pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Controlled vocabulary or uncontrolled idiocy?  (Read 6348 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 23, 2009, 23:20 »
0
I'm sure that many of you know that I'm not a big fan of the CV on IS...

As a result, I'm VERY careful with keywords there.

However, I'd like everyone's input on the following situation:



The image above was rejected by IS for the following keywords:

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

{[ Coin Bank (Financial Item),  Banking,  Business,  Finance,  Finance, Investment,  Savings (Financial Item),  Investment (Finance),  Isolated (Cut Out),  Retirement,  Retirement]}


I've already used my 3 scout requests (all files accepted after scout, BTW) for the month.


« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2009, 00:12 »
0
Maybe they didn't see the piggy on the gentleman's hands... :D  IS is soooo strange at times!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2009, 01:53 »
0
IMHO, most of these keywords are not directly relevant to your image.
However, if you post on the Keywords forum at iStock with your image and the rejected keywords you'll get peer opinion and if you're lucky, a detalled official breakdown from emyerson or ducksandwich from the keywords team.

« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2009, 05:54 »
0
all those keywords are pretty much fine from the buyers perspective all those keywords are spot on. From a business point of view you want to tailor your keywords to the buyer, honestly and accurately
 
I think in microstock people lose site of this and that is why your image got rejected, photographs are conceptual as they are literal, poorly educated people would say that these keywords are not relevant, yet most are conceptual and have no physical presence in the image.



« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2009, 06:02 »
0
I'm pretty sure istock's 'literal' policy is a direct response to the complaints of buyers who don't want to see large numbers of images in a search result that they don't consider relevant to the search term. Frustrated searchers = lost customers. Maybe istock has an unusually large percentage of literal minded buyers compared with other sites, or maybe they're just more vocal.

« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2009, 06:03 »
0
A critique on the image that might help the keywording is to use a larger bank next time.  The bank is so minute compared to his size that it is almost insignificant.  Or have him hold it to the camera, or something.

Xalanx

« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2009, 06:22 »
0
A critique on the image that might help the keywording is to use a larger bank next time.  The bank is so minute compared to his size that it is almost insignificant.  Or have him hold it to the camera, or something.

That's exactly what I wanted to say, too. You have 2 main subjects and one of them is really dwarfed by the big guy.

« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2009, 07:56 »
0
I'm sure that many of you know that I'm not a big fan of the CV on IS...

As a result, I'm VERY careful with keywords there.

However, I'd like everyone's input on the following situation:



The image above was rejected by IS for the following keywords:

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

{[ Coin Bank (Financial Item),  Banking,  Business,  Finance,  Finance, Investment,  Savings (Financial Item),  Investment (Finance),  Isolated (Cut Out),  Retirement,  Retirement]}


I've already used my 3 scout requests (all files accepted after scout, BTW) for the month.


Coin Bank, Saving, Isolated are all good the others are iffy at best.  +2 for what Sean said, and you'd be better off taking this over to the istock keyword forum.

« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2009, 09:15 »
0
A critique on the image that might help the keywording is to use a larger bank next time.  The bank is so minute compared to his size that it is almost insignificant.  Or have him hold it to the camera, or something.

That's exactly what I wanted to say, too. You have 2 main subjects and one of them is really dwarfed by the big guy.

So its not ok to use " basket " in a hot air baloon image, cause the basket are tiny compared to the baloon  ??? 

KB

« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2009, 09:41 »
0
A critique on the image that might help the keywording is to use a larger bank next time.  The bank is so minute compared to his size that it is almost insignificant.  Or have him hold it to the camera, or something.
That's odd, because my eyes seem to naturally leap to the bank, due to its bright color against the dark blue suit. As best as I can tell, my eyes first see the man's face, and the next instant they move right to the bank.

« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2009, 10:14 »
0
All I can think of is that the reviewer didn't see the bank - no other explanation makes sense.    

IS has to be losing a lot of concept and object images because contibutors can't get them past the CV.  


I'm baffled by this.  If you can't add 'concept' keywords, does that mean -
  - IS doesn't want concept images?
  - you can only add them if the image absolutely screams 'concept' ?
  - IS will automatically add 'concept' keywords themselves, based on your keywords which just literally describe the images?
  - IS has just created a big ball of confusion for everyone?
  - the only 'concepts' they want are the ones listed in their pathetic set of Categories?


« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 10:32 by stockastic »

« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2009, 10:38 »
0
I agree the bank thing is a mistake.  However this image does not conceptually say banking or retirement to me, although there are images where a man and a coin bank could show that concept.  This is a guy holding a piggy bank.

« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2009, 10:53 »
0
this image does not conceptually say banking or retirement to me...

But it does to me, and to some other people too. So you've added another possibility to my list:

- you can add conceptual keywords BUT if the reviewer doesn't think the concept is sufficiently clear and strong, they'll be rejected


Which of my choices reflect(s) IStock's actual policy?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 11:05 by stockastic »

« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2009, 10:59 »
0
Thanks for the input!

I agree that "retirement" may be stretching, but I still believe that the other keywords are relevant. I only included that word because so many other piggy bank images have used it and are available for sale there.

I have no desire to participate in the forum at IS... As this is just one of many examples of how CV affects acceptance of images, I'm afraid that my temper might get the best of me sometimes, so I don't want to vent over there for fear of repercussions.

There were many other photos from that shoot, so it's not that big of a deal, but I just wanted to see what everyone else thought.

Thanks!

« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2009, 12:11 »
0
This really doesn't have anything to do with the cv unless you wanted to say something else, buy banking was as close as you could get.  This is about istock trying to keep a tight keyword set.

« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2009, 12:15 »
0
This really doesn't have anything to do with the cv unless you wanted to say something else, buy banking was as close as you could get.

Ummm.... huh?


This is about istock trying to keep a tight keyword set.

What's the advantage of a "tight" keyword set? I see the advantage of accurate keywords, but not a small set per se.


« Reply #16 on: September 24, 2009, 13:53 »
0
IS and all the other agencies really needs two sets of keywords for images - Literal and conceptual, then add the ability to search via either set. Problem solved.

I recently had a TON of shots rejected for some really non sense keyword reasons, and not surprisingly, the invisible artifacts and imaginary photo filters only IS reviewers can see.

« Reply #17 on: September 24, 2009, 14:12 »
0
How about this: if the reviewer thinks the shot is good and would sell, but doesn't accept the contributor's keyword chioices, he/she should go ahead and keyword it themselves as they see fit.  If IS doesn't trust contributors to add conceptual keywords, then they should at least trust their reviewers.  I'd be happy to accept their keyword choices in most cases. If not, I could appeal.  If the shot has sales potential it should be worth a minute of the reviewer's time to add whatever keywords are acceptable to IS.

What they have now is a system I call NGA,  meaning "No - Guess Again."


« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2009, 15:04 »
0
IS has introduced a method for buyers to use focused vs general search with their keyword relevance slider in the member control panel (when best match 2.0 was introduced). I hoped they would allow more conceptual keywords after this, as literal buyers could easily avoid them. Doesn't seem to have happened though.

« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2009, 15:28 »
0
This really doesn't have anything to do with the cv unless you wanted to say something else, buy banking was as close as you could get.
Ummm.... huh?

Sorry, I meant "but" not "buy".  As in "I'm complaining about the CV because I wanted to put XXXXX, but the system disambiguates it to YYYYY, which isn't what I mean at all".  So this is not a rant about the CV, since I'm assuming he actually did mean "banking" and "retirement", but more that iStock's review of his keywords did not meet his liking.

« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2009, 16:12 »
0
I understand that the keywords in question were in fact in the CV, but were not allowed for this image. So in that sense yes, we are not complaining about the lack of keywords in the CV, although that's a separate issue.  What we are (or I am) complaining about is that there doesn't seem to be a clear sense of whether IS wants or accepts conceptual keywords at all.


« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2009, 18:51 »
0
Sorry that I wasn't more clear to begin with... I did mean this thread to be a general rant about IS keyword policies, not the CV, which is a whole different issue. Thanks for pointing that out Sean.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
28 Replies
10904 Views
Last post January 22, 2010, 23:43
by crazychristina
9 Replies
5280 Views
Last post April 09, 2011, 03:33
by ShadySue
2 Replies
2503 Views
Last post March 25, 2014, 20:31
by ShadySue
2 Replies
2544 Views
Last post February 24, 2017, 03:16
by Harvepino
195 Replies
47601 Views
Last post July 31, 2018, 20:05
by obj owl

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors