pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Keyword rejections vs. search engine  (Read 7358 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 08, 2010, 09:21 »
0
After another petty rejection from iStockphoto over keywords, I'm curious if the search engine picks up the words in a file's description as well as the keywords for the file.  This particular case was a fitness model carrying a yoga/pilates matt over her shoulder in a park.  The description labeled it as such, but iStock rejected the keywords yoga, pilates and relaxation exercise.  Did the reviewer just not know what that is? 

If the search engine would pick up Yoga and Pilates from the description there is little harm done, but if not the rejection, in my opinion, misses the point--the point being helping creatives find images that are relevant to the subject matter they are searching for.


« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2010, 09:26 »
0
If the person isn't actually doing yoga, relaxation exercises or pilates, then I can see where they would be rejected. If the fitness model is walking in the park with a yoga mat, then the keywords would be fitness, woman, girl, park, mat (or maybe yoga mat), walking. Something like that. IMHO.

If I did a search for yoga, expecting to see people doing yoga, I would think that your photo should not be there. Walking isn't really yoga.  :)

« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2010, 09:32 »
0
But a yoga mat IS a yoga mat.

« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2010, 09:35 »
0
We need to see the image.  Can't comment on the keywords without seeing the image.

« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2010, 09:44 »
0
If the person isn't actually doing yoga, relaxation exercises or pilates, then I can see where they would be rejected. If the fitness model is walking in the park with a yoga mat, then the keywords would be fitness, woman, girl, park, mat (or maybe yoga mat), walking. Something like that. IMHO.

If I did a search for yoga, expecting to see people doing yoga, I would think that your photo should not be there. Walking isn't really yoga.  :)

Well, going by that logic, there would be no non-active shots found on a search with the keyword yoga or pilates and that is simply not the case. I made those specific searches on iStock and found several non-active shots--I even found a shot of a mat and ball alone with no person than came up in the search.  I also found several images of activities that are specifically not related to yoga or pilates (possibly one would only know that with specific either).

« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2010, 09:46 »
0
We need to see the image.  Can't comment on the keywords without seeing the image.

Well actually you could.  The question was whether words in the description are picked up by the search engine.

« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2010, 09:51 »
0
We need to see the image.  Can't comment on the keywords without seeing the image.

Well actually you could.  The question was whether words in the description are picked up by the search engine.

That wasn't the only question:
"This particular case was a fitness model carrying a yoga/pilates matt over her shoulder in a park.  The description labeled it as such, but iStock rejected the keywords yoga, pilates and relaxation exercise.  Did the reviewer just not know what that is? "

To comment on whether the keywords were appropriate for the image, we would need to see the image.

« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2010, 10:04 »
0
If the person isn't actually doing yoga, relaxation exercises or pilates, then I can see where they would be rejected. If the fitness model is walking in the park with a yoga mat, then the keywords would be fitness, woman, girl, park, mat (or maybe yoga mat), walking. Something like that. IMHO.

If I did a search for yoga, expecting to see people doing yoga, I would think that your photo should not be there. Walking isn't really yoga.  :)

Well, going by that logic, there would be no non-active shots found on a search with the keyword yoga or pilates and that is simply not the case. I made those specific searches on iStock and found several non-active shots--I even found a shot of a mat and ball alone with no person than came up in the search.  I also found several images of activities that are specifically not related to yoga or pilates (possibly one would only know that with specific either).

Yes, you will find images using my logic still on istock. The rules for keywords used to be much more relaxed than they are now. There are tons of images with all kinds of wrong keywords. The game has changed.

The photographer knows that the mat that the person is carrying is a yoga or pilates mat, but if the mat is rolled up, how can one tell? What Sean said...it would help to see the photo.

If the OP wants to know the specifics of the keyword rejections and why, the best place to ask is IS.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 10:07 by cclapper »

« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2010, 10:27 »
0
And in answer to the other part of your question, no, words in the title and description are not included in the keywords.

iStock have a controlled multi-lingual vocabulary and it doesn't work that way - however, words in the title and description would presumably be indexed by Google so the image may be found like that.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 10:29 by Gannet77 »

« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2010, 10:35 »
0
This is the image I was referring to (low-res, straight from RAW w/ no retouch or adjust):
http://www.danhowell.com/Darlene_Gallery/images/DarleneH_099.jpg

However, my main question was to ask if title and description words were caught in the search engine. 

re. Gannet77 does that mean ONLY keywords work in the search engine? 

« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2010, 10:50 »
0
Yes, only keywords are used in the search engine.

BTW, I agree with the keyword removals.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2010, 11:08 »
0
But a yoga mat IS a yoga mat.
The OP said that they had the keyword 'yoga' removed, [which IMO with the others they mentioned and the description of the imges, were correct removals] not 'yoga mat'.
If I had a picture of (just) a saddle, would it be correct to put 'horse' or 'horse riding'?
(The correct answer is 'no'.)
Even if there were a person carrying the saddle (walking to/from the stable), 'horse riding' would hardly be appropriate.
@OP, there is a keywords forum at iStock where as well as other contributers sticking in their tuppence'orth, members of the Keywords team, like emyerson and Ducksandwich chip in regularly.
@OP2 - the fact that bad keywords were accepted in the past doesn't mean that we should continue bad practice. They're being cleaned up, but there are so many images that it will take a long time.
If you want to help, you can wiki individual files, or make suggestions for bulk wikis in the sticky thread at the top of the keywording forum.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 12:04 by ShadySue »

« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2010, 11:47 »
0
This is the image I was referring to (low-res, straight from RAW w/ no retouch or adjust):
http://www.danhowell.com/Darlene_Gallery/images/DarleneH_099.jpg

However, my main question was to ask if title and description words were caught in the search engine. 

re. Gannet77 does that mean ONLY keywords work in the search engine? 


As sjlocke says, yes, only the actual keywords are used in the search engine, as far as I am aware.

And although "yoga", "pilates" or whatever don't seem appropriate to me either for that image, there is a keyword in the CV for "yoga mat" which disambiguates to "exercise mat" and I would think that would be OK.

KB

« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2010, 12:07 »
0
Yes, only keywords are used in the search engine.
Strange, then, that IS doesn't allow us to repeat a word (even common words such as "the" or "in") in the title. That one trips me up every so often. Sometimes I have to abbreviate a word just to get it in the title. I wonder if it's related to Google search?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2010, 12:46 »
0
Yes, only keywords are used in the search engine.
Strange, then, that IS doesn't allow us to repeat a word (even common words such as "the" or "in") in the title. That one trips me up every so often. Sometimes I have to abbreviate a word just to get it in the title. I wonder if it's related to Google search?
Nope, it's to prevent keyword spamming (that was explained by Ethan (IIRC) some time ago in relation to someone asking about a photo about apple slices and an apple pie, but they couldn't have apple twice. IMC, my problems are with e.g. Crex crex or Puffinus puffinus. But I learned from another that if you put Crex-crex it'll be read as Crex crex by Google.

« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2010, 13:16 »
0

As sjlocke says, yes, only the actual keywords are used in the search engine, as far as I am aware.

And although "yoga", "pilates" or whatever don't seem appropriate to me either for that image, there is a keyword in the CV for "yoga mat" which disambiguates to "exercise mat" and I would think that would be OK.

They also bounced 'healthy lifestyle' and 'recreational pursuit' on the same image.  To me, those are pretty broad terms which the image falls within.

« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2010, 13:22 »
0
BTW, I agree with the keyword removals.

Same here. You could have used 'Exercise mat' which is in the CV and appropriate to the image.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2010, 13:29 »
0

As sjlocke says, yes, only the actual keywords are used in the search engine, as far as I am aware.

And although "yoga", "pilates" or whatever don't seem appropriate to me either for that image, there is a keyword in the CV for "yoga mat" which disambiguates to "exercise mat" and I would think that would be OK.

They also bounced 'healthy lifestyle' and 'recreational pursuit' on the same image.  To me, those are pretty broad terms which the image falls within.
Going by your description only (which is all we have to go on, as we can't see the image, hint, hint) the latter two would probably pass most inspectors. However, it only needs one wrong keyword to fail an inspection if you aren't exclusive.
Your best bet would be to post the image and the removed words to the keywording forum on iStock for more formal evaluation before you resubmit.

« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2010, 13:36 »
0

Going by your description only (which is all we have to go on, as we can't see the image, hint, hint)


the image was linked above:
http://www.danhowell.com/Darlene_Gallery/images/DarleneH_099.jpg

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2010, 14:00 »
0

Going by your description only (which is all we have to go on, as we can't see the image, hint, hint)


the image was linked above:
http://www.danhowell.com/Darlene_Gallery/images/DarleneH_099.jpg

Oh, sorry, I missed it.
The thing is, it needs some prior knowledge. If you'd just shown me the photo without any other info and asked me what it was, I'd have said it was a girl about to do some sunbathing on a beach. In that photo, I wouldn't know the difference between an karrimat equivalent and a yoga/exercise mat. Maybe that's just me.
See http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=197171&page=1, where the photographer had more knowledge about an image than the viewers.

« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2010, 16:10 »
0
Yes, only keywords are used in the search engine.

Strange, then, that IS doesn't allow us to repeat a word (even common words such as "the" or "in") in the title. That one trips me up every so often. Sometimes I have to abbreviate a word just to get it in the title. I wonder if it's related to Google search?

Nope, it's to prevent keyword spamming (that was explained by Ethan (IIRC) some time ago in relation to someone asking about a photo about apple slices and an apple pie, but they couldn't have apple twice. IMC, my problems are with e.g. Crex crex or Puffinus puffinus. But I learned from another that if you put Crex-crex it'll be read as Crex crex by Google.



I find it almost impossible to give correct names to the species my husbands uploads to Istock. How do you get species names through the mill? I tried to give the name Torbay sole as a keyword to a flounder, but that species is not listed, only six American types of flounder.
Then I try to use the keyword minke whale to some whale beefs (since that is the only whale species Norwegians  hunt and eat, and therefore relevant for someone searching for that type of whale meat.) But no; I have to choose dwarf minke whale, even though that is not completely correct. 
And now we got a reject for the keyword atrium in the picture of a heart. The only choices are atrium (human heart), and atrium (house). Since it is a swine heart, both are incorrect.

The flounder: http://scanstockphoto.com/comps/6/comp842761.JPG

The whale meat: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12113720

The heart http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_490/1269889070dsfNh6.jpg

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2010, 16:33 »
0
Yes, only keywords are used in the search engine.
Strange, then, that IS doesn't allow us to repeat a word (even common words such as "the" or "in") in the title. That one trips me up every so often. Sometimes I have to abbreviate a word just to get it in the title. I wonder if it's related to Google search?
Nope, it's to prevent keyword spamming (that was explained by Ethan (IIRC) some time ago in relation to someone asking about a photo about apple slices and an apple pie, but they couldn't have apple twice. IMC, my problems are with e.g. Crex crex or Puffinus puffinus. But I learned from another that if you put Crex-crex it'll be read as Crex crex by Google.
I find it almost impossible to give correct names to the species my husbands uploads to Istock. How do you get species names through the mill? I tried to give the name Torbay sole as a keyword to a flounder, but that species is not listed, only six American types of flounder.
Then I try to use the keyword minke whale to some whale beefs (since that is the only whale species Norwegians  hunt and eat, and therefore relevant for someone searching for that type of whale meat.) But no; I have to choose dwarf minke whale, even though that is not completely correct. 
And now we got a reject for the keyword atrium in the picture of a heart. The only choices are atrium (human heart), and atrium (house). Since it is a swine heart, both are incorrect.

Hmmm.
This is just my opinion - Torbay Sole isn't in the Controlled Vocabulary, but if you type it in, you can 'add it for your own use' by clicking on the blue text to the right of the word "Torbay Sole is unknown ..." This means that the phrase will turn up in English only (which is probably OK for your needs) provided that a searcher knows to search on "Torbay Sole". I'd also add its scientific name Glyptocephalus cynoglossus to the keywords.
The whale meat: Hmmm. There are a lot of oddities in the Natural History part of the CV - I'd have thought that Minke Whales were more common, though very difficult to photograph. I think you should put 'whale meat' in 'for your own use' (as well as whale [1] and meat as you have), and perhaps ask Keywords to add Minke Whale to the CV. Though it could take months if there isn't much call for the term. I wonder how many people would specifcally look for a photo of Minke Whale Meat.
[1] There's also an argument that 'whale' shouldn't be one of the keywords, as there isn't an actual whale in the photo - one of my regular wikis is of plates of cooked duck keyworded 'duck(fresh water bird)', but then there is a DA for duck (white meat).
The good news is that 'animal heart' is in iStock's CV. (animal face isn't, which is a pain if you're doing animal portraits). I guess they wouldn't add animal atrium to the CV, as there won't be much call for it, and because hearts have atriums, so it's kinda expected.

« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2010, 03:54 »
0
Thank you Sue, I will try to find how one can "add for own use". I do agree that "whale" is borderline for that picture, but when "whale - food" is not available, it is the second best option.

The reason I find "heart - atrium" to be an important keyword for that picture, is that there are so few other pictures showing a section through a real heart, where you can see the different chambers and valves. Since the pig heart is so similar to the human, it could also be used to illustrate a human heart.

I do not understand why atrium should be limited to human heart. It would have been easier to limit it to only atrium - heart. If you search for atrium - human heart, the only picture that really shows the atriums is one illustration.

As for species names:  it would have been better to have no species names in the vocabulary, and a spesial box for entering the latin and common name. Or they should add ALL known species into the vocabulary. As it is now, they are almost asking people to mislabel.
With the whales, they could have limited it to the genus. There are not a lot of buyers that need the dwarf minke, and can't use the "normal" minke. And those few people are perfectly capable of browsing the 6 available pictures to find the correct subspecies.

The biggest problem with the controlled vocabulary is that it is too detailed, with too many holes. If it was less detailed it would be easier to do the keywording correctly.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
6606 Views
Last post October 11, 2006, 09:30
by Striker77s
11 Replies
5442 Views
Last post October 19, 2006, 11:59
by CJPhoto
3 Replies
3821 Views
Last post April 20, 2008, 12:03
by jsnover
11 Replies
4064 Views
Last post August 30, 2013, 07:16
by ShazamImages
6 Replies
3794 Views
Last post November 13, 2013, 21:02
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle