MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock rejection for keywords  (Read 4983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 15, 2007, 21:03 »
I just had an istock rejection for keywords not relevant. This is the first time I have had this. Please tell me if you think the keyword stated as being inappropriate really are inappropriate in your opinion.

The photo is a poker chip isolated on a white background. Keywords they said were no good are below.

cards, casino, casinos, gambler, leisure, money, strategy, vegas, winner, winning, win

« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2007, 21:19 »
i have had a couple of this. You need to delete those they say are not relevant and then resubmit

« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2007, 21:26 »
I agree with the rejection. I've wiki'ed most of the files just like yours that contain these keywords because they are spam.

1) If there are no cards in the photo then you shouldn't include cards.
2) If it is not a photo of a casino then casino is not appropriate (especially if your gambling chips aren't casino quality).
3) If there wasn't a person in the photo then gambler is not appropriate.
4) Was there actual money in the photo, if not then again not appropriate.
5) If there weren't people or even cards in the photo, then how does a photo of a chip convey "strategy".
6) If it's not a photo of vegas then vegas is not an appropriate keyword!
7) If it is just a chip, that doesn't show winner or winning or win.

Do you know how frustrating it is to try and buy a photo of vegas on iStock? It pissed me off enough to wiki every file that contains vegas and is not a photo of vegas. How is someone suppose to find a photo of an actual casino or a photo that is actually of vegas when every isolated photo of dice/cards/chips has the keywords "casino" and "vegas"?

So to answer your question, yes I think it is spam and I would have wiki'ed it the second I saw it. This is exactly the type of spam that makes it impossible to find photos on iStock.

« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2007, 21:40 »
This is exactly the type of spam that makes it impossible to find photos on iStock.
And in most sites in fact.  Even in BigStock, where you can't edit keywords, we see spamming that the inspectors didn't see.

I think however that there is a thin line between spamming and stretching, and sometimes it's difficult to judge. 


« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2007, 22:06 »
Well, that is why I am asking. I wasn't complaining about iStock. I guess I need to be careful about using existing photos on the site for keyword references.

« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2007, 23:58 »
Well, that is why I am asking. I wasn't complaining about iStock. I guess I need to be careful about using existing photos on the site for keyword references.
Not really. Your photo/photos would have been wiki'ed eventually because those keywords didn't belong. Have you tried the search for vegas? The only photos that are actually of vegas are of the "welcome to fabulous las vegas sign". You have to search through all the 2,000+ files to get the few photos that are actually of Las Vegas. The rest are spammed photos of dice, cards, etc.

The problem isn't unique to iStock, but at least iStock is beginning to deal with the problem.

« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2007, 04:04 »
The problem is is that originally (not neccessarily on IS) we were told to add as many keywords as possible and to include concept words etc.  Now istock is cutting back and only want keywords of what the actual item is.  A chip is a chip - it may symbolise the Vegas but it aint Vegas!

YY - the problem with getting a photo of vegas is the whole place is copywrite from what I understand.

« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2007, 06:09 »
I've wiki'ed most of the files just like yours that contain these keywords because they are spam.


Sorry, but I don't agree with your assessment.

1. I think that spam is a strong word for a case like this.  It's not like he used "sexy", "nude", and "business" as keywords.  IMO, usage of the word spam should be reserved for cases where the word obviously doesn't belong (such as using the word "sexy" for a photo of a church).  In this case, there is plenty of room for argument.

2. Photography is art.  Photography is not science.  As such, every person that views an image will describe it differently.  It is impossible to describe an image with scientific precision, and if you try to, then you are removing one of the most important elements from it - the art itself.

I think that iStock has gone overboard with their usage (or non-usage as the case may be) of keywords.  There are plenty of concept photos that are going to be ruined by the new rules.  For example, according to their rules, the word love should never be used in the keywords of ANY photo.  Why?  Because you can't see love.  It is something that you feel.  So to put the word love in ANY image would be against their own rules.  The same is true of all other feelings, such as beauty, anger, happiness, etc.

On top of that, there are many images that were specifically taken for a concept, but now will not be able to be sold for their original intent.  For example, I have a photo that I created specifically for a few concepts.

Here is the photo:

I created the photo for two concepts: the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross, and the medical industry.  As such, I used keywords that would describe those two concepts, because those concepts were the reason that I created the image in the first place.  But now, the image will be described as a red water drop.

Here are some of the words that were added to my image (as part of the Wiki process):

Concepts (Concepts & Topics), Digital Display (Text), Digitally Generated Image (Image Manipulation), Fine Art Portrait (Portrait), Representing (Non-moving Activity), Ideas (Concepts), Computer Graphic (Art Product), Vibrant Color (Color Intensity), Multi Colored (Descriptive Color), Vitality (Concepts), Color Image (Image Type), Horizontal (Composition), Close-up (Composition), Nobody (Image), Stationary (Non-moving Activity)

Multi Colored (Descriptive Color)?  What?  I only see one color in the photo - red.

Fine Art Portrait (Portrait)?  Huh?  What does this image have to do with Fine Art?

Digital Display (Text)? What does that even mean?

Vitality (Concepts)?  What were they on when they were looking at this photo?  How is this conceptual keyword any different than the conceptual keywords that I chose?

Stationary (Non-moving Activity)?  This is an image that shows movement if nothing else.

Digitally Generated Image (Image Manipulation)?  Sorry, but the image is a photo.  The only thing I did to the image was change the color.  The image was not digitally created.

So I don't think that the Wiki'd keywords are any better than the un-Wiki'd keywords, and in my opinion are worse.  But that is just my opinion.

3. The assumption that iStock makes is that buyers know exactly what they are looking for.  But in many instances, I have not found that to be the case.  Many buyers are small business owners, churches, non-profits, etc.  They are not professional designers that buy images for a living.  As such, they don't know exactly what they are looking for and can use help in finding an image.  Conceptual keywords can help with that.

There is an example given by someone that said that they had accidentally uploaded the same exact file twice (on iStock), but one of the files had many more keywords.  Well, the one with more keywords sold more times (by a large amount).  And many of the keywords were conceptual keywords.

I have found the same thing to be true of my images.  If I add conceptual keywords, then the image usually sells much better, by a large margin.

« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2007, 15:21 »

There are some "streched" senses that are very common, such as nearly every chocolate box image has "Valentine".  (off-topic: Mind you, here in Brazil giving chocolates to a boyfriend/girlfriend is almost offensive, because it a sort of "gift you give when you don't want to think about something really cool").

I agree concepts can be a problem.  I am working in an image of an empty chair that I think conveys the loss of someone dear, like a parent.  Putting the words "death", "loss" or "mourning" will really look odd, but I'll risk.

Nevertheless, one way to address this is to write more in the description.  Many sites use the description filed also, although I don't know if it is the case with IS.



Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
Last post October 20, 2006, 17:54
by GeoPappas
23 Replies
Last post November 03, 2007, 18:29
by hatman12
3 Replies
Last post April 21, 2008, 22:44
by anonymous
96 Replies
Last post December 03, 2008, 11:24
by bittersweet
2 Replies
Last post February 12, 2010, 04:26
by Opla


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle