Author Topic: Istock's new Zero Tolerance Policy for keyword SPAM (Read 14482 times)

lisafx · « **on:** October 10, 2008, 15:54 »

Istock will be deactivating the portfolios of serial spammers according to this quote from Bitter:

In 7 days, we will begin contacting contributors and giving them advanced warning. We will be deactivating the portfolios of contributors in clear violation of our keyword policies. Please have a look through your portfolio to make sure that none of your isolated bell peppers are keyworded as 'Christmas' or 'business'. A few errors on a few files are totally understandable and we'll help you fix those eventually. What we're pursuing here is the serial spammer. You probably know who you are. If you don't, I guess you soon will. We're happy to answer any questions you might have in the mean time.

Here's the forum thread, including Bitter's complete statement:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=77912&page=1

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** October 10, 2008, 15:56 »

well that is good they are cracking down on spammers. That is something that probably really turns buyers away. I just hope I don't get singled out

CvanDijk · « **Reply #2 on:** October 10, 2008, 16:11 »

That's a good thing. Thank you Lisa for noticing us here to the forum thread.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 10, 2008, 16:18 »

I'm very happy about this. When the wiki first came out I wiki'ed a lot of files and the only effect it had was to see a red "bling" show up on my profile. It drove me nuts when I found the same search spammed by the same people after they had already been wiki'ed. The one that drove me the craziest was when I was trying to buy a photo of las vegas. Every tom, dick, and harry had spammed their isolated photo of cards, dice, and chips with the keyword las vegas.

melastmohican · « **Reply #4 on:** October 10, 2008, 16:31 »

How they area going to do this? Will they check every single photo, 4M of them???

CofkoCof · « **Reply #5 on:** October 10, 2008, 16:36 »

I think they already know most of the spammers + it's not hard to find them (# of times a user had his keywords wikied, do some basic searches like business, christmas,....). Luckily most of my files got accepted after the stronger inspection rules regarding keywords, but I think many peple will have a lot of work to do

stormchaser · « **Reply #6 on:** October 10, 2008, 16:40 »

Don't care how they do it. It is good policy though.

When I used to buy images regularly, keyword spam was the biggest time waster for me. In fact, it probably even resulted in less sales for the agencies, at least from me. It was just tiring wading through so many images that were not even close to what I needed.

On one site I did a recent search for Blue Ribbon hoping I would come up with one such as for a county fair prize. In the first search results, there were many, many, many that were neither blue, nor were they any type of ribbon.

melastmohican · « **Reply #7 on:** October 10, 2008, 16:41 »

What does it mean to "get wikied" :-D

madelaide · « **Reply #8 on:** October 10, 2008, 16:41 »

I think rules have to be set VERY clearly.

I once complained with the keyword person (Jennifer, I think it's her name) that it is unfair to remove stretches (such as halloween for a pumpkin) from some images when tons of others have them, because the "correctly" keyworded images get disadvantaged behind the others. It's quite different from having a photo of a blue satin sheet background with "red" and "green" as keywords.

Try a search for "red satin sheet" and you will find that red can have the strangest hues. Or that I have a vision impairment and colors look different....

Regards,
Adelaide

lisafx · « **Reply #9 on:** October 10, 2008, 18:25 »

I'm all for this if it works as promised and only the chronic, repeated, and deliberate spammers are targeted. I agree spam is a big problem and I have seen some horrendous examples of it.

If regular folks with just the occasional undisambiguated file or gray area conceptual words are caught in the net, that will be a problem.

pancaketom · « **Reply #10 on:** October 10, 2008, 18:40 »

This COULD be a good thing, or they could mess it up horribly. knowing IS, I'm not placing any bets. If they go after people who have a few weird keywords (mostly due to their weird limited CV mapping), then it will be horrible, if they take out the serial purposeful spammers, it will be a good first step.

They also need to get rid of the weird default terms for multiple choice keywords to remove the huge advantage enjoyed by images spammed with those default terms.

It might be a hopeless battle, but if they can pull it off properly, it will drag the other sites (other than DT, which seems to have it fairly under control) to take action. Good luck to them.

--=Tom

stormchaser · « **Reply #11 on:** October 10, 2008, 19:08 »

Quote from: madelaide on October 10, 2008, 16:41

It's quite different from having a photo of a blue satin sheet background with "red" and "green" as keywords.

Try a search for "red satin sheet" and you will find that red can have the strangest hues. Or that I have a vision impairment and colors look different....

Regards,
Adelaide

Yes like orange and lime green. No, you're not vision impaired

lathspell · « **Reply #12 on:** October 10, 2008, 19:58 »

*giggle* I admit that I'm not totally innocent ("Innocent? Who's inncocent?") but I know 2-3 large portfolios with thousand(s) of pictures to correct which are keyword-spammed far beyond any limits. Good luck boys - or should I say "doom on you!"?

Given the fact that (IMO) there are no capable bulk tools editing all these pics must be a job for weeks ...

crazychristina · « **Reply #13 on:** October 10, 2008, 21:21 »

Where they draw the line will be the test of this new policy. I suspect those large portfolios will get by as not being 'sufficiently blatant' spamming.

jsnover · « **Reply #14 on:** October 11, 2008, 01:26 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 10, 2008, 18:25

I'm all for this if it works as promised and only the chronic, repeated, and deliberate spammers are targeted. I agree spam is a big problem and I have seen some horrendous examples of it.

If regular folks with just the occasional undisambiguated file or gray area conceptual words are caught in the net, that will be a problem.

I'm hoping that it is targeting the 5-10% of contributors who represent 80% of the spam problem. If some honest mistakes get caught up in this we should make lots of loud noise about that so that it can get fixed - IS can and has remedied situations where they've blown it and contributors have taken them to task about it. Don't be silent about problems if they occur.

We have sanctions in the criminal law because it's clear that without them, many people would just do whatever they feel like. IS has just imposed some penalties that will be the slap up the side of the head that the worst offenders need. Asking nicely and laying out the rules in articles hasn't worked, unfortunately.

Peter · « **Reply #15 on:** October 11, 2008, 01:56 »

Even if I wanted to spam (but I didnt), I couldnt, they even throw away relevant keywords from my images, not to mention possilble irelevant. lol.

CofkoCof · « **Reply #16 on:** October 11, 2008, 02:02 »

Quote from: melastmohican on October 10, 2008, 16:41

What does it mean to "get wikied" :-D

There's a button called "Report inaccurate keywords" just above the keywords of other peoples images. You can suggest the wrong keywords and keyword inspection team removes the inaccurate keywords and even adds some missing ones.

phildate · « **Reply #17 on:** October 11, 2008, 02:19 »

I am all for this policy, as would any serious microstock photographer who doesn't resort to spam keywords to increase sales. However I have a few slight concerns...

1. I have thousands of files, which I cannot guarantee do not contain the odd inappropriate word. Things got so messed up with the disambiguation fiasco that I am sure some files have not been completely d'aed correctly. I am sure there are many others like me too.

2. Why don't they sort out the default setting so that they are either all on or all off, when there are multiple meanings for a search term. Everyone thinks this is a good idea and would prevent spam so I can't understand why IS won't do this. We are prepared to do our bit, why won't they?!

3. I hope this doesn't give IS a reason/excuse to pick on non-exclusives. I can imagine Sean coming in and slamming me for writing this but given the meagre non-exclusive uploads and the new best match, as a non-exclusive I am NOT feeling the love from iStock anymore.

litifeta · « **Reply #18 on:** October 11, 2008, 03:10 »

Sounds like an ideal way to disable your portfolio with them. It was the first site I submitted to, and the one that gives me the most grief. After 2 years I am still stuck on below 50 images despite submitting thousands.

I am on their blacklist I am sure.

The keywording at istock is stupid. It is pain in the a55. And they have this thing where people suggest your keywords are wrong. Like on a blank billboard they took off "road sign" because it was inappropriate.

stokfoto · « **Reply #19 on:** October 11, 2008, 03:23 »

it sounds good to me but I hope they will implement this reasonably.
as for spotting the real spammers shouldn't be that difficult task for example to begin with a quick search for the most popular kws like business sexy and as mentioned above xmas:) would return
I never keyword spammed but just in case I am going to go through my porfolio to see if there are some borderline(risky) keywords in order to be on the safe side.

bittersweet · « **Reply #20 on:** October 11, 2008, 07:54 »

Quote from: litifeta on October 11, 2008, 03:10

Sounds like an ideal way to disable your portfolio with them.

I'd say there are more efficient ways to do that. For example, sending an email to support. That's all it takes. Unlike a few other sites, they have never been big on holding people hostage who didn't want to be there. The only waiting period that I know of in terms of leaving is the 30 days you have to wait once you quit exclusivity before you can upload to another site. Even then, you can remove your entire portfolio immediately if that is what you want to do.

They have made pretty clear that this keyword thing is not going to be automatic, and that even the most heinous offenders will be notified BEFORE their portfolio is disabled, and will be given yet another deadline for cleaning up their mess.

jsnover · « **Reply #21 on:** October 11, 2008, 16:15 »

Quote from: litifeta on October 11, 2008, 03:10

The keywording at istock is stupid. It is pain in the a55. And they have this thing where people suggest your keywords are wrong. Like on a blank billboard they took off "road sign" because it was inappropriate.

But there is an appropriate CV term, Billboard (Commercial Sign), for this. A road sign is one of those that tells about bends, speed limits, yield signs, stop signs, etc. Road sign is inappropriate for a billboard.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #22 on:** October 11, 2008, 16:39 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 11, 2008, 16:15

Quote from: litifeta on October 11, 2008, 03:10
The keywording at istock is stupid. It is pain in the a55. And they have this thing where people suggest your keywords are wrong. Like on a blank billboard they took off "road sign" because it was inappropriate.

But there is an appropriate CV term, Billboard (Commercial Sign), for this. A road sign is one of those that tells about bends, speed limits, yield signs, stop signs, etc. Road sign is inappropriate for a billboard.

That's the problem. There are blatant spammers and then there's the rest of us who just may have a different understanding of what a word means in the CV. I don't think they've made it clear who they're going after.

I had "inside" removed for an image of an object that was inside of a case. I think that was an appropriate keyword. I wonder how they plan on addressing this.

le_cyclope · « **Reply #23 on:** October 11, 2008, 18:54 »

There is a distinction between wrong keyword and spam. And I think that IS will adress it.
Quote: «We know that people make mistakes. That language can be tricky, and that keywording can be genuinely difficult. If you have a hard time keywording, we want to educate you, not punish you. The resources for proper keywords are available at everyone's fingertips. Here's something to get you started:

But beyond that, there are contributors here who include bad, inappropriate keywords on every single image they upload. Even worse, sometimes the spam is added after a file inspected. There are piles of bad keywords in huge portfolios. We've asked everyone to stop, to change, to improve. Lots of people listened. Some didn't. That's who we're going to have an issue with. »

A photo that has 2 or 3 «borderline» keywords out of 10 is not spammed. A photo that has 20 bad keywords out of 25 is. And these ones should be easy to spot.

So I'm pretty confident that IS will handle it correctly.

Claude

RH · « **Reply #24 on:** October 12, 2008, 04:45 »

Yes, of course, i´m agreeing with Claude!

madelaide · « **Reply #25 on:** October 12, 2008, 16:16 »

Quote

Unfortunately, there are people who engage in out-and-out, wholesale spamming of their uploads, which is why you’ll find photos of dogs keyed to “Christmas” and “business.” But the bulk of the tag problems don’t come from serial spammers, they come from normal contributors who just stretch the possibilities of their image a bit too far in hopes of getting more hits.

It's funny how they see it in a different way: they think stretches are a bigger problem than true spam. DT showing keywords used in a search proved to me that sometime people do searches with very vaguely ideas.

And in my tests I've found TONS of true spam by exclusive contributors. Let's see how tough will IS be on them.

They also need to listen when we make suggestions for the CV. I've made many, using dictionary definitions and not just my opinion, but I never saw them add any of these words.

Regards,
Adelaide

davey_rocket · « **Reply #26 on:** October 12, 2008, 16:50 »

If this is inline with the new shift towards rejecting photos due to non-relevant keywords it should be interesting.

I just had an isolation of a carabiner rejected for bad keywords. One of the key words they cited was "carabiner" I just don't get it.

crazychristina · « **Reply #27 on:** October 12, 2008, 16:57 »

I think istock has made a rod for it's own back with this policy. I guess its worth depends on how many buyers do know exactly what they're looking for.

On another note, there's a contributor (non-exclusive) who must be making istock close to $1 million per year (80% of about 1000 dls per day) whom many people consider to be a major spammer. Could be interesting.

nativelight · « **Reply #28 on:** October 14, 2008, 09:54 »

Although I'm not a huge fan of IS because of the uploading process, I think they're usually fair when they do these mass house-cleanings. They went after the "rating gangs" quite awhile ago and I don't recall hearing any complaints about the wrong people being punished.

I'm all for this. I have a very low opinion of people who do this kind of thing (keyword spamming) - not that my opinion matters one iota!

basti · « **Reply #29 on:** October 14, 2008, 10:18 »

Thats good news, but I still wonder why there could be ANY keyword spamed pics accepted. When reviewers have enough time to check images for invisible artifacts at 300%, why they dont have enough time to check keywords

IS still more or less ok but check SS and you see that there are OBVIOUS spam-keywords with every second image... horrible.

stokfoto · « **Reply #30 on:** October 14, 2008, 12:19 »

Quote from: basti on October 14, 2008, 10:18

Thats good news, but I still wonder why there could be ANY keyword spamed pics accepted. When reviewers have enough time to check images for invisible artifacts at 300%, why they dont have enough time to check keywords

IS still more or less ok but check SS and you see that there are OBVIOUS spam-keywords with every second image... horrible.

even if they checked the keywords during the review spammers could still add new (irrelevant) keywords after the approval but I don't think it is a good idea to take away the re-editing abilities of the contributers once an image is approved ,which is one of the things that FT does.

crazychristina · « **Reply #31 on:** October 14, 2008, 13:31 »

If spamming actually works, as I believe it does, then some istock exclusives will be losing income once this comes into effect. I wonder if any of them will reconsider their exclusivity?

madelaide · « **Reply #32 on:** October 14, 2008, 17:19 »

Quote from: averil on October 14, 2008, 13:31

If spamming actually works, as I believe it does,

Do you think it really does? Real spamming, not stretches? Will someone looking for "sexy woman" purchase an image of a nun praying in the church?

The problem with spam is, in my view, that searches may bring so many irrelevant results that a buyer may give up that site.

Regards,
Adelaide

crazychristina · « **Reply #33 on:** October 14, 2008, 18:07 »

A lot of design uses visual metaphor. I'm sure there would be occasions when an image of a nun praying would convey a message better than a sexy woman when the latter was originally being sought, as irony for instance. Imagine an add for contraceptives, with the caption she mighn't need them, but you do...

My design experience is limited to battling in the istock steel cage, but I know I'm not the only one who would use a fairly general search term and try to find an image with the right mood and attitude more than the right specific details. A top battler there (and experienced designer) said she never knows exactly what she wants when she starts looking for images - she lets what she finds guide her final design. She also saves stuff in lightboxes for later use, so an attractive image could be saved even if not relevant to current searches.

madelaide · « **Reply #34 on:** October 14, 2008, 20:34 »

Quote from: averil on October 14, 2008, 18:07

A lot of design uses visual metaphor. I'm sure there would be occasions when an image of a nun praying would convey a message better than a sexy woman when the latter was originally being sought, as irony for instance. Imagine an add for contraceptives, with the caption she mighn't need them, but you do...

But then you would deliberately search for a nun, not for sexy woman.

Ok, there may be also images of a sexy woman dressed as a nun, but this is not what I meant.

Regards,
Adelaide

crazychristina · « **Reply #35 on:** October 14, 2008, 21:15 »

My point is that many designers are open to inspiration from what turns up in search, and don't necessarily have such a clear cut and non-negotiable idea of what they're looking for.

michaeldb · « **Reply #36 on:** October 15, 2008, 00:35 »

I just got my email threat from IS about their crackdown.

My favorite part of the email was an illustration of a can with the word "SPAM" on it. IS rejects all my vectors which have text on them. But any photographer who has ever received one of IS's infamous rejections for trademarks should be especially amused, or perhaps bemused, by the fact that SPAM, especially when spelled in all caps, is a registered trademark of Hormel. Oh well.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #37 on:** October 15, 2008, 06:55 »

Are you saying you got the weekly contact sheet, or that you actually got a directed mail about your keywording?

basti · « **Reply #38 on:** October 15, 2008, 07:43 »

Just search eg. wilderness on SS, IS and then on photographersdirect.com - the result doesnt need any further info. In case Im buyer, I will rather pay $20 per picture instead of $1 rather then dealing with TONS of keyword spamed pics. Designers are maybe not searching something certain but many editors and other buyers need something concrete and if they type "giraffe", they are NOT searching something else.

bittersweet · « **Reply #39 on:** October 15, 2008, 07:55 »

Quote from: michaeldb on October 15, 2008, 00:35

I just got my email threat from IS about their crackdown.

My favorite part of the email was an illustration of a can with the word "SPAM" on it. IS rejects all my vectors which have text on them. But any photographer who has ever received one of IS's infamous rejections for trademarks should be especially amused, or perhaps bemused, by the fact that SPAM, especially when spelled in all caps, is a registered trademark of Hormel. Oh well.

$:-\$ Is there some reason why you believe this particular image is part of the istock collection? To me it is clearly an editorial illustration, to which an entirely different set of trademark criteria applies.

michaeldb · « **Reply #40 on:** October 15, 2008, 09:07 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 15, 2008, 06:55

Are you saying you got the weekly contact sheet, or that you actually got a directed mail about your keywording?

I was referring to their mass emailing "iStockphoto Tip of the Week - 10.14.2008 - Keyword Crackdown". I guess they wouldn't include an illustration in a direct email abouj my own keywording. I have always tried to avoid spam in my own keywording, and I've only had a couple of images disambiguated by by reviews.

As to whether the "SPAM" was 'editorial' or fair use or whatever, I am no IP attorney. I just thought it was funny, given IS's well known pickiness about violations of its rules, and violations of its rules being the subject of the email.

bittersweet · « **Reply #41 on:** October 15, 2008, 09:23 »

Quote from: michaeldb on October 15, 2008, 09:07

Quote from: sjlocke on October 15, 2008, 06:55
Are you saying you got the weekly contact sheet, or that you actually got a directed mail about your keywording?
I was referring to their mass emailing "iStockphoto Tip of the Week - 10.14.2008 - Keyword Crackdown". I guess they wouldn't include an illustration in a direct email abouj my own keywording. I have always tried to avoid spam in my own keywording, and I've only had a couple of images disambiguated by by reviews.

As to whether the "SPAM" was 'editorial' or fair use or whatever, I am no IP attorney. I just thought it was funny, given IS's well known pickiness about violations of its rules, and violations of its rules being the subject of the email.

I guess I don't understand what you consider as breaking their own rules. Their rules are against accepting and selling copyrighted and trademarked material as royalty free stock. They are not doing that. They clearly slapped together this silly thing to illustrate their article. This image is not in their collection and they do not violate any IP by simply using the word "spam". Even if they used an actual can of SPAM, because of the editorial context, it would be hard to classify as an IP violation since as an editorial, it would fall under the umbrella of parody. I'm not an IP attorney either. I'm just completely missing your point.

michaeldb · « **Reply #42 on:** October 15, 2008, 12:52 »

Quote from: bittersweet on October 15, 2008, 09:23

Quote from: michaeldb on October 15, 2008, 09:07
Quote from: sjlocke on October 15, 2008, 06:55
Are you saying you got the weekly contact sheet, or that you actually got a directed mail about your keywording?
I was referring to their mass emailing "iStockphoto Tip of the Week - 10.14.2008 - Keyword Crackdown". I guess they wouldn't include an illustration in a direct email abouj my own keywording. I have always tried to avoid spam in my own keywording, and I've only had a couple of images disambiguated by by reviews.

As to whether the "SPAM" was 'editorial' or fair use or whatever, I am no IP attorney. I just thought it was funny, given IS's well known pickiness about violations of its rules, and violations of its rules being the subject of the email.

I guess I don't understand what you consider as breaking their own rules. Their rules are against accepting and selling copyrighted and trademarked material as royalty free stock. They are not doing that. They clearly slapped together this silly thing to illustrate their article. This image is not in their collection and they do not violate any IP by simply using the word "spam". Even if they used an actual can of SPAM, because of the editorial context, it would be hard to classify as an IP violation since as an editorial, it would fall under the umbrella of parody. I'm not an IP attorney either. I'm just completely missing your point.

I didn't really meat to say that IS violated its rules, I don't know if it did or not and I don't really care. I said, "given IS's well known pickiness about violations of its rules, and violations of its rules being the subject of the email." I have no plans to email Hormel that they should send IS a cease and desist order.

As to my point, I just thought it was funny, that's all. Or ironic. Or something. If I offended any sensibilities, I'm sorry.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #43 on:** October 15, 2008, 13:06 »

Quote from: basti on October 15, 2008, 07:43

Just search eg. wilderness on SS, IS and then on photographersdirect.com - the result doesnt need any further info. In case Im buyer, I will rather pay $20 per picture instead of $1 rather then dealing with TONS of keyword spamed pics. Designers are maybe not searching something certain but many editors and other buyers need something concrete and if they type "giraffe", they are NOT searching something else.

Anyone who does a one word search like "wilderness" deserves to get a bit of everything.

bittersweet · « **Reply #44 on:** October 15, 2008, 13:06 »

Quote from: michaeldb on October 15, 2008, 12:52

Quote from: bittersweet on October 15, 2008, 09:23
Quote from: michaeldb on October 15, 2008, 09:07
Quote from: sjlocke on October 15, 2008, 06:55
Are you saying you got the weekly contact sheet, or that you actually got a directed mail about your keywording?
I was referring to their mass emailing "iStockphoto Tip of the Week - 10.14.2008 - Keyword Crackdown". I guess they wouldn't include an illustration in a direct email abouj my own keywording. I have always tried to avoid spam in my own keywording, and I've only had a couple of images disambiguated by by reviews.

As to whether the "SPAM" was 'editorial' or fair use or whatever, I am no IP attorney. I just thought it was funny, given IS's well known pickiness about violations of its rules, and violations of its rules being the subject of the email.

I guess I don't understand what you consider as breaking their own rules. Their rules are against accepting and selling copyrighted and trademarked material as royalty free stock. They are not doing that. They clearly slapped together this silly thing to illustrate their article. This image is not in their collection and they do not violate any IP by simply using the word "spam". Even if they used an actual can of SPAM, because of the editorial context, it would be hard to classify as an IP violation since as an editorial, it would fall under the umbrella of parody. I'm not an IP attorney either. I'm just completely missing your point.

I didn't really meat to say that IS violated its rules, I don't know if it did or not and I don't really care. I said, "given IS's well known pickiness about violations of its rules, and violations of its rules being the subject of the email." I have no plans to email Hormel that they should send IS a cease and desist order.

As to my point, I just thought it was funny, that's all. Or ironic. Or something. If I offended any sensibilities, I'm sorry.

No offense taken. I meant none either. I should have let it go after the first post.

basti · « **Reply #45 on:** October 16, 2008, 07:02 »

sjlocke

Well, good point hehe

However I think you understood what Ive ment.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock's new Zero Tolerance Policy for keyword SPAM (Read 14482 times)

lisafx

CofkoCof

lisafx

jsnover

CofkoCof

bittersweet

jsnover

bittersweet

bittersweet

bittersweet

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors