Author Topic: istock and keywords (Read 30323 times)

diego_cervo · « **on:** November 24, 2008, 04:50 »

recently one of my photos have been approved on istock but they said that the following keywords are not fully relevant to the subject: {[Joy, Day, Copy Space, 20-24 Years, 25-29 Years]}
This is the file: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=7831720

Maybe they're right....actually the model looks sad, this photo has been shot at night, there is no room to write a message or insert objects, and of course the model is 50 years old....but she just came back from a spa and looks younger!!

I think I should go for exclusivity....my doctor said it will help me to have good sight.....

Best,
diego

fotorob · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2008, 05:25 »

Oh well, there are stories to tell.
I had a woman with boxing gloves some days ago and they refused to accecpt the keyword "boxing (women)"

I guess they want to have only the exclusives on istock and the rest on stockxpert.

Caz · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2008, 06:16 »

I don't see how the image depicts "joy". She's smiling a little bit, but to me I'd say joy would have to be represented by more than a little half smile. And the keyword "twenties" maps to young adult which would have covered her (without chosing the "be more specific option") if indeed she is actually in her twenties.

loop · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2008, 06:25 »

Quote from: diego_cervo on November 24, 2008, 04:50

recently one of my photos have been approved on istock but they said that the following keywords are not fully relevant to the subject: {[Joy, Day, Copy Space, 20-24 Years, 25-29 Years]}
This is the file: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=7831720

Maybe they're right....actually the model looks sad, this photo has been shot at night, there is no room to write a message or insert objects, and of course the model is 50 years old....but she just came back from a spa and looks younger!!

I think I should go for exclusivity....my doctor said it will help me to have good sight.....

Best,
diego

All the removed words were clearly innapropiated. Abouyt the model's age, when in doubt, inspectors just have to look at the model relase, where there's the model's date of birth.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2008, 06:28 »

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.

vikavalter · « **Reply #5 on:** November 24, 2008, 06:36 »

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,

lagereek · « **Reply #6 on:** November 24, 2008, 07:11 »

IS dont understand conceptual keywording, have never done. Maybe its because most of their photographers just shoots ordinary, generic stuff.
Getty on the contrary will allow 5 conceptual keywords, doesnt make sense to me.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** November 24, 2008, 07:19 »

Maybe because Getty keywording is done by a small in house staff who know what they are doing, and iStock is keyworded by 50,000 contributors around the world who don't all speak English?

vikavalter, you may want to post that in the keywording forum for comments.

lagereek · « **Reply #8 on:** November 24, 2008, 07:39 »

Hi Sean!

Yes I know Getty has an in-house keywording team. Wouldnt be a bad idea though, with 4 mill images in stock if IS would consider working on the same lines. Sure, wages have to be paid etc but in the long run it would save time and money plus complete disasters as far as spamming.

Tuilay · « **Reply #9 on:** November 24, 2008, 07:53 »

Quote from: vikavalter on November 24, 2008, 06:36

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 teeth weren't white enough for iStock!

try using vinegar to whiten them. Istockers use them for everything ,
eye wash, mouth wash, ...cleanse and exorcise all...except their personality.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #10 on:** November 24, 2008, 08:11 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 24, 2008, 07:39

Hi Sean!

Yes I know Getty has an in-house keywording team. Wouldnt be a bad idea though, with 4 mill images in stock if IS would consider working on the same lines. Sure, wages have to be paid etc but in the long run it would save time and money plus complete disasters as far as spamming.

Maybe, but that isn't where we are now, which is why I think concepts need to be tight.

dbvirago · « **Reply #11 on:** November 24, 2008, 08:20 »

They recently started rejecting my model closeups for keywords, face, skin, cosmetics, lips, etc. Several months back, I stopped uploading generic stock and just did models as they seemed to be the only thing accepted. Now those are being rejected also. Since they have fallen from 20% of my income in Feb to 3% last month, maybe it doesn't matter any more.

fotografer · « **Reply #12 on:** November 24, 2008, 08:32 »

I'm getting so paraniod about keywording badly and getting a refusal that I end up putting the bare minimum but wouldn't feel right going in and adding them afterwards so am probably losing out on sales.

madelaide · « **Reply #13 on:** November 24, 2008, 08:44 »

I had two images uploaded together. One is a derivative of the other (my 2009 candles, shown in a StockXpert thread, one is the plain image, the other is the same with an added reflection below). Anyway, the first was rejected due to keywords (some stretches), so I rushed and edited the second one. It was rejected for artifacting... The first, after keyword edition, was approved. Go figure.

Regards,
Adelaide

hali · « **Reply #14 on:** November 24, 2008, 08:51 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 24, 2008, 07:11

IS dont understand conceptual keywording, have never done. Maybe its because most of their photographers just shoots ordinary, generic stuff.
Getty on the contrary will allow 5 conceptual keywords, doesnt make sense to me.

or maybe their reviewers are just plain generic... not understanding the diff between high key and lens flare image degeneration; selective focus and out of focus,etc...
creative and well-done isolated shots are mostly rejected, in favour for boring cat and dog photographs.

to reiterate Adelaide, go figure

Tuilay · « **Reply #15 on:** November 24, 2008, 08:54 »

OR THEY JUST DON'T LIKE YOUr lousy photos,,, . go away from iStock . we have our own stock

Quote from: hali on November 24, 2008, 08:51

creative and well-done isolated shots are mostly rejected, in favour for boring cat and dog photographs. to reiterate Adelaide, go figure

Hali, if they want your boring cat and dog photos, then give them your boring cat and dog photos. make a friend of the reviewers. make them happy and make them feel important.

bittersweet · « **Reply #16 on:** November 24, 2008, 09:03 »

Quote from: hali on November 24, 2008, 08:51

or maybe their reviewers are just plain generic... not understanding the diff between high key and lens flare image degeneration; selective focus and out of focus,etc...
creative and well-done isolated shots are mostly rejected, in favour for boring cat and dog photographs.

You might be on to something! It really is amazing that they are still in business, isn't it?

Tuilay · « **Reply #17 on:** November 24, 2008, 09:06 »

Quote from: whatalife on November 24, 2008, 09:03

Quote from: hali on November 24, 2008, 08:51
or maybe their reviewers are just plain generic... not understanding the diff between high key and lens flare image degeneration; selective focus and out of focus,etc...
creative and well-done isolated shots are mostly rejected, in favour for boring cat and dog photographs.

You might be on to something! It really is amazing that they are still in business, isn't it?

hey whatalife,
be a toadie, and you will go far with IS ! we have the beastmaster with SS,
and we have the toad master at IS. the secret to being successful with them is so obvious.

bittersweet · « **Reply #18 on:** November 24, 2008, 09:37 »

You don't have to be a "toadie" to realize that the statement that all these wonderful photos are rejected in favor of dogs and cats is just ridiculous.

This is what I hear:

1. iStock hates non-exclusives!
2. iStock reviewers are idiots who have no clue what they are doing!
3. iStock rejects my images for no grounds whatsoever!
4. All my wonderful images are selling like hotcakes on every other site!
5. iStock is filling their collection with a bunch of crap shots from the lousy kiss-ass exclusives!
6. I am not getting any sales at iStock!
7. iStock is the worst earner out of all thirty of the sites I contribute to!

So, IF all of the above are true, and IF you (the collective you who are complaining in this thread, and the other threads just like it) are still choosing to submit your images to "iStock"... then are you sure that the istock reviewers are the idiots here?

diego_cervo · « **Reply #19 on:** November 24, 2008, 09:46 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 24, 2008, 06:28

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.

...

dbvirago · « **Reply #20 on:** November 24, 2008, 09:51 »

I upload at IS when I have pretty much run out of other stuff to do. I don't come close to even their paltry 15 a week limit. It takes way too long to upload there, only to have 2/3 rejected (and it's always 2 out of 3 - no variation, even if all 3 are the same model with the same keywords) to earn 3% of my micro income.

bittersweet · « **Reply #21 on:** November 24, 2008, 09:55 »

Quote from: dbvirago on November 24, 2008, 09:51

I upload at IS when I have pretty much run out of other stuff to do. I don't come close to even their paltry 15 a week limit. It takes way too long to upload there, only to have 2/3 rejected (and it's always 2 out of 3 - no variation, even if all 3 are the same model with the same keywords) to earn 3% of my micro income.

If that's true, I guess I don't see why you bother. Isn't your time more valuable than that?

CofkoCof · « **Reply #22 on:** November 24, 2008, 10:01 »

In contrast to you what I hear is:
1. IS prefers exclusives (and I agree it should, not sure about the extent of this preferment)
2. & 3. iStock has some weird rejections. Some images are far from being bad, but they get rejected for very small mistakes. I mean even if you download an image at the largest size available and print it on a billboard/full page in a magazine you won't see that tiny little artifact in the shadow of the tree. Rejecting an image for one (doubtfully) wrong keywords is a PITA (I've had a few of those). Not to mention all the people that add the keywords after he file was accepted and have a very large ammount of their images under keyword inspection all the time. Combine that with the long queues we've been having lately and the painfull uploading process.
4. Some of the images that are rejected by IS sell pretty well on other sites
5. There are some images from exclusive contrubutors that might seem inappropriate for IS collection. At least if we try to compare them with some of our rejected images.
6. I am getting lower sales then last year/1-2 months ago/before the best match change even though I've added more images
7. IS is far from being the top earner for most of the independent authors. The trends show that it's one of the few sites that show negative trend in the last few months.

bittersweet · « **Reply #23 on:** November 24, 2008, 10:09 »

Quote from: CofkoCof on November 24, 2008, 10:01

In contrast to you what I hear is:
1. IS prefers exclusives (and I agree it should, not sure about the extent of this preferment)
2. & 3. iStock has some weird rejections. Some images are far from being bad, but they get rejected for very small mistakes. I mean even if you download an image at the largest size available and print it on a billboard/full page in a magazine you won't see that tiny little artifact in the shadow of the tree. Rejecting an image for one (doubtfully) wrong keywords is a PITA (I've had a few of those). Especially if you combine it with the long queues we've been having lately and the painfull uploading process.
4. Some of the images that are rejected by IS sell pretty well on other sites
5. There are some images from exclusive contrubutors that might seem inappropriate for IS collection. At least if we try to compare them with some of our rejected images.
6. I am getting lower sales then last year/1-2 months ago/before the best match change even though I've added more images
7. IS is far from being the top earner for most of the independent authors. The trends show that it's one of the few sites that show negative trend in the last few months.

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.

I certainly do not agree with or defend everything that istock does, but after a while it starts to remind me of a neighbor I had many years ago. Her live-in boyfriend would beat her black and blue on a regular basis. The first time she "left" him, I helped her move her stuff out, gave her money and a place to stay. The second time she "left" him, I let her stay with me for a week and fed her. The third time she "left" him, I let her borrow my phone to call the police. The fourth time, I did not answer the door.

If the experience is as unfair and impossible as some people here obviously believe it to be, then I believe they must bear some of the responsibility for continuing to put themselves in that position.

lagereek · « **Reply #24 on:** November 24, 2008, 10:14 »

No, there is nothing wrong with the reviewers, Inspectors at IS. Believe me, theyve got very good eyes. As far as keywording? theyre not the ones deciding, they will follow instructions from above, little can they do about it.

loop · « **Reply #25 on:** November 24, 2008, 10:22 »

Quote from: diego_cervo on November 24, 2008, 09:46

Quote from: sjlocke on November 24, 2008, 06:28
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 »

Quote from: vikavalter on November 24, 2008, 06:36

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 »

Quote from: whatalife on November 24, 2008, 10:09

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #28 on:** November 24, 2008, 10:44 »

Quote from: diego_cervo on November 24, 2008, 09:46

Quote from: sjlocke on November 24, 2008, 06:28
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 »

Quote from: CofkoCof on November 24, 2008, 10:36

Quote from: whatalife on November 24, 2008, 10:09
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

UncleGene · « **Reply #30 on:** November 24, 2008, 10:48 »

Quote from: vikavalter on November 24, 2008, 06:36

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #31 on:** November 24, 2008, 10:56 »

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 »

Quote from: madelaide on November 24, 2008, 10:56

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 »

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 »

Quote from: whatalife on November 24, 2008, 10:59

Quote from: madelaide on November 24, 2008, 10:56
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.

hali · « **Reply #35 on:** November 24, 2008, 11:14 »

Quote from: whatalife on November 24, 2008, 10:59

Quote from: madelaide on November 24, 2008, 10:56
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.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #36 on:** November 24, 2008, 11:15 »

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

)

bittersweet · « **Reply #37 on:** November 24, 2008, 11:22 »

Quote from: hali on November 24, 2008, 11:14

Quote from: whatalife on November 24, 2008, 10:59
Quote from: madelaide on November 24, 2008, 10:56
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

Magnum · « **Reply #38 on:** November 24, 2008, 11:23 »

This is pretty funny

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #39 on:** November 24, 2008, 11:28 »

Why not post that in the keywording forum?

Tuilay · « **Reply #40 on:** November 24, 2008, 11:29 »

Quote from: whatalife on November 24, 2008, 11:22

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 !

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #41 on:** November 24, 2008, 11:35 »

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).

Magnum · « **Reply #42 on:** November 24, 2008, 11:44 »

The shot was accepted, only the keywords specified were removed. ( wich is an recent improvement on Is I guess)

loop · « **Reply #43 on:** November 24, 2008, 11:47 »

Quote from: Tuilay on November 24, 2008, 11:08

Quote from: whatalife on November 24, 2008, 10:59
Quote from: madelaide on November 24, 2008, 10:56
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.

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.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #44 on:** November 24, 2008, 12:07 »

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....

loop · « **Reply #45 on:** November 24, 2008, 12:14 »

Quote from: Dr Bouz on November 24, 2008, 12:07

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.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #46 on:** November 24, 2008, 12:17 »

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 »

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 !

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #48 on:** November 24, 2008, 12:46 »

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 »

Quote from: Magnum on November 24, 2008, 11:44

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.

Tuilay · « **Reply #50 on:** November 24, 2008, 13:04 »

Quote from: Dr Bouz on November 24, 2008, 12:46

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

madelaide · « **Reply #51 on:** November 24, 2008, 15:50 »

Quote from: whatalife on November 24, 2008, 10:59

Quote from: madelaide on November 24, 2008, 10:56
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

null · « **Reply #52 on:** November 25, 2008, 10:16 »

Quote from: jsnover on November 24, 2008, 10:29

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).

bittersweet · « **Reply #53 on:** November 25, 2008, 10:39 »

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".

madelaide · « **Reply #54 on:** November 25, 2008, 10:58 »

Quote from: whatalife on November 25, 2008, 10:39

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 »

I certainly have never denied that some of you have issues.

null · « **Reply #56 on:** November 25, 2008, 11:02 »

Quote from: whatalife on November 25, 2008, 10:39

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.

Quote from: whatalife on November 25, 2008, 10:39

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

jsnover · « **Reply #57 on:** November 25, 2008, 11:55 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on November 25, 2008, 10:16

Quote from: jsnover on November 24, 2008, 10:29
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).

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.

lobby · « **Reply #58 on:** November 25, 2008, 12:57 »

i've resub images many times with out the keywords they didn't want

and reject them for artifucKs???

he he he ....

smart boys....

Tuilay · « **Reply #59 on:** November 25, 2008, 16:48 »

Quote from: madelaide on November 25, 2008, 10:58

Quote from: whatalife on November 25, 2008, 10:39
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 »

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #61 on:** November 26, 2008, 20:01 »

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"!!

Regards,
Adelaide

shank_ali · « **Reply #62 on:** November 29, 2008, 17:04 »

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 »

Quote from: madelaide on November 26, 2008, 20:01

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"!!

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #64 on:** November 29, 2008, 18:41 »

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

Dreamframer · « **Reply #65 on:** November 30, 2008, 05:04 »

Quote from: madelaide on November 29, 2008, 18:41

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?

Peter · « **Reply #66 on:** November 30, 2008, 05:55 »

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...

pancaketom · « **Reply #67 on:** November 30, 2008, 15:07 »

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)]}

pancaketom · « **Reply #68 on:** November 30, 2008, 15:14 »

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]}

Peter · « **Reply #69 on:** November 30, 2008, 16:13 »

Quote from: pancaketom on November 30, 2008, 15:14

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #70 on:** November 30, 2008, 16:52 »

Quote from: Peter on November 30, 2008, 16:13

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

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 »

Quote from: pancaketom on November 30, 2008, 15:14

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 »

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.

pancaketom · « **Reply #73 on:** December 01, 2008, 09:59 »

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 »

Quote from: pancaketom on December 01, 2008, 09:59

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #75 on:** December 01, 2008, 10:34 »

Quote from: pancaketom on December 01, 2008, 09:59

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?

If this is the reason, it's news. Even if they all map the same CV term, they never asked us to delete them. It doesn't need to be done, the system shows the CV term only once (check any of your images online). So it's not like your cheating or spamming.

Regards,
Adelaide

bittersweet · « **Reply #76 on:** December 01, 2008, 10:41 »

Quote from: madelaide on December 01, 2008, 10:34

If this is the reason, it's news. Even if they all map the same CV term, they never asked us to delete them. It doesn't need to be done, the system shows the CV term only once (check any of your images online). So it's not like your cheating or spamming.

I agree. As I said, some of this stuff is bizarre. I threw that out there as the only thing I could come up with (hence all the question marks)

IF that was the only rejection reason listed, and IF those were the only keywords removed, then it seems like an error and should be reported in the iS keyword forum in addition to here (assuming that the real goal is to get the image approved).

madelaide · « **Reply #77 on:** December 01, 2008, 18:02 »

I sent an e-mail to the keywords staff, instead of posting in the forum - would the forum be more effective? And in the end, even if they revert the rejection (yes, only keywords were given as the reason), when the image goes live it will be "too old" already, right? It will be dumped deep into the database - at least this what is said about resubmissions.

Maybe it's all part of the plan kosmik described in another thread.

Regards,
Adelaide

sharply_done · « **Reply #78 on:** December 01, 2008, 18:10 »

Quote from: pancaketom on December 01, 2008, 09:59

"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?

[/quote]

Quote from: madelaide on December 01, 2008, 10:34

If this is the reason, it's news. Even if they all map the same CV term, they never asked us to delete them. It doesn't need to be done, the system shows the CV term only once (check any of your images online). So it's not like your cheating or spamming.

It shouldn't be news - I had a few IS rejections for exactly this reason when I began shooting stock (two years ago) and quickly learned to weed out duplicate CV terms. Blindly relying on the CV to translate your keywords is not a good tactic.

bittersweet · « **Reply #79 on:** December 01, 2008, 18:20 »

Quote from: madelaide on December 01, 2008, 18:02

And in the end, even if they revert the rejection (yes, only keywords were given as the reason), when the image goes live it will be "too old" already, right? It will be dumped deep into the database - at least this what is said about resubmissions.

I thought the latest plot was to dump all the NEW files deep into the database. The old ones are selling well, so I hear.

madelaide · « **Reply #80 on:** December 01, 2008, 18:28 »

Quote from: whatalife on December 01, 2008, 18:20

I thought the latest plot was to dump all the NEW files deep into the database. The old ones are selling well, so I hear.

So new images not selling as soon as they are uploaded don't sink anymore? I remember the dld/mo having an important weight in the best match, and so I thought this was still counting for the non-exclusives. That is, an image with a high best match would appear in page 53 of the search, after all exclusives with zero dlds.

Regards,
Adelaide

bittersweet · « **Reply #81 on:** December 01, 2008, 19:03 »

Quote from: madelaide on December 01, 2008, 18:28

Quote from: whatalife on December 01, 2008, 18:20
I thought the latest plot was to dump all the NEW files deep into the database. The old ones are selling well, so I hear.

So new images not selling as soon as they are uploaded don't sink anymore? I remember the dld/mo having an important weight in the best match

I have no idea, but there are a lot of reports (and even a dedicated thread) about the phenomenon that suggests images that are uploaded TOO soon, or which have a GOOD dl/view rate (most views = purchase) are actually being handicapped by this best match. It makes absolutely no sense, but that is what many people believe is happening.

madelaide · « **Reply #82 on:** December 01, 2008, 20:53 »

I can never understand what goes on there, but today only I got 20% of my whole November! If that trend is maintained, I'll be happy.

Regards,
Adelaide

grandaded · « **Reply #83 on:** December 02, 2008, 04:19 »

I just had a site mail on iStock saying that one of my images of a (rather well-endowed) bull had been modified with additional keywords; including "udder"!

That cheered me up a bit, after my worst month there this year ...

shank_ali · « **Reply #84 on:** December 02, 2008, 14:39 »

istockphoto will not allow us to name files with crap keywords.
If you have a chance put 5417966 into the search engine of istock and you will see a close up of some nuts and bolts.Now check the keywords and start shaking your head at the extent of how bad some files are keyworded in the library.
btw i have wikkied the file.

grp_photo · « **Reply #85 on:** December 02, 2008, 15:12 »

Quote from: shank_ali on December 02, 2008, 14:39

istockphoto will not allow us to name files with crap keywords.
If you have a chance put 5417966 into the search engine of istock and you will see a close up of some nuts and bolts.Now check the keywords and start shaking your head at the extent of how bad some files are keyworded in the library.
btw i have wikkied the file.

I think its pretty good about 10% is stretched but not completly off the rest is very good the contributor just simply put a lot of work in his keywording.

runamock · « **Reply #86 on:** December 02, 2008, 15:23 »

shank_ali …I don’t think it’s right to flag other photographers work here without their knowledge. He is also a member of this forum.

shank_ali · « **Reply #87 on:** December 02, 2008, 15:45 »

Quote from: Runamock on December 02, 2008, 15:23

shank_ali …I don’t think it’s right to flag other photographers work here without their knowledge. He is also a member of this forum.

The work as you put it is not the issue.The photo is a fine micro shot and usefull to a buyer.The title topic is ' istock and keywords' and the keywords attached to this particular file are a complete joke if you care to look.

grp_photo · « **Reply #88 on:** December 02, 2008, 15:52 »

Quote from: grandaded on December 02, 2008, 04:19

I just had a site mail on iStock saying that one of my images of a (rather well-endowed) bull had been modified with additional keywords; including "udder"!

That cheered me up a bit, after my worst month there this year ...

lol thats a nice one

shank_ali · « **Reply #89 on:** December 02, 2008, 15:59 »

The keywords that i have suggested to be removed from file 5417966 which is a macro shot of bolts and nuts are as follow...work tool,construction,screw,working,mechanic,business,industry,equipment,land vehicle,plug socket,hole,old,repairing,part of,construction machinery,machine part,carpenter,industrialist,welder,builder,design,textured,textured effect,sharp,land vehicle,near.closed,security,
Enough said.

hali · « **Reply #90 on:** December 02, 2008, 19:52 »

Quote from: grp_photo on December 02, 2008, 15:52

Quote from: grandaded on December 02, 2008, 04:19
I just had a site mail on iStock saying that one of my images of a (rather well-endowed) bull had been modified with additional keywords; including "udder"!

That cheered me up a bit, after my worst month there this year ...
lol thats a nice one

i bet the bull is screaming , "that's Udder (utter) bull "

other comment: shank_ali "screw" is appropriate, because bolts and nuts, in some countries
those curly metallic things are called screws. thus, you use a screwdriver to screw them

pet_chia · « **Reply #91 on:** December 02, 2008, 22:32 »

Possibly one reason why people started spamming keywords is that they discovered that the so-called algorithms for recognizing synonyms and related terms don't work. I can't remember which file or which terms were involved, but I tried once to minimize keywords in order to avoid rejection. After the file was accepted I tried searching for it using synonymous or nearly synonymous terms and found that it didn't appear at all unless I used the exact keywords I had selected. Probably buyers are not always exactly precise in their searches so a little bit of looseness in keywording is called for.

This might explain why people would push the envelope a bit and add "screw" for what is technically a "bolt", in the above example. In my case I simply added a few more keywords after the fact to conform with what I was sure were the common words which English speaking buyers would likely use.

However this doesn't explain the ludicrous keywords like "land vehicle", "business", "one object", "carpenter", etc. which were added to the picture of a pile of nuts and bolts. I'm guessing that a buyer searching for those terms would be less than thrilled if a lot of junk like that cropped up.

I think it was Yuri who mentioned that his keywording is outsourced to India, then is polished in Australia. Why don't the microstock agencies do that? The contributors wouldn't need to specify any keywords, other than making suggestions and hints about pictures of obscure subjects or subtle concepts. It would be a lot easier to train and motivate dedicated specialists whose living depends on accuracy and utility of their keywords, rather than trying to depend on content providers who (up to a point) will make more money the more they can spam keywords to get their images in front of more eyes, or on image inspectors whose expertise is in graphic arts and not language.

Or, they could continue to have the keywords added by contributors, but subject them to review by dedicated keyword polishers. The contributors who require the fewest changes to their keywords would get a slightly higher commission because they cost the agency less money in making corrections.

hali · « **Reply #92 on:** December 03, 2008, 00:08 »

pet_chia, good points.
having the site providing keywords would also help to get an image sold.
it would not be uncommon for a good sellable image to be lost in the maze due to the lack of proper keywords. if that image is a good one, it would be to the site's profit to have it properly keyworded.
not everyone is good at keywording, it's certainly a skill. that explains Yuri's having them done by outsource and in 3 steps. but we do not have the luxury of such pro assistance, nor the financial capacity.
it certainly would be a great change, for the benefit of both parties, if keywords are left to the site, rather than the contributor.
if anything, it would put an end to spamming keywords.

shank_ali · « **Reply #93 on:** December 03, 2008, 02:19 »

I have just recently been able to use the search engine correctly to find my images.Alot of contributors do not give the buyers enough credit for this and not many come into the istock forum complaining.
I took a simple shot of a pair of socks on white background.Now if i just put "socks" into the search engine can you imagine how many pages the search engine would give me.A more refined search..."socks" "nobody" " white background" and the buyer gets two pages and my image with 5 sales appears on page one!

Valaaami · « **Reply #94 on:** December 03, 2008, 04:08 »

I asked their keyword guru in PM about the use of 'photography' and he said yes, photography should be used to separate illustrations from photos. It was two months ago but they still keep rejecting keywords like photograpy, color image... etc.

pancaketom · « **Reply #95 on:** December 03, 2008, 11:21 »

I think that there are a few problems with how IS search works that encourages spamming, or at least discourages what they describe as proper keywording.

Among these are the default keyword mapping. So (and this example is likely to be incorrect) if I search "border" looking for some sort of frame around a blank area but IS defaults to "border-national boundary", then by spamming a frame image as "border-national boundary" it will come up in the search, and if the buyer sees enough of the sorts of image they are looking for, they will search no further. Instead it should bring up all or none of the "border" images and ask for refinements.

IS also does a poor job of multiple word keywords, sometimes keeping them lumped together, sometimes splitting them - this can change on refining a search.

Often even knowing the keywords of an image it can be hard to find it, and the buyers don't have that luxury.

I do not pretend to be an expert at IS search, in fact I am lousy at it, but I bet plenty of people do low level default searches and as long as they get a number of images that appear to be what they are looking for, they just browse through a few pages of results not knowing that they are perhaps missing out on many more images.

Don't even get me started on all of the terms that aren't in the CV, or aren't in the CV for the meaning I mean.

It sounds from Shank_ali's example above like I should have 10-15 default keywords I put in every image (like nobody, photography, landscape (or portrait), color, etc. etc.), but then Valaaami is getting keyword rejections for just that.

I applaud IS for attempting to clear up the mess that is keywording, but they get a D for implementation.

bittersweet · « **Reply #96 on:** December 03, 2008, 11:24 »

Quote from: pancaketom on December 03, 2008, 11:21

Among these are the default keyword mapping. So (and this example is likely to be incorrect) if I search "border" looking for some sort of frame around a blank area but IS defaults to "border-national boundary", then by spamming a frame image as "border-national boundary" it will come up in the search, and if the buyer sees enough of the sorts of image they are looking for, they will search no further. Instead it should bring up all or none of the "border" images and ask for refinements.

This has been my biggest gripe with them for a long time now. No matter how many people beg and plead for them to ditch the default search, they just won't do it. And yes, I believe it is the number one incentive for which to spam.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: istock and keywords (Read 30323 times)

lagereek

lagereek

Tuilay

dbvirago

hali

Tuilay

bittersweet

Tuilay

bittersweet

dbvirago

bittersweet

CofkoCof

bittersweet

lagereek

jsnover

CofkoCof

bittersweet

bittersweet

lagereek

Tuilay

hali

bittersweet

Tuilay

hali

digiology

Tuilay

bittersweet

bittersweet

jsnover

Tuilay

shank_ali

shank_ali

lisafx

shank_ali

bittersweet

bittersweet

bittersweet

bittersweet

bittersweet

shank_ali

grp_photo

shank_ali

grp_photo

shank_ali

hali

hali

shank_ali

bittersweet

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors