Author Topic: Keyword wiki - is it possible to complain? (Read 18799 times)

madelaide · « **on:** August 15, 2007, 20:33 »

I have just received an email saying:

Quote

This is just to let you know that some of your keywords have been modified. The keyword wiki allows members to suggest changes to an image's keywords. Our team agreed with the suggestion in this case. The keyword change was to your file 'Bowl of granola'.

The list of words that were added to your list:
Isolated On White (Isolated), Copy Space (Composition), Grained (Textured)

The list of words that were removed from your list:
Corn Flakes (Cereal), low cal (Un-placed Synonyms), Low (Descriptive Position), Inch (Imperial), Unhealthy Eating (Food And Drink), Corn (Vegetable), flakes (Un-placed Synonyms), Oatmeal (Oat), Macro (Close-up), Horizontal (Composition)

"Grained texture"? Did they remove "Corn Flakes" and "Oatmeal", which are there? "Corn" and "flakes" separately I understand and agree (it must have been a split from "corn flakes" that I haven't corrected well). "Low" and "Unhealthy eating" come from "Low fat", which was also split. "Low cal" I suggested long ago to be added to the CV. And isn't that a "Macro" shot? I use horizontal/vertical in all my images. I can't figure out how "inch" got there, I suppose it was some other combined keyword "xxx in yyy" which was also split.

Any experiences in sending Scout a message (and wait wait wait) about this?

Regards,
Adelaide

yingyang0 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 15, 2007, 23:45 »

Well you contact the admin 'keywords', who's real name is Jordan I believe, if you are going to complain. However, I don't think Jordan will over rule this one. It's not corn flakes or oatmeal. The photo doesn't show low (position), unhealthy eating, corn, or macro. Nor is it a horizontal composition.

Disclaimer: I didn't wiki your file (nor would I for such nit-picky things).

Edited to say, do you think that the removed keywords will actually hurt your sales of that photo? Someone who's looking for oatmeal probably wants a photo of oatmeal, not a bowl of granola. Just a thought

fotografer · « **Reply #2 on:** August 16, 2007, 03:58 »

I agree completely with yingyang0, I don't think that you have a case to get those keywords put back.

madelaide · « **Reply #3 on:** August 16, 2007, 16:34 »

Well, I eat that granola everyday, and I know there are "corn flakes" and "oatmeal" in there.

Other words, as I said, were originally composed words - I think I didn't make it clear (despite the "I understand and agree") that I wasn't complaining about those, only explaining why they were there, so you wouldn't think I was spamming. But I don't agree with you about "macro" and "horizontal".

I often email Jordan when I see problems in CV, unfortunately I don't see keywords I suggest being added, even valid ones. Can't you imagine someone typing "low fat food"? But "low fat" isn't in CV. You can find some images in the search, but if you see their keywords, you will see "low" and "fat" separately. It's hard to imagine a salad with "fat" as a valid keyword.

Regards,
Adelaide

yingyang0 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 16, 2007, 18:06 »

Well I'm a honey bunches of oats man myself, and I'm sure that there are corn flakes and oatmeal in there. However, from the clients and istock's point of view a search for corn flakes or oatmeal should not return your image because that's not what they're looking for. If they're looking for cereal in general or specifically for granola, then yours will still turn up (I'm assuming you have that as a keyword). However, someone that types in oatmeal or corn flakes is not looking for a photo of granola. I really feel that the changes won't have an effect on your sales of that photo (and that's what it is all about).

As for low fat food, the CV does contain healthy eating (and low fat maps to healthy eating, i.e. a search for "low fat" returns the same result as "healthy eating").

sharply_done · « **Reply #5 on:** August 16, 2007, 20:09 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on August 16, 2007, 18:06

As for low fat food, the CV does contain healthy eating (and low fat maps to healthy eating, i.e. a search for "low fat" returns the same result as "healthy eating").

True, but you'll only get there if you enter the search phrase in quotation marks - a more intuitive search using low fat or low calorie would have found her image, whereas now it won't.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 16, 2007, 20:39 »

Quote from: sharply_done on August 16, 2007, 20:09

Quote from: yingyang0 on August 16, 2007, 18:06
As for low fat food, the CV does contain healthy eating (and low fat maps to healthy eating, i.e. a search for "low fat" returns the same result as "healthy eating").

True, but you'll only get there if you enter the search phrase in quotation marks - a more intuitive search using low fat or low calorie would have found her image, whereas now it won't.

The "beta" search returned the same result without quotation marks. Just thought I'd point out the value of the beta search tool.

madelaide · « **Reply #7 on:** July 08, 2008, 21:54 »

Keyword "rose (temperate flower)" was removed.

Also "copy space" and rosebud, plus some stretches such as passion and valentine's day, which however appear in many many images, so mine get in disadvantage.

I opened a contact ticket, but it takes so long...

Regards,
Adelaide

DanP68 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 08, 2008, 23:44 »

It's just another one of iStock's "great ideas." Turning the community against each other. And you can tell the admin isn't actually looking at the picture, they are just hitting "okay." I mean, why would they remove the word "rose" when it's a freaking rose? I also guarantee you there are a lot more independent contributors being wiki'd than there are exclusives.

I have to say that every time I see this stuff, I get a little more sick of microstock. It seems like kindergarten run amok. I cannot imagine this stuff goes on in the RM world.

nativelight · « **Reply #9 on:** July 09, 2008, 09:22 »

Quote from: DanP68 on July 08, 2008, 23:44

It's just another one of iStock's "great ideas." Turning the community against each other. And you can tell the admin isn't actually looking at the picture, they are just hitting "okay." I mean, why would they remove the word "rose" when it's a freaking rose? I also guarantee you there are a lot more independent contributors being wiki'd than there are exclusives.

I have to say that every time I see this stuff, I get a little more sick of microstock. It seems like kindergarten run amok. I cannot imagine this stuff goes on in the RM world.

Well said! The management of the micro sites seems to becoming more and more amateurish. It's especially true when it comes to how they interact with their contributors. They treat us like children. I'm assuming this doesn't happen to exclusives or at least to the same degree as it happens to the rest of us peons.

fotografer · « **Reply #10 on:** July 09, 2008, 09:38 »

I had the word children taken out of what was my best selling image of a group of children. I put it straight back in as I didn't want to waste days of sales while they sorted it out. If there had of been any doubt about the keyword then I would have sent off to 'keywords' to get it put back but if I was asked to give a priority order to my keywords on that image my first word would be children.

nativelight · « **Reply #11 on:** July 09, 2008, 09:43 »

So who is it that's reviewing these images and changing the keywords? Is anyone allowed to do it? How can they get away with removing the word children from an image of children? What if someone is doing that to a best selling image to reduce competition of their own images? Is there no way to complain without waiting weeks? Sounds to me like they're allowing the fox into the chicken coop!

Anegada · « **Reply #12 on:** July 09, 2008, 10:33 »

Quote from: madelaide on July 08, 2008, 21:54

Keyword "rose (temperate flower)" was removed.

Also "copy space" and rosebud, plus some stretches such as passion and valentine's day, which however appear in many many images, so mine get in disadvantage.

I opened a contact ticket, but it takes so long...

Regards,
Adelaide

This is ridicolus. A rose is a rose. And even Valentines Day seems to be ok for me. You would not be able to shoot "a" Valentines Day, same like "Easter" or "Spring" What most of our images show are synonymes for these things. Of course an easter-bunny "is" not easter. But it symbolizes easter as well as a rose means "love"

And it is not the case , that every buyer always exactly types in the keyword for what he is looking for. He might just play around to get the right idea. Let's say he wants to created a valentines card and is not yet sure if it should show a heart, two people or a rose or whatever. So he might search for "Valentines Day" and will end up with a photo that shows a rose and a bottle of champagne that perfectly illustrates what he wants to express. An image, that he would never have found if it wouldn't have the keyword "Valentines Day"

Of course, keyword spamming is not ok, but beeing too picky is just time consuming and doesn't do any good.

Sorry for my english...

tan510jomast · « **Reply #13 on:** July 09, 2008, 10:42 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on August 15, 2007, 23:45

Well you contact the admin 'keywords', who's real name is Jordan I believe, if you are going to complain. However, I don't think Jordan will over rule this one. It's not corn flakes or oatmeal. ...

as much as i think that is a good image you have there, (congrats),
i have to agree with yingyang0.
when i first started, i uploaded to some sites a product shot of the indian specialty dish " chicken korma" , and learning from other published product shots there, i added extraneous words like they did ( ingredient, spice, herb, sauce, indian, garlic,etc).
i later realise that was irrelevant and accounts for keyword spamming.
also, i got lots of views but no sales. perharps many were expecting
to find an indian

a lesson to myself, just because someone who has been there longest
does wrong and keyword spam, does not make it right, or even beneficial, for a newbie to ape.
sometimes, less is more.

PenelopeB · « **Reply #14 on:** July 09, 2008, 10:48 »

Somebody took my picture of a dog sitting on grass (nothing else in the shot) - took out the word "dog" (ok??)
and replaced it with "mixed breed"

The dog is one of those Chihauhau/Pomeranian crosses. What if you don't know what kind of dog you want?

Search dog and see what comes up.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #15 on:** July 09, 2008, 10:59 »

Quote from: PenelopeB on July 09, 2008, 10:48

Somebody took my picture of a dog sitting on grass (nothing else in the shot) - took out the word "dog" (ok??)
and replaced it with "mixed breed"

The dog is one of those Chihauhau/Pomeranian crosses. What if you don't know what kind of dog you want?

Search dog and see what comes up.

once again, allow me to make an educated guess, PenelopeB

i think the reviewer found dog to be too general.

i did lots of spamming in my early days, and still find that all i got was lots of views no sales. but the ones i went back in to edit to 7 or 8 keywords, now are recording sales with numbers like these:
2 sales, 5 views. 1 sale 2 views. 1 sub, 2 sales , 7 views.

so there is some sense to not mislead the visitors. the danger here is
that these might stop coming to your site if there were too many false alarms. if you know what i mean.

cheers. let's hope for better sales with more accurate keywording...
for all of us.

nativelight · « **Reply #16 on:** July 09, 2008, 11:08 »

Quote from: tan510jomast on July 09, 2008, 10:59

Quote from: PenelopeB on July 09, 2008, 10:48
Somebody took my picture of a dog sitting on grass (nothing else in the shot) - took out the word "dog" (ok??)
and replaced it with "mixed breed"

The dog is one of those Chihauhau/Pomeranian crosses. What if you don't know what kind of dog you want?

Search dog and see what comes up.

once again, allow me to make an educated guess, PenelopeB
i think the reviewer found dog to be too general.

Too general? I don't agree with that statement at all. What if a designer just needs a picture of a dog - no specific breed. Wouldn't they search on the term "dog?"

vonkara · « **Reply #17 on:** July 09, 2008, 11:09 »

Wow, it's going crazy out there.

Recently I haved images rejected for keywords and just re-uploaded it whitout the keywords they wasn't want. That was never happened before, but it's ok. Now if they review even the old pictures? At least they make the change for us! But then it could be a bad thing also.

PenelopeB · « **Reply #18 on:** July 09, 2008, 11:23 »

Quote from: tan510jomast on July 09, 2008, 10:59

Quote from: PenelopeB on July 09, 2008, 10:48
Somebody took my picture of a dog sitting on grass (nothing else in the shot) - took out the word "dog" (ok??)
and replaced it with "mixed breed"

The dog is one of those Chihauhau/Pomeranian crosses. What if you don't know what kind of dog you want?

Search dog and see what comes up.

once again, allow me to make an educated guess, PenelopeB
i think the reviewer found dog to be too general.

i did lots of spamming in my early days, and still find that all i got was lots of views no sales. but the ones i went back in to edit to 7 or 8 keywords, now are recording sales with numbers like these:
2 sales, 5 views. 1 sale 2 views. 1 sub, 2 sales , 7 views.

Are you saying that calling a dog a dog is spamming?

So I could not call a woman a woman, or a tree a tree?

Ok... i'm done here - bye bye!

jsnover · « **Reply #19 on:** July 09, 2008, 12:05 »

Quote from: PenelopeB on July 09, 2008, 10:48

Somebody took my picture of a dog sitting on grass (nothing else in the shot) - took out the word "dog" (ok??)
and replaced it with "mixed breed"

The dog is one of those Chihauhau/Pomeranian crosses. What if you don't know what kind of dog you want?

Search dog and see what comes up.

Of course it's great to have the breed, but having the keyword dog is essential. If I search for black dog or brown dog or small dog because I don't care about mixed breed or specific breed, why should I not get useful results.

I used to advocate going through the process to get the keywords added back in (although that never worked) but honestly at this point I think that just adding in the ones that make obvious sense is the only thing to do.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #20 on:** July 09, 2008, 12:41 »

I am sure many of us have had our keywords or even description and category omitted by a reviewer.
But vonkara is right, it's getting more usual these days.
Oh well, I guess the best thing to do is to give the reviewers the benefit of the doubt. After all, they're the editors.
Me? I just keeping shooting and keep submitting.

vphoto · « **Reply #21 on:** July 09, 2008, 12:54 »

Quote from: tan510jomast on July 09, 2008, 12:41

I am sure many of us have had our keywords or even description and category omitted by a reviewer.
But vonkara is right, it's getting more usual these days.
Oh well, I guess the best thing to do is to give the reviewers the benefit of the doubt. After all, they're the editors.
Me? I just keeping shooting and keep submitting.

Just shooting and submitting may be not enough nowadays. I think the market for images is oversaturated already and only people with PS skills and talented illustrators can hope to make real money from microstock. I think also that people with established portfolios may not be loosing much due to oversaturation since customers return.

nativelight · « **Reply #22 on:** July 09, 2008, 13:48 »

This keyword thing is getting ridiculous. I have an email from IS that these terms were removed from an aerial view of Manhattan:

Paris Metro Train (Subway Train), Paris Metro Sign (Subway Sign), Subway Station (Station), Chaos (Concepts)

Well yes, that makes perfect sense to remove those words since it isn't Paris or anything to do with a subway! What I'd like to know is how those words got on my image in the first place! I don't keyword spam - never have, never will. I've never even been to Paris!!

jsnover · « **Reply #23 on:** July 09, 2008, 15:15 »

I think the way that you can get some oddball terms on your images - that you didn't put there - is when they change the CV.

I believe they have the option when they add terms to have them on or off by default. So you enter metro which at the time you enter it maps to Subway Station. Later they add the two Paris terms and turn them on by default. You then end up with a spammed image that they spammed for you.

Sometimes the default on is good - when they changed how the various Isolated and Isolated on White terms mapped in the early CV days. A number of us screamed that we didn't want to have to in and hand edit hundreds of isolated files that we'd already edited to "disambiguate" them.

If the promised batch editing tools had ever been made available, this sort of thing would be easy to fix. Note to contributors (be nice if they could target those contributors with files that contain those keywords - that's the sort of database stuff computers are made for). Batch edit the files to fix up your files and all's done in minutes...

yingyang0 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 09, 2008, 19:18 »

Quote from: madelaide on July 08, 2008, 21:54

I opened a contact ticket, but it takes so long...

No. Contact the user Keywords at iStock. He's take care of it and as long as you don't modify the file he'll be able to see which keyword admin is responsible for such a silly mistake.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Keyword wiki - is it possible to complain? (Read 18799 times)

madelaide

yingyang0

fotografer

madelaide

yingyang0

sharply_done

yingyang0

madelaide

DanP68

nativelight

fotografer

nativelight

Anegada

tan510jomast

PenelopeB

tan510jomast

nativelight

vonkara

PenelopeB

jsnover

tan510jomast

vphoto

nativelight

jsnover

yingyang0

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors