MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: istock and keywords  (Read 24478 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tuilay

« Reply #50 on: November 24, 2008, 13:04 »
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..
hali... DB is right. and if they prefer your cat and dog to your creative product shots, give them your cat and dog.  give the creative product shots to the other sites that like them

why make it anal for yourself ;)


« Reply #51 on: November 24, 2008, 15:50 »
0
People complain because they want things done properly.  

And you think complaining here will achieve that goal?

Only complaining here, of course not.  But the purpose of this forum is exacty to exchange experiences.  If I were one of the few having problems, I would have to blame myself.  Since I am not, I still have to rethink if I am doing something wrong and also see if the others are complaining reasonably or not.  And then make a judgement.

As for keywords specifically, I have contacted the keyword team suggesting meanings and new keywords - not out of my mind, but from dictionary definitions.  Let's not give examples here, as they have been mentioned in other threads before.  Still, they haven't been added, and some words look invalid under the meanings in CV.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #52 on: November 25, 2008, 10:16 »
0
And as for this garbage about exclusive/independent, the only difference is that they will remove the keywords and approve vs. reject.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. (George Bernard Shaw).  ;D
« Last Edit: November 25, 2008, 10:26 by FlemishDreams »

bittersweet

« Reply #53 on: November 25, 2008, 10:39 »
0
I think it is really offensive to mock and dismiss everything an exclusive says merely because they are exclusive. It is getting beyond ridiculous. Why is my opinion, or JoAnn's, or loop's, or Sean's, or any other person's less valid simply because we have made a choice to focus our efforts on one stock site?

The trend here among the most vocal complainers is to portray istock as elitist, while I see that attitude being MUCH more prevalent here where it is perfectly acceptable to ostracize someone as long as they are one of "THEM".


« Last Edit: November 25, 2008, 10:42 by whatalife »

« Reply #54 on: November 25, 2008, 10:58 »
0
Why is my opinion, or JoAnn's, or loop's, or Sean's, or any other person's less valid simply because we have made a choice to focus our efforts on one stock site?

No, of course your opinion is not less valid but, if I remember it right, you, at least on many occasions, denied some of the issues people complain about IS, as if we were just a bunch of crying babies.  This is not respectful either.

Regards,
Adelaide 

bittersweet

« Reply #55 on: November 25, 2008, 11:01 »
0
I certainly have never denied that some of you have issues.

« Reply #56 on: November 25, 2008, 11:02 »
0
I think it is really offensive to mock and dismiss everything an exclusive says merely because they are exclusive. It is getting beyond ridiculous.

"Offensive", "ridiculous", "mock".  Do these keywords really apply? Hmm... Well as far as I read this thread, nobody attacked or questioned the exclusives themselves, nor their decision to go exclusive on iStock. The only thing that has been well probably documented is the double standards on iStock. Now it's their site and they do as they please, but given this preferential treatment, exclusives can hardly answer the complaints remarks that non-exclusives have.
The trend here among the most vocal complainers is to portray istock as elitist

After disambiguation of "elitist", it is, for non-exclusives. For exclusives it is apparently not. Maybe a thread like this should be exclusively for non-exclusives  :P
« Last Edit: November 25, 2008, 11:09 by FlemishDreams »

jsnover

« Reply #57 on: November 25, 2008, 11:55 »
0
And as for this garbage about exclusive/independent, the only difference is that they will remove the keywords and approve vs. reject.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. (George Bernard Shaw).  ;D

I spent almost 4 years as an independent. I clearly can't have any perspective on the status of independents at IS from the end of August 2008 to the present (my time as an IS exclusive) but I actually have a perspective and some data on both states, something only a few of you do.

If I get into a car accident on Friday the 13th, I can decide that it was bad luck, or that the driver who crossed the median strip when his tire blew was the cause. It's important to separate what we know, from beliefs, wishes and hopes.

« Reply #58 on: November 25, 2008, 12:57 »
0
i've resub images many times with out the keywords they  didn't want

and reject them for artifucKs???

he he he ....

smart boys....
« Last Edit: November 25, 2008, 13:00 by lobby »

Tuilay

« Reply #59 on: November 25, 2008, 16:48 »
0
Why is my opinion, or JoAnn's, or loop's, or Sean's, or any other person's less valid simply because we have made a choice to focus our efforts on one stock site?

No, of course your opinion is not less valid but, if I remember it right, you, at least on many occasions, denied some of the issues people complain about IS, as if we were just a bunch of crying babies.  This is not respectful either.

Regards,
Adelaide 

Not really Adelaide, whatalife swings both ways... making it sound proIS one minute
antiIS the next. but it's so bloody obvious of where the clown stands. He stands for whatalife.

------------------------------------------
They've done a lot of research on it,
But what it is, they're still not sure
Give ya delusions of grandeur
Then they bury you from your head to your feet
There's a whole lot of people dying tonight
From the disease of conceit.
(Bob Dylan)

shank_ali

« Reply #60 on: November 25, 2008, 17:45 »
0
Correct keywording of files on istockphoto is long overdue.The buyers are sick of finding totally irrelavant images coming up in there searches due to spamming.
Being exclusive now has the added benefit of not recieving a rejection solely for bad keywords.
Istockphoto also have a new keyword section on the forum to help and educate contributors with keywording.
The amout of contributors who have had there accounts closed due to continual bad keywords is a big fat 'O'  but hopely the threat was enough to stop this unacceptable bad practice.

« Reply #61 on: November 26, 2008, 20:01 »
0
My older New Years images had "Yuletide" in their keywords. This year I thought I should delete it because IS would probably reject it.  I just had an image in DT sold for the search term "Yuletide"!!  ;D

Regards,
Adelaide

shank_ali

« Reply #62 on: November 29, 2008, 17:04 »
0
I just uploaded a night time image of a bridge and entered 41 keywords.Three were ok and the rest were spamming ::)

lisafx

« Reply #63 on: November 29, 2008, 17:15 »
0
My older New Years images had "Yuletide" in their keywords. This year I thought I should delete it because IS would probably reject it.  I just had an image in DT sold for the search term "Yuletide"!!  ;D

Regards,
Adelaide

Congrats Adelaide!  I notice the same thing.    I have images downloaded all the time on DT with (relevant) keywords that have been wiki'd off my istock images. 

« Reply #64 on: November 29, 2008, 18:41 »
0


Now this image has just been rejected for wrong keywords:
New Year's Day (Holiday), New Year's Eve (Holiday), New Year's Eve, Lighting Equipment (Equipment), Flame, Candle, Candle, Shiny (Physical Description)

New Years is an obvious concept for these images.  Just make a search in IS and see.
Lighting equipment was possibly a wrong pick in CV for "light"
Shiny, is it really wrong?
Flame and candle WRONG keywords? Give me a break...

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #65 on: November 30, 2008, 05:04 »
0


Now this image has just been rejected for wrong keywords:
New Year's Day (Holiday), New Year's Eve (Holiday), New Year's Eve, Lighting Equipment (Equipment), Flame, Candle, Candle, Shiny (Physical Description)

New Years is an obvious concept for these images.  Just make a search in IS and see.
Lighting equipment was possibly a wrong pick in CV for "light"
Shiny, is it really wrong?
Flame and candle WRONG keywords? Give me a break...

Regards,
Adelaide


Hahahaha, no kidding? :D

« Reply #66 on: November 30, 2008, 05:55 »
0
sometimes I want to grab that reviewer and punch him in the face! Then kick his ass some more while he is bleeding from nose...

15 uploads per week
ridiculous (idiotic) rejections for keywords and artefacts
20% earnings for contributor
almost 0 sales (even StockXpert and 123rf are doing better than IS)

worst agency ever, for non exclusives at least. I just hate IS.  Sometimes I just wonder why I even bother with them...
« Last Edit: November 30, 2008, 05:58 by Peter »

« Reply #67 on: November 30, 2008, 15:07 »
0
so far they have rejected all of my images keyword rejections for other reasons too, but boy do they have a weird idea of what bad keywords are.

for example this panoramic image of the uinta mountains isn't scenic or natural enough for them...



The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[ Scenics (Nature),  Scenics (Nature)]}

« Reply #68 on: November 30, 2008, 15:14 »
0
oops I spoke too soon.

If I could use only one keyword for this file, it would be "ski lift". Guess which keyword it was rejected for?



The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[ Ski Lift,  Ski Lift,  Ski Lift,  Ski Lift]}

« Reply #69 on: November 30, 2008, 16:13 »
0
oops I spoke too soon.

If I could use only one keyword for this file, it would be "ski lift". Guess which keyword it was rejected for?



The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[ Ski Lift,  Ski Lift,  Ski Lift,  Ski Lift]}



Silly you! It is obviosly an electric powerline, with some weird thing hanging on the cable.  :P ;D

« Reply #70 on: November 30, 2008, 16:52 »
0
Silly you! It is obviosly an electric powerline, with some weird thing hanging on the cable.  :P ;D

That was the service car, carefully cloned out not to show the maintenance guy, in order to avoid model release...

Regards,
Adelaide

shank_ali

« Reply #71 on: December 01, 2008, 03:08 »
0
oops I spoke too soon.

If I could use only one keyword for this file, it would be "ski lift". Guess which keyword it was rejected for?



The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[ Ski Lift,  Ski Lift,  Ski Lift,  Ski Lift]}
If you read the keyword section on the istock forum you will realise the inspectors/reviewers make mistakes.Just add ski lift back in after it is accepted and/or send keywords a nb to the reason which in this case is quite apparent.

bittersweet

« Reply #72 on: December 01, 2008, 09:00 »
0
Maybe they didn't think it necessary to have the same key phrase in there 4 times?  ??? No matter what the searcher enters, all of the words that map to that phrase will only need the one phrase. It does not have to be repeated for each word that maps to it. Is there still one "ski lift" remaining in the file?

I have no idea. Some of these are just bizarre. There have been a couple posted on the istock forum where the person has ranted about how stupid the reviewer is who rejected their image, only to have an admin step in and say that their rejection notice included other reasons for the rejection, and that the keyword suggestions were listed in order to help them through on resubmission. (But that doesn't change the appearance that some words are being removed that seem appropriate.)

Just report the error in the keyword forum and they will fix it if it's an error. I think it's best to bring errors like that to their attention so they can try to fix whatever is happening. I wouldn't recommend adding back in words on the sly, but if you feel lucky, go for it. ;)

« Reply #73 on: December 01, 2008, 09:59 »
0
quote:

"Maybe they didn't think it necessary to have the same key phrase in there 4 times?  Huh" 

That is possibly it, I think I might have originally had things like "ski-lift" and "chair lift" that all got matched to the same thing, but then why doesn't IS just kick it to one instance of their CV match? surely that is easier than rejecting a file and wasting reviewer time and pissing people off.

bittersweet

« Reply #74 on: December 01, 2008, 10:00 »
0
quote:

"Maybe they didn't think it necessary to have the same key phrase in there 4 times?  Huh" 

That is possibly it, I think I might have originally had things like "ski-lift" and "chair lift" that all got matched to the same thing, but then why doesn't IS just kick it to one instance of their CV match? surely that is easier than rejecting a file and wasting reviewer time and pissing people off.

If that was the only reason it was rejected, I completely agree.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2723 Views
Last post July 01, 2006, 11:14
by Quevaal
6 Replies
5889 Views
Last post September 20, 2006, 11:43
by Bateleur
27 Replies
9921 Views
Last post October 20, 2006, 17:54
by GeoPappas
8 Replies
4884 Views
Last post February 16, 2007, 15:21
by madelaide
9 Replies
4383 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