MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: istock and keywords  (Read 24525 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2008, 10:22 »
0
Agree with loop.  There certainly isn't any copyspace here.  Not particularly joyful, etc...

This is why people who complain about keywords need to post an image to show their case.

Sean, I forgot to mention that I don't do keywording by myself anymore and outsorce it to wordsforimages.com, which is a professional service working accordingly to Getty guidelines and is managed by Shannon Routzahn, who did keywording for superstock for about 8 years....
I don't think professionals do keyword spamming for their clients!!  ;)

Talking about copyspace, one of the photos of this series has been licenced to Zweute Hand for their new advertisement, which found enough copyspace to insert 1 object (note that all 5 photos of this series have been taken from the same angle or slightly different).

Further, none of 10 other agencies (between microstock and midstocks) pointed out any keyword spamming....nor that some keywords are inappropriate.

... ???

Seriously, if this photo has copy space, no matter who keyworded it, then allt he six or so million of photos at microstock sites have it too.


jsnover

« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2008, 10:29 »
0
rejected for keywords:  Ecstatic (Expressing Positivity), Cheerful (Expressing Positivity)
there were others like individuality and mug shot that might be a stretch for a strict Istock tag policy,

Her face looks like a frozen mask - doesn't say ecstatic or cheerful. Those may have been what you were going for, but that isn't what this image projects.

And as for this garbage about exclusive/independent, the only difference is that they will remove the keywords and approve vs. reject. I had to complain in the keywords forum - which I suggest you do if you have something rejected in error - when I thought a term was wrongly removed (and it was put back as they'd made a mistake).

Get your problems fixed if IS made a mistake or fix your keywording if you did. What's the point of bellyaching in here about unfair policies?

CofkoCof

« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2008, 10:36 »
0
Very few of the complaints have been stated as mildly as your list here. I think you know that. They are very often embellished with some type of venom spewing directed at either the inspector, the exclusives, or just the entire site.
Very few of the complaints have been stated as harsh as you listed above (by the majority of the people). There's always a bunch of people frustrated with a certain feature of a certain site. They start a topic and they unleash all of their stress in it(not only stock site related stress). However even the people that have been in the business for quite a while agree (at least I think so and many polls prove it) on most of the points I wrote.

« Reply #28 on: November 24, 2008, 10:44 »
0
Agree with loop.  There certainly isn't any copyspace here.  Not particularly joyful, etc...

This is why people who complain about keywords need to post an image to show their case.

Sean, I forgot to mention that I don't do keywording by myself anymore and outsorce it to wordsforimages.com, which is a professional service working accordingly to Getty guidelines and is managed by Shannon Routzahn, who did keywording for superstock for about 8 years....
I don't think professionals do keyword spamming for their clients!!  ;)

Well, then, if you're submitting to Getty, you're all set.  Unfortunately, your service doesn't really appear to be within iStock standards, as you've seen.

bittersweet

« Reply #29 on: November 24, 2008, 10:47 »
0
Very few of the complaints have been stated as mildly as your list here. I think you know that. They are very often embellished with some type of venom spewing directed at either the inspector, the exclusives, or just the entire site.
Very few of the complaints have been stated as harsh as you listed above (by the majority of the people). There's always a bunch of people frustrated with a certain feature of a certain site. They start a topic and they unleash all of their stress in it(not only stock site related stress). However even the people that have been in the business for quite a while agree (at least I think so and many polls prove it) on most of the points I wrote.

Can we at least agree that we all have CHOICES in the matter? Nobody is being forced to submit their images to iStock

« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2008, 10:48 »
0
rejected for keywords:  Ecstatic (Expressing Positivity), Cheerful (Expressing Positivity)
there were others like individuality and mug shot that might be a stretch for a strict Istock tag policy,

When they reject for keywords, it seems that they want to prove by quantity that they are right - so the list of rejected keywords is almost always longer than real reason. Look in the list for ones that are really bad, disregard remaining.

« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2008, 10:56 »
0
The reason for complaints is very simple: IS is (or used to be) a big seller, so nobody wants to give up of something that is at least potentially fruitful.  

Lots of people used to earn more than now (and I an not telling about myself, with my small portfolio, to which nothing was added for months).  The search results are excessively favouring exclusives (it's their prerogative to have this policy, but they will deny doing this).  Keyword rejections or wiki are insane sometimes - remember I had an image of a rose (flower) in which the keyword rose (flower) was removed.  Some reviewers are (or seem to be) exagerating in the required quality of an image, and apparently they are much more rigid with non-exclusives.

People complain because they want things done properly.  

Regards,
Adelaide

bittersweet

« Reply #32 on: November 24, 2008, 10:59 »
0
People complain because they want things done properly.  

And you think complaining here will achieve that goal?

lagereek

« Reply #33 on: November 24, 2008, 11:08 »
0
Yeah I agree, theres too much sour grapes here regarding IS, theyre getting blamed for everything right now, which is totally out of order and uncalled for.
Ive been cut down myself with at least 30% ( as a Gold, non-excl ) and I can beef about that.
Every Micro site has their own policies, you either go by them or you dont and as been said, nobody is twisting arms, forcing to work with IS.
So, no more silly examples.

Tuilay

« Reply #34 on: November 24, 2008, 11:08 »
0
People complain because they want things done properly. 
And you think complaining here will achieve that goal?
it may  not be to you , but where there's smoke there's fire.
the collective we , to you, are bias against IS. and you, as a toadie, sees differently.
so , at least we both agree to disagree. a toadie is any other form is still a toadie. ;D

hali

« Reply #35 on: November 24, 2008, 11:14 »
0

People complain because they want things done properly. 
And you think complaining here will achieve that goal?
the voice of the forum is more effective than you what a life hate to admit.
did complaining here achieve that goal? 
Dreamstime is number 2 now. so it did.

« Reply #36 on: November 24, 2008, 11:15 »
0
the main non-o.k. thing on istock is a huge inconsistency about every rejection reason.(exclusives vs non-exclusives). on example, i have some 65% acceptance ratio on "regular" uploads, and 105% on files reinspected by scout...
as an owner of printing company for 15years, i can say (from the long time real-life experience) that i believe that "artifacts" on example is more than 50% wrong rejection reason.
  from the other side, as a potential buyer of images, i would like all agencies to have some maximum of 10 or 15 keywords per image (o.k. i personaly think that 5-7 would be quite enough).
on example, i would still reject this diego's image.
on example, this is not recreation(al pursuit), if i need "smiling, young woman, sitting, armchair, home interrior" - i would not need this smile, even, i would not need this image if i search with "book" (although the books are actually here), i don't need "white" also. etc..
and of course, as a photographer also, sometimes i realy ask myself do the people who inspect my images have any basic photographic experience. (or if the answer is "yes", i ask myself - did these people ever moved a "mode" ring on their cameras on something else than green letters "auto" (my cameras, do not this "auto" option - so, i have problem  :D )

bittersweet

« Reply #37 on: November 24, 2008, 11:22 »
0

People complain because they want things done properly. 
And you think complaining here will achieve that goal?
the voice of the forum is more effective than you what a life hate to admit.
did complaining here achieve that goal? 
Dreamstime is number 2 now. so it did.

Ohhhh!!! So that is where the confusion comes in for me. I thought you were complaining here in order to effect positive changes at istock, but now I understand. You are complaining here in order to discourage others from contributing there.

Awesome plan! Thanks!

Love,
Toadie

« Reply #38 on: November 24, 2008, 11:23 »
0


This is pretty funny :D

Rejected: Animal Tongue (Animal Mouth),  Animal Teeth (Animal Mouth),  Animal Mouth (Animal Body Part),  Animal Eye (Animal Body Part),  Animal Hair (Animal Skin)

Ps. The shot was accepted, but not these keywords.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 11:48 by Magnum »

« Reply #39 on: November 24, 2008, 11:28 »
0
Why not post that in the keywording forum?

Tuilay

« Reply #40 on: November 24, 2008, 11:29 »
0
I thought you were complaining here in order to effect positive changes at istock, but now I understand. You are complaining here in order to discourage others from contributing there.
"to discourage others from contributing there" , you say?
oh, we can't take the credit for that ! IS already did that for us ! ;D
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 11:49 by Tuilay »

« Reply #41 on: November 24, 2008, 11:35 »
0
magnum, these keywords are here, but this is actually :
closeup, mixed (or purebreed) dog, headshot, mouth open, outdoors,
 if you had + only animal thongue, i believe this would be accepted (if only kwds are rejection reason).

« Reply #42 on: November 24, 2008, 11:44 »
0
The shot was accepted, only the keywords specified were removed.  ( wich is an recent improvement on Is I guess)

« Reply #43 on: November 24, 2008, 11:47 »
0
People complain because they want things done properly. 
And you think complaining here will achieve that goal?
it may  not be to you , but where there's smoke there's fire.
the collective we , to you, are bias against IS. and you, as a toadie, sees differently.
so , at least we both agree to disagree. a toadie is any other form is still a toadie. ;D


Well, it may be said in another form, i.e.: "The collective"is against the fact that independents don't get more perks, don't have their files on the first pages of every possible searches, don't get any spam in what they may incur aprroved and cheered". But as have been said here, to be exclusive or not is just a choice; when choosing to be independent you keep your sales at other, six, ten or twewnty sites. Many of you talk monthly, event boost, of fantastic earnings at these sites, I cheer you for that, but I resent a little bit when seeing someone -not all, of course- trolling for more and more.

If you really think that being exclusive has so many advantages, and according to istock rules, you are free to join as long you have 250 or 500 downloads. If you think that uploading to istock being independant is a loss of time, you know you can freely leave. Personally, I don't think many independents will do that, because, after all, being independent is about uploading everywhere, and istock is one of the active sites where --selling much or less-- every dowload gives a larger return in real dollars.

« Reply #44 on: November 24, 2008, 12:07 »
0
did you ever consider possibility that money is not the only thing in somebody's life?
i myself did not go to exclusive on i.s. because this inconsistency on meny ways. but actually this is the main and only reason.  - i can not "give my body and soul" to someone who is not o.k. with every one with his associates in a business.
 if you are not o.k. with someone today (on example somewhere in summer is announced that exclusive uploads with even kwd spamming are going to be corrected, and that non-exclusives are going to be more offensively rejected (as the image of the dog above) - how do you call this? - is it o.k.? -and from the business point of view - this is not wise - you are waisting reviewers time twice - once for reviewing, and once more for re-reviewing. wise? - well, i'm not sure..).. so - if  you are not o.k. today with someone - this is likely that you are going to be not-o.k. with someone else tomorrow.

having exclusives on the first pages of best match, is o.k. having files that are "on the line" accepted, more money/dl's - that is all o.k.  but....

« Reply #45 on: November 24, 2008, 12:14 »
0
did you ever consider possibility that money is not the only thing in somebody's life?


Of course, according to monthly earning records published in this same forum I would earn more as an independant uploading everywhere as you do. There are several great sites, but I like istock, even if probably losing some money.




« Reply #46 on: November 24, 2008, 12:17 »
0
well i believe this is really hard to "measure". but you surely need less time when you work with just one site.

hali

« Reply #47 on: November 24, 2008, 12:28 »
0
It isn't that we are objecting to rejections. We get rejections too from the other Big 6 and other sites , macro, mid,..
it's the reasons for rejection that get to you.
As someone else , or many someone elses, pointed out, "i corrected the rejection reason, and resubmitted, and the reviewer rejected it. this time for another reason."
so which one of the list of reasons listed do we have to guess before resubmitting?

with other sites, the reason(s) is specific, and as much as you disagree, "eg. cutting out a part of the image is not good". .. you have a specific reason.
this, i write back to the reviewer to say , "hey thanks, next time i know".
or with another site, you correct that rejection reason, and it's approved within a couple of hours.
this shows there is communication and a willingness to take your images.
not a chop shop attitude.

i hope i clarify myself. but then again, some people don't want to know.
tough titties then !
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 12:38 by hali »

« Reply #48 on: November 24, 2008, 12:46 »
0
well... the best way of course is to submit images that is going to be accepted at the first place ;) ( inspect images on 200%, choose up to 10 really focused keywords etc..

digiology

« Reply #49 on: November 24, 2008, 13:02 »
0
The shot was accepted, only the keywords specified were removed.  ( wich is an recent improvement on Is I guess)

Yes, I have had keywords removed and the shot still accepted. Not all doom and gloom for us non-exclusives.  :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2731 Views
Last post July 01, 2006, 11:14
by Quevaal
6 Replies
5895 Views
Last post September 20, 2006, 11:43
by Bateleur
27 Replies
9935 Views
Last post October 20, 2006, 17:54
by GeoPappas
8 Replies
4895 Views
Last post February 16, 2007, 15:21
by madelaide
9 Replies
4392 Views
Last post January 31, 2008, 15:47
by madelaide

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle