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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Quote from: stockastic on May 09, 2009, 19:11
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.

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 11, 2009, 05:14


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.

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

Quote from: stock shooter on May 09, 2009, 17:44
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.

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

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 12:25
... 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.

Quote from: stockastic on May 09, 2009, 19:11why 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. 

Quote from: Karimala on May 11, 2009, 07:52
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?

Quote from: gostwyck on May 11, 2009, 12:41

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 12:25
... 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.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 14:07

Quote from: gostwyck on May 11, 2009, 12:41

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 12:25
... 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!

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.

Quote from: stock shooter on May 11, 2009, 14:32
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.

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, 14:58


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

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.

Quote from: stock shooter on May 09, 2009, 17:44
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.

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 16:30
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.

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.

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 17:48
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.

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 17:48
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.