Just to clarify, this isn't a new image, someone "wiki'ed" it.  I have done that too.  I once did a search for "red satin background" to see how one of my images was doing in the search (it used to sell well, then it stalled), and I found many blue or green satin or materials that were obviously NOT satin.  try that search and even at the first page you find wrong images.  THAT is spamming!

The dog example is also so stupid!  A dog is a dog, even if you don't know what breed.  The breed just adds information, what is good.

Yingyang, are you sure I should email the keyword staff about this? I've contacted them in the past to suggest additions or corrections to the CV.

Regards,
Adelaide

In the past I've had pretty quick responses by emailing Jordan (that's the real name of the istock admin, Keywords) - I've had keywords removed in error restored pretty quickly. He's been a bit slower replying to emails recently though. If you add back the keywords yourself, he can't backtrack and work out who was responsible for removing the keywords incorrectly, so it's better to do it that way (or that's what he told me anyway).

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

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

I thought you said were going to make an "educated" guess. 

No, there are no reviewers checking this stuff.  They are just hitting "okay" and accepting the word of the wiki warrior.  Which means if I decide to identify images which compete with my best sellers, all I have to do is wiki their most important keywords and they will be removed, effectively killing the image.

Another huge mistake.  Instead of stopping spam, they have created a new way for people to get an unfair edge...by killing off competing images.

my misunderstanding then, DanP68.
i thought it was the reviewer checking off your keyword
like at times, a BigStock does during review.

If , as you informed me, that it is actually
some other contributor(s) "wiki"-ing my keywords,
then this is absurd.

 as you say, they now have the power to kill off their competition.
a gross misuse, i agree.
cheers for telling me .

Quote from: jsnover 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.

Another way you can get oddball terms added to your images is when some idiot wiki's them.  I just had an image of chinese egg rolls come through the wiki with the term "asian food" removed and the term "fried egg" added!  No kidding.  They added "fried egg" to a picture of egg rolls. 

I would say literally half the wiki'd files I get back have some similar type of craziness.  The number of problems seems to defy the odds of mere mistakes slipping through the cracks.  The wiki started off as a great idea but seems to have degenerated into a free-for-all with no apparent oversight.   

I can relate Lisa.  I just had a keyword correction on a picture of some sushi rolls.  They are wrapped in rice, which is clearly visible, but they removed "rice" from keywords.   What got me me was the two the words they added--  "nobody" and "entrée."   I kid you not.

I have no idea what language that last word belongs to!  lol

G~

Quote from: GWB on July 10, 2008, 10:46

...What got me me was the two the words they added--  "nobody" and "entrée."   I kid you not.

I have no idea what language that last word belongs to!  lol

G~

LOL!  I would love to see a thread on the dumbest wiki results.  You deserve some sort of prize for that one!   

Indeed!  I'm sure it would be a good read. 

Another way you can get oddball terms added to your images is when some idiot wiki's them. 

So, a "widiot"?   

It's clearly being abused.  This is just another under-handed way for people with bad intentions to mess with your portfolio.  And iStock opened the door for them to do it.

As far as I understand, you can not just "wiki" someone's image, it goes through some reviewer before changes are accepted.  So there is someone approving these incorrect changes.

Regards,
Adelaide

I may be confused here, but I use Controlled Vocabulary in Lightroom. 

When I put something in Mixed Breed, it gets added to:

Mixed Breed, Dog, Pet, Animal

Is this a case of not understanding how CV works?  Mixed Breed is a keyword IN dog.  You get both.   Someone did you a favor by moving it down 2 levels.

We're talking about IS's CV - is it the same as Lightroom's?

Anyway, in that dog example, "dog" was removed, the breed was added.  Therefore someone looking for "dog", not for a specific breed, won't find this image.  The same goes for my case, in which "rose" was removed, so it won't show in a search for roses.  Given that it is a photo of a rose - no stretch here - this removal was not only bad for my image's performance, but it's also totally inappropriate.

Regards,
Adelaide

Hmmm, I like Wikidiot too.

We're talking about IS's CV - is it the same as Lightroom's?

Anyway, in that dog example, "dog" was removed, the breed was added.  Therefore someone looking for "dog", not for a specific breed, won't find this image.  The same goes for my case, in which "rose" was removed, so it won't show in a search for roses.

I think it's the same.  You wouldn't SEE the keyword dog, but it should be there as upper levels of the heirarchy.  Otherwise there's no sense to using controlled vocabulary.  That's EXACTLY what it is - a heirarchy so that ALL "chihuahua" photos are in dog.  ALL dog photos are in pet.  ALL pet photos are in animal.  I'm pretty certain that's how it works, meaning the person did the dog photographer a favor.  What was added when rose was removed?  Something more specific or nothing?  Nothing = error. 

As far as CV - this is the way it should work.  Let me find an example...

So are you saying that if I put in 'group of people' and then check 'large group of people' that my image would only be found by somebody that puts in 'large group of people' but not by somebody that puts in 'group of people'?  I always assumed that it would be found on both as if not the image would be found in a lot less searches and would be seriously disadvantaged by checking any of the boxes.

The iStock CV does not work that way, ie, search for dog and anything under dog comes back.  The Getty one does though.