MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: dbvirago on January 25, 2007, 10:46

Title: New istock rejection
Post by: dbvirago on January 25, 2007, 10:46
An image of a lighthouse was rejected for the following.

The keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject. E.g. we see no coastline or shipping.

Under the new controlled vocabulary system that we now use, images need fewer keywords to do well in searches. The site handles translations and synonyms, so you do not have to.

I guess it could have been one of the many lighthouses found in rural Kansas that's not used for shipping navigation.
Title: Re: New istock rejection
Post by: GeoPappas on January 25, 2007, 13:34
I guess it could have been one of the many lighthouses found in rural Kansas that's not used for shipping navigation.

 ;D

Thanks for the good laugh...
Title: Re: New istock rejection
Post by: epixx on January 26, 2007, 02:31
Congratulations! It only means that your keywording makes sense. The system at iS most certainly doesn't   ???
Title: Re: New istock rejection
Post by: leaf on January 26, 2007, 08:18
yep, got one of those keyword rejections today.  grrrr. :(

I guess i was a little liberal with my keywords.. but... still frustrating.
Title: Re: New istock rejection
Post by: madelaide on January 26, 2007, 15:06
Many valid keywords are not in IS database yet, or have meanings that don't match ours.  We can email them at [email protected] with suggestions.  I haven't returned to see if all photos I had problems (I took note of their IDs) can now be corrected.

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: New istock rejection
Post by: Tim Markley on January 28, 2007, 10:06
I got one of those rejections and the result is that I end up using fewer keywords. I wonder if this is a common problem?
Title: Re: New istock rejection
Post by: madelaide on January 28, 2007, 11:38
I haven't had one of these rejections yet (knock on wood).

I had however three images rejected for "artifacting" while I could see no such problem (unless they see satin and leaves own texture as "artifacts".  When a 4th one was approved (and sold almost immediately), I sent one of those Scout messages and after a while it was approved.  I'll do the same with the others.  So maybe that's the way to go to have your keywords, if justifiable, accepted.  Also the person behind [email protected] once emailed me to and she agreed with my arguments about a keyword that was considered out-of-the-controlled-vocalbulary was indeed a valid keyword (carmine, which is a red and is used in many animal names, such as the carmine bee-eater).

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: New istock rejection
Post by: dbvirago on January 28, 2007, 15:14
RE the keyword database, the response indicates this was a human response - not automated. The reviewer stated that they couldn't see a coastline, so the fact that my back was getting wet shooting the image didn't count.

As for using fewer keywords, that is what I am afraid of. We can do it one way for everybody else, but a different way if you want to submit to Istock.
Title: Re: New istock rejection
Post by: humannet on October 25, 2012, 19:10
An image of a lighthouse was rejected for the following.

The keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject. E.g. we see no coastline or shipping.

Under the new controlled vocabulary system that we now use, images need fewer keywords to do well in searches. The site handles translations and synonyms, so you do not have to.

I guess it could have been one of the many lighthouses found in rural Kansas that's not used for shipping navigation.

I also have something similar like yours in my is rejection.
Title: Re: New istock rejection
Post by: gostwyck on October 25, 2012, 19:31
An image of a lighthouse was rejected for the following.

The keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject. E.g. we see no coastline or shipping.

Under the new controlled vocabulary system that we now use, images need fewer keywords to do well in searches. The site handles translations and synonyms, so you do not have to.

I guess it could have been one of the many lighthouses found in rural Kansas that's not used for shipping navigation.

I also have something similar like yours in my is rejection.

Ancient thread alert!
Title: Re: New istock rejection
Post by: Suljo on October 25, 2012, 20:27
just imagine what wikipedia will look like if smacks from IS and Gredy if is guided with this smacks... and with they vocabulary wannabe lets say system.