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

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

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.