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. 

We need to see the image.  Can't comment on the keywords without seeing the image.

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.

Quote from: cclapper on April 08, 2010, 09:26

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.

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? 

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.

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?

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.

Quote from: Gannet77 on April 08, 2010, 11:47

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.

Quote from: ShadySue on April 08, 2010, 13:29

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.

Quote from: ShadySue on April 08, 2010, 12:46

Quote from: KB on April 08, 2010, 12:07

Quote from: sjlocke on April 08, 2010, 10:50

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.