, I haven't seen the image. But if it's just an arrangement of handcuffs on a plain background, all you need is handcuffs really, then, for example, 'isolated', 'isolated on white', plain background, white background, colour, photograph, horizontal/vertical/square, nobody. "Still life' if you must, depending on the photo. But really, if someone wants your image they will search on 'handcuffs' first then e.g. 'isolated on white', and maybe an orientation. And I've had some images selling on 'nobody' specifically, so it works as a keyword.

stockastic · « **Reply #22 on:** May 11, 2009, 11:48 »

So for a photo of handcuffs, "arrest" is not sufficiently relevant. But "nobody", is ok.

IStock is truly another world. I think I'll start adding "walrus" and "carpenter" to all my IStock submissions.

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** May 11, 2009, 11:59 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 11:48

So for a photo of handcuffs, "arrest" is not sufficiently relevant. But "nobody", is ok.

IStock is truly another world. I think I'll start adding "walrus" and "carpenter" to all my IStock submissions.

I understood from the OP that no-one was in the photo, so no-one was being arrested, and there is 'nobody' in the photo.
Of course I haven't seen the actual photo, so I may have inferred that wrongly.
If someone searches on 'arrest' they surely want to see someone being arrested, with or without handcuffs.
If someone wants a still life of handcuffs, they are very unlikely to search on 'arrest', but pretty likely to search on handcuffs, no? And in case there are lots of people in handcuffs, 'nobody' would be a pretty good modifier/filter.

bittersweet · « **Reply #24 on:** May 11, 2009, 12:02 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 11:48

So for a photo of handcuffs, "arrest" is not sufficiently relevant. But "nobody", is ok.

IStock is truly another world. I think I'll start adding "walrus" and "carpenter" to all my IStock submissions.

For a designer who is looking specifically for an image with NO people in it, yes, "nobody" is a completely appropriate keyword and a helpful way to narrow down the search results.

If you have walrus and carpenter in your images, then you shouldn't have a problem. If you add in zoo, ocean, workshop, j e s u s, and whatever else you can think of that might be remotely related to the walrus and carpenter but that does not appear in the photo, then you will rightfully get a rejection.

Don't get why this is so difficult a concept to grasp.

Karimala · « **Reply #25 on:** May 11, 2009, 12:09 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 06:25

... and once again, ranting about keyword rejections without showing the image in question is useless.

Fair enough...this is the image rejected for the CV keyword "Asian Ethnicity." The guy is Korean and IMO pretty much looks Asian!

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** May 11, 2009, 14:06 »

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 09, 2009, 12:22

try to be more literal with your keywording. then once it is accepted, you can add some more peripheral words. I wouldn't have included the following initially, but you could probably add them afterwards safely.

Police Officer, Prison, Trapped, Trapped, Unlocking, Bondage, Fetishes, Law, Authority, Law, Security, Security System (Security Equipment), Security

Not if I was wiki-ing heh-heh.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #27 on:** May 11, 2009, 14:13 »

Quote from: Karimala on May 11, 2009, 12:09

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 06:25
... and once again, ranting about keyword rejections without showing the image in question is useless.

Fair enough...this is the image rejected for the CV keyword "Asian Ethnicity." The guy is Korean and IMO pretty much looks Asian!

Didn't MJ say you had checked "Asia" and not "Asian Ethnicity"?

Karimala · « **Reply #28 on:** May 11, 2009, 18:04 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 14:13

Quote from: Karimala on May 11, 2009, 12:09
Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 06:25
... and once again, ranting about keyword rejections without showing the image in question is useless.

Fair enough...this is the image rejected for the CV keyword "Asian Ethnicity." The guy is Korean and IMO pretty much looks Asian!

Didn't MJ say you had checked "Asia" and not "Asian Ethnicity"?

No. The rejection notice would say "Asia," if I had accidentally ticked the wrong box. It says "Asian Ethnicity." And I just looked at the file in DeepMeta, and everything is properly ticked.

The rejection reason really is "Asian Ethnicity."

loop · « **Reply #29 on:** May 11, 2009, 18:19 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 11:48

So for a photo of handcuffs, "arrest" is not sufficiently relevant. But "nobody", is ok.

IStock is truly another world. I think I'll start adding "walrus" and "carpenter" to all my IStock submissions.

Of course it isn't. An arrest is an action. A hand is a hand. A police officer is a police officer. Nobody tells precisely that there's not any person in the shot: it's ok.
Put these handcuffs in human hands and the matter would change. But without them, all I can do is wonder why in hell you are complaining.

melastmohican · « **Reply #30 on:** May 11, 2009, 18:26 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 08:58

How would it get the point across? People'll still do it next time, if there was no penalty.

I knew it's all about penalty...

Seriously how much more work is to delete keywords instead of enumerating them? I usually get specific list so reviewer already took time to hand pick them. They must intend to punish me cause I have to spent more time on the same picture. And of course it takes my available upload slot too. Usually I choose to take couple cycles off from uploading there instead to getting frustrated.

loop · « **Reply #31 on:** May 11, 2009, 18:31 »

Yes, deleting these kind of keywords and blocking the ability to edit them in these cases would be the best solution.

stockastic · « **Reply #32 on:** May 11, 2009, 18:39 »

Then I think you can add "no elephant" too, if there's no elephant in the shot.

Reason with me here. IStock allows the keyword "business", it's in their controlled vocabulary. But you can't photograph a business. It isn't an object, it's a concept that gives context to what's actually in the image. So when, exactly, can I use the keyword "business"?

gostwyck · « **Reply #33 on:** May 11, 2009, 18:45 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 18:39

I think you can add "no elephant" too, if there's no elephant in the shot.

If that was included in the CV then, yes ... but of course it's not because it's not a regular buyer requirement.

You sound like an immature, pouty 14-year old who refuses to accept the common-sense his parents are patiently trying to explain. Hopefully you'll grow out of it eventually.

stockastic · « **Reply #34 on:** May 11, 2009, 19:18 »

Gee I'm sorry, Dad.

But I think it's a perfectly logical question and relates directly to the original poster's complaint. In order to use the keyword "business" do I need to have people in the photo who are obviously engaged in "business"? A quick search on IS tells me the answer is "no". There are many shots of objects that relate to "business" far less directly than a pair of handcuffs relate to "arrest".

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #35 on:** May 11, 2009, 20:13 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 19:18

But I think it's a perfectly logical question and relates directly to the original poster's complaint. In order to use the keyword "business" do I need to have people in the photo who are obviously engaged in "business"? A quick search on IS tells me the answer is "no". There are many shots of objects that relate to "business" far less directly than a pair of handcuffs relate to "arrest".

Read this thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=85022&page=1

DanP68 · « **Reply #36 on:** May 11, 2009, 20:22 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 11, 2009, 12:02

If you have walrus and carpenter in your images, then you shouldn't have a problem. If you add in zoo, ocean, workshop, j e s u s, and whatever else you can think of that might be remotely related to the walrus and carpenter but that does not appear in the photo, then you will rightfully get a rejection.

A stock photo of j e s u s would probably sell decent if you could get a model release. A stock photo of j e s u s and a walrus however would be gold. Especially if j e s u s was wearing a shirt that said "Goo Goo G'Joob"

stockastic · « **Reply #37 on:** May 11, 2009, 20:26 »

Ok, I read that IS thread about "business". What a bunch of immature, pouty 14-year olds.

gostwyck · « **Reply #38 on:** May 11, 2009, 20:31 »

dirkr · « **Reply #39 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:07 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 18:39

Then I think you can add "no elephant" too, if there's no elephant in the shot.

Sh!t. Doesn't work for me. Too many shots with elephants in them...

MichaelJay · « **Reply #40 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:37 »

Quote from: Karimala on May 11, 2009, 18:04

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 14:13
Didn't MJ say you had checked "Asia" and not "Asian Ethnicity"?
No. The rejection notice would say "Asia," if I had accidentally ticked the wrong box. It says "Asian Ethnicity." And I just looked at the file in DeepMeta, and everything is properly ticked.

The rejection reason really is "Asian Ethnicity."

No, I didn't state that it was wrongly disambiguated, just bringing it up as a potential reason. In this case I'd have to agree that the rejection was unjustified (yeah, well, even inspectors are humans) and you shouldn't have a problem to resubmit with the same keyword.

Caz · « **Reply #41 on:** May 12, 2009, 04:50 »

Quote from: Karimala on May 11, 2009, 18:04

No. The rejection notice would say "Asia," if I had accidentally ticked the wrong box. It says "Asian Ethnicity." And I just looked at the file in DeepMeta, and everything is properly ticked.

The rejection reason really is "Asian Ethnicity."

I'm rather sceptical that the "rejection reason really is Astian Ethnicity". It takes more than one bad keyword for a rejection (if you're not exclusive). Are you sure there isn't another reason further down the email? The keywords you're requested to remove for re-submission are always listed first on the email, you have to keep reading.

Karimala · « **Reply #42 on:** May 12, 2009, 05:39 »

Yeh...it was also rejected for banding and a couple of other keywords, like landscape and blue (as in the non-CV-listed "blue sky"), which I agree with. Big deal. Sometimes the inspectors get part of their rejections wrong. Does it really matter if it is the only rejection reason or part of several for one image? I wasn't even complaining. I just thought it was funny that one of the keyword rejections was for "Asian Ethnicity" when it's perfectly clear that my model is Asian.

stock shooter · « **Reply #43 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:17 »

Maybe I'm making a wrong inference, but I assume that sometimes image buyers need, want, should be, reminded of alternatives. You know i worked as a designer for a few years before starting to shoot stock and when I searched for an image for a project, sometimes, many times, I would find alternatives that hadn't occurred to me that ended up working better in the design or worked as an additional image in the design. Hence, related but not literal keywords. That's how and why I think the way I do when keywording. Police officers use handcuffs. I'm dyslexic so maybe that doesn't make sense to anybody else but it sure does to me. If you're searching for a police officer then a picture of handcuffs show up, you might say, "that's a good picture of handcuffs, I could use that here instead of that other imgae or maybe I'll throw that in over here under this text in addition to that other image." As a designer I worked very organically, so sometimes my designs evolved, they were not always 100% set to the initial layout. So a different image from my original idea, that popped up in searches would sometimes get used. Extra money for the agency. Again, that is just my way of seeing things.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #44 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:26 »

On iStock, buyers prefer to find what they are looking for. The search return is not a brainstorming tool. That should be the responsibility of the buyer to come up with various ideas.

Police officers also eat donuts. Should all donuts be keyworded with "police officer"?

tan510jomast · « **Reply #45 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:37 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 12, 2009, 09:26

On iStock, buyers prefer to find what they are looking for. The search return is not a brainstorming tool. That should be the responsibility of the buyer to come up with various ideas.

Police officers also eat donuts. Should all donuts be keyworded with "police officer"?

yes, but only if those police officers eat at TimHortons

stockastic · « **Reply #46 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:38 »

IStock can have any keyword rules and search algorithms they want. The difficulties contributors have with the current rules are:

1. They're different from all the other microstocks.
2. They're different from what they used to be.
3. They're not clearly spelled out anywhere, at least not that I've seen.
4. Various IStock contributors will give you differing spins on them.
5. IStock's reviewers apply them inconsistently.
6. Even IStock's own people can't give you definitive answers (see thread about "business").
7. Guess wrong, and your AR is dinged and you go back to the end of the review line.

null · « **Reply #47 on:** May 12, 2009, 10:00 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 12, 2009, 09:26

On iStock, buyers prefer to find what they are looking for.

Correct, that's why Istock is the best.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 12, 2009, 09:26

Police officers also eat donuts. Should all donuts be keyworded with "police officer"?

Of course that never happens on Istock. Looking for "police donuts" gives this on Page #1:

Keywords: Doughnut, Police Officer, Eating, Breakfast, Indulgence, Overweight, Food, Morning, Cream Cake, Doughnut, Elevated View, Snack, Sugar, sweetened, Yeast, Restaurant, Diner, Baking, Bakery, Freshness, Dieting

Where is the indulging overweight baking police officer dieting on his lofty elevated restaurant taking sweetened donuts for diner?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #48 on:** May 12, 2009, 10:12 »

Ouch! Thus, one of the problems with crowdsourcing.

KB · « **Reply #49 on:** May 12, 2009, 10:27 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams link=topic=7844.msg97352#msg97352
Of course that never happens on Istock. Looking for "police donuts" gives this on Page #1
[/quote

IS returns 31 matches for police and donuts. 26 are "correct", 3 are just donuts, and 2 are just police officers without donuts.
SS returns 50 matches. 14 are "correct", 34 are just donuts (actually, at least 3 contain muffins, not donuts), and 2 are just police officers without donuts.
DT returns 19 matches. 6 are "correct" and 13 are just donuts.
FT returns 12 matches. All 12 are just donuts. That's right; 0 "correct" images returned (no surprise to me that FT's search results are the worst).

IS isn't perfect, but based on this search, it's better than the others.

MichaelJay · « **Reply #50 on:** May 12, 2009, 10:27 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 12, 2009, 09:38

IStock can have any keyword rules and search algorithms they want. The difficulties contributors have with the current rules are:
1. They're different from all the other microstocks.
2. They're different from what they used to be.
3. They're not clearly spelled out anywhere, at least not that I've seen.
4. Various IStock contributors will give you differing spins on them.
5. IStock's reviewers apply them inconsistently.
6. Even IStock's own people can't give you definitive answers (see thread about "business").
7. Guess wrong, and your AR is dinged and you go back to the end of the review line.

I would agree if:
- Photographers would shoot images by the same standards
- Designers would follow the same ideas and ways of using images
- The world would stop turning

Photography is not an absolute science, neither is keywording. Things develop. Humans are imperfect. That's how the world works...

Asking for perfection would require to start being perfect. And I doubt any of us are.

bittersweet · « **Reply #51 on:** May 12, 2009, 10:28 »

*GASP!*

You mean a NON-exclusive has keyworded a file incorrectly? AND it was accepted?

That really NEVER EVER happens!

There is an article somewhere about proper keyword practices that clearly states to keyword what you see in the photo, but I will agree that the inspectors have not reached the level of perfection that we require of them, and they are not 100% consistent with the enforcement. Conceptual keywords are a point of contention and I think they should err on the side of leniency with concept words when the concept is CLEARLY being illustrated, which to me does not include every other word that may be related to the photo.

That being said, the vast majority of the rants I see have been rightfully rejected, in my opinion, and others sometimes withhold info regarding additional reasons for their rejection so that they can be all dramatic and indignant about how "ridiculous" their rejection was... which doesn't really help anyone.

stock shooter · « **Reply #52 on:** May 12, 2009, 11:13 »

Quote

On iStock, buyers prefer to find what they are looking for. The search return is not a brainstorming tool. That should be the responsibility of the buyer to come up with various ideas.

Police officers also eat donuts. Should all donuts be keyworded with "police officer"?

Are you serious? You're equating handcuffs to donuts? Man you are a jerk, the worst offender in EVERY forum of being the singular biggest smart but (yes I read your annoying little one liners all over the place) You clearly never worked as a designer (i read your web, animation yes, design layout, probably not) or what i said in my last post would ring true at least a little bit. I never said I or designers USE stock agencies as a brainstorming tool, however inadvertently sometimes different image spawn the creative juices, oh that never happens to you? Interesting, and yet you work in the creative arts but can't relate to creativity, ok. iStock exclusive, it figures. Bend over and pick up the soap Sean, not only let istock do it to you but convince the rest of us that we should let them as well. The istock mind control machine has warped your ability to think, and to be polite. Yet again, another shining example of person trolling the forums to unnecessarily assert his aggression and lack of civility towards others because he knows that in the real world someone would knock that chip off his shoulder quicker then he could say "istock"

Xalanx · « **Reply #53 on:** May 12, 2009, 11:26 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on May 12, 2009, 10:00

Of course that never happens on Istock. Looking for "police donuts" gives this on Page #1:

Keywords: Doughnut, Police Officer, Eating, Breakfast, Indulgence, Overweight, Food, Morning, Cream Cake, Doughnut, Elevated View, Snack, Sugar, sweetened, Yeast, Restaurant, Diner, Baking, Bakery, Freshness, Dieting

Where is the indulging overweight baking police officer dieting on his lofty elevated restaurant taking sweetened donuts for diner?

Alright, this is offtopic but those donuts look more than yummi. Must be the policeman inside me

So yummi that I haven't noticed the peppers in the background at a first glance.

loop · « **Reply #54 on:** May 12, 2009, 11:46 »

Quote from: KB on May 12, 2009, 10:27

Quote from: FlemishDreams link=topic=7844.msg97352#msg97352
Of course that never happens on Istock. Looking for "police donuts" gives this on Page #1
[/quote

IS returns 31 matches for police and donuts. 26 are "correct", 3 are just donuts, and 2 are just police officers without donuts.
SS returns 50 matches. 14 are "correct", 34 are just donuts (actually, at least 3 contain muffins, not donuts), and 2 are just police officers without donuts.
DT returns 19 matches. 6 are "correct" and 13 are just donuts.
FT returns 12 matches. All 12 are just donuts. That's right; 0 "correct" images returned (no surprise to me that FT's search results are the worst).

IS isn't perfect, but based on this search, it's better than the others.

Right, that's tle ultimate proof.

ShadySue · « **Reply #55 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:12 »

Quote from: stock shooter on May 12, 2009, 09:17

Maybe I'm making a wrong inference, but I assume that sometimes image buyers need, want, should be, reminded of alternatives. You know i worked as a designer for a few years before starting to shoot stock and when I searched for an image for a project, sometimes, many times, I would find alternatives that hadn't occurred to me that ended up working better in the design or worked as an additional image in the design. Hence, related but not literal keywords. That's how and why I think the way I do when keywording. Police officers use handcuffs. I'm dyslexic so maybe that doesn't make sense to anybody else but it sure does to me. If you're searching for a police officer then a picture of handcuffs show up, you might say, "that's a good picture of handcuffs, I could use that here instead of that other imgae or maybe I'll throw that in over here under this text in addition to that other image." As a designer I worked very organically, so sometimes my designs evolved, they were not always 100% set to the initial layout. So a different image from my original idea, that popped up in searches would sometimes get used. Extra money for the agency. Again, that is just my way of seeing things.

I guess that's why there were (and maybe still are, I hope they've gone) so many apples keyworded also orange, banana, plum etc. Maybe they were just trying to help 'uneducated' designers to find other fruits instead of apples, because they imagine the designer doesn't want to use the generic word 'fruit'.
If you go with the utter brainstorming idea, you'll have every photo tagged with every possible keyword, as there are probably tenuous links between all of them, if you try hard enough.
That's why they're trying to cut down to the most literal keywords. Heck, I had waves removed from a photo of a fluke in the Atlantic Ocean ('choppy sea' was helpfully suggested as a replacement, though it's not in the CV). I let it be; 'wave' was hardly the most important thing in the image, but there were, in my defence y'r honour, plenty of actual waves in the image. So that's an example - yours (although we haven't seen the image) wouldn't even seem to come close.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #56 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:34 »

Quote from: stock shooter on May 12, 2009, 11:13

Are you serious?
... blather snipped ...
say "istock"

Sorry, you are ... who ... again?

Karimala · « **Reply #57 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:45 »

Quote from: stock shooter on May 12, 2009, 09:17

Maybe I'm making a wrong inference, but I assume that sometimes image buyers need, want, should be, reminded of alternatives. You know i worked as a designer for a few years before starting to shoot stock and when I searched for an image for a project, sometimes, many times, I would find alternatives that hadn't occurred to me that ended up working better in the design or worked as an additional image in the design. Hence, related but not literal keywords. That's how and why I think the way I do when keywording. Police officers use handcuffs. I'm dyslexic so maybe that doesn't make sense to anybody else but it sure does to me. If you're searching for a police officer then a picture of handcuffs show up, you might say, "that's a good picture of handcuffs, I could use that here instead of that other imgae or maybe I'll throw that in over here under this text in addition to that other image." As a designer I worked very organically, so sometimes my designs evolved, they were not always 100% set to the initial layout. So a different image from my original idea, that popped up in searches would sometimes get used. Extra money for the agency. Again, that is just my way of seeing things.

While you might find the extra keywords inspirational, many many more buyers complain about just the opposite...that they can't find the image they want because of the sheer volume of improperly keyworded images that push properly keyworded images back.

Case in point from my own portfolio. I have several photos of an old movie theater with a neon light marquee...two of which are my all-time best sellers across the sites. They are the only photos of their kind on all of microstock, and have been for a couple of years (there are similar illustrations, but no photos). I can't tell you how many times I have searched for those photos, only to find them buried on page 25 behind numerous pictures of popcorn or generic tickets. Granted, sometimes popcorn can be known as "movie theater popcorn," so this might not be the best example, but the point is that this occasional name for popcorn is burying unique images of an actual movie theater, and as are generic tickets that don't even look like the kind of tickets one gets at a movie theater.

What you need to start thinking about is how images improperly keyworded impacts you as a contributor, not how images with implied keywords might possibly inspire you as a buyer. If you ever did photograph a police officer arresting someone and putting handcuffs on them, would you want that image buried underneath piles of handcuffs, police badges, donuts, and who knows what else? No...you wouldn't. You would want that photo front and center, just like I do with my vintage movie theater. What all of those improperly keyworded images are doing is pushing back your opportunity to sell photos that actually depict what the buyer has in mind, and thus they are taking money out of your pocket. Many buyers won't search through 25, 50, 100 pages to find the one correctly keyworded image buried behind hundreds of handcuffs, police badges, donuts, etc. What will they do? They will either buy someone else's image that is close to what they had in mind, or they will go somewhere else. It's that simple.

Newsfocus1 · « **Reply #58 on:** May 12, 2009, 15:02 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 12, 2009, 09:26

On iStock, buyers prefer to find what they are looking for. The search return is not a brainstorming tool. That should be the responsibility of the buyer to come up with various ideas.

Police officers also eat donuts. Should all donuts be keyworded with "police officer"?

And then maybe Swine Flu for good measure

David

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #59 on:** May 12, 2009, 20:16 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 12, 2009, 12:34

Quote from: stock shooter on May 12, 2009, 11:13
Are you serious?
... blather snipped ...
say "istock"

Sorry, you are ... who ... again?

< crickets... >

DanP68 · « **Reply #60 on:** May 12, 2009, 21:33 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on May 12, 2009, 10:00

If you look closely, you can see the police officer sneaking up from behind the bell peppers. Most likely, he intends to eat the donuts for "diner." And we must be in a restaurant, because most restaurants stack the donuts right next to the peppers.

digiology · « **Reply #61 on:** May 12, 2009, 23:23 »

no it's legit... I can see the policeman's reflection in the donut glaze

fotografer · « **Reply #62 on:** May 13, 2009, 01:19 »

How little you know Sean if you think that.
I'm not exclusive but totally agree with him. I think that all this spamming is going to seriously damage microstock and at the moment IS are the only ones that are seriously doing anything about it.

Quote from: stock shooter on May 12, 2009, 11:13

iStock exclusive, it figures. Bend over and pick up the soap Sean, not only let istock do it to you but convince the rest of us that we should let them as well.

Caz · « **Reply #63 on:** May 13, 2009, 12:30 »

So, to sum up then. Someone thought they were right. Other people tried to be helpful and show them why they were wrong. A few people gave examples of where other people had thought they were right too (when they were wrong). Someone was upset that other people still thought he was wrong, despite his reasoned debate. And then it was time for homework and bed.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Dumb rejections (Read 17312 times)

stacey_newman

tan510jomast

bittersweet

bittersweet

DanP68

tan510jomast

bittersweet

Xalanx

DanP68

digiology

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors