The lightbox option and ability to add your own similar images was one of the few things that iStock got right and differentiated it from other sites.  Too bad they had to destroy that too.  On top of it they also buried the contributor identity too by pushing contributor info way down the page, as if they wanted everyone to become anonymous.

I also noticed that if you use the price slider the Similars selection tosses that all out the window.  Tried some searches on the lower price range and half to all Similars were in higher price points.  Tried searching on just the highest price range and about half the Similars were in the lowest price range.  Frustrating for the buyer either way if they are filtering with a specific goal in mind.

Just for fun I looked up the keywords used by some of the "similars" I found in my portfolio, just to see what was similar about them. One had keyword "bird of paradise" (a tropical flower), but I could not find any bird of paradise in that image, however following up on the next similars to his/hers all three had prominently displayed birds of paradise. Curiously enough mine didn't have a bird of paradise in it, (nor the keyword"bird of paradise").  That particular image was of a hummingbird perched on a wall surrounded by flowering verbena plants yet the keywords included "flight" (where nothing was flying), "single flower" (where there were dozens of flowers), "Caribbean sea" (no sea in sight Caribbean or otherwise) and three names of tropical countries. I realized it wasn't fun anymore so I packed it in.
My point is that the similars being imposed will never work unless they tighten up the keywording system - it is a joke right now. Why not spend a little money and hire a few people who can spell and look up words and phrases in a dictionary or encyclopedia, inspectors will not do as there isn't any evidence that they can do any of those things. Ah, istock, I don't think you'l do any of that

Today's observation:
They are telling us to put our most relevant keywords first when we upload. Easy for me, as I keyword directly into iStock, not in meta or DM.
So my photo of New Street Station, Birmingham got in overnight, and isn't in the database yet.
I was very suprised to see the 'similars'.
Then I looked and saw that my first keyword, "New Street Station", which possibly significantly isn't in the CV, had been moved down to position 6 in iS's rearranged keywords, so my top four were now Birmingham, Midlands, England, UK.
Eventually, I worked out that "New Street Station" was never going to get into the top four, so I compromised and my keyword order is now:
New Street Station, Birmingham, Railway Station, Station, Midlands, England, UK, Sign, Entrance Sign, Stephenson Street, Modern, Architecture, 2013, 21st Century Style, Colour, Photography, Editorial, Horizontal, Nobody
in which only the first wseven have been switched around since the original upload

But, as it is not currently findable, it can't have any buyer action, the iStock order is now:
Birmingham, Railroad Station, Station, Midlands, Editorial, Horizontal, England, UK, Sign, 2013, New Street Station, Architecture, Contemporary, 21st Century Style, Photography, Nobody, Entrance Sign, Color Image

Which is quite a switch, though I know that only the first four 'count' in best match.
All I can deduce from this is that the system breaks down if our most important keyword isn't in the CV, and the system rearranges words without any buyer input, contrary to what we have been told, even recently.
On the up side, I got rid of all the pseudo-similars, which is a result. 

I think you can use the new DM to rearrange keyword order, I read something about that but I haven't looked deeper.  Also if your most important word isn't in the CV then there probably aren't a lot of competing files so search order doesn't matter.  There aren't too many non-CV words that have thousands of results.

True on the non-CV point.

But it does point out the misinformation that our order of keywords gets changed by buyer behaviour, as has been stated for a while, and the importance of 'putting our most important keyhwords first' on new uploads, as recommended by both Lobo and CR:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353233&messageid=6936486
Whether this is deliberate lying or total cluelessness about how the system works, I would not assume to guess. The old iStock 'malice or incompetence?' debate.

Quote from: ShadySue on September 12, 2013, 09:43

Quote from: tickstock on September 12, 2013, 09:30

I think you can use the new DM to rearrange keyword order, I read something about that but I haven't looked deeper.  Also if your most important word isn't in the CV then there probably aren't a lot of competing files so search order doesn't matter.  There aren't too many non-CV words that have thousands of results.

True on the non-CV point.

But it does point out the misinformation that our order of keywords gets changed by buyer behaviour, as has been stated for a while, and the importance of 'putting our most important keyhwords first' on new uploads, as recommended by both Lobo and CR:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353233&messageid=6936486
Whether this is deliberate lying or total cluelessness about how the system works, I would not assume to guess. The old iStock 'malice or incompetence?' debate.

I don't understand your point?  I think they are saying that now because things have changed.  The system doesn't work the same now as it did years ago.

They've said for years that it didn't matter at first what order you put things in, but that the best match would sort out our keyword relevance based on 'buyer behaviour' on our files. So that, for instance, one of my files, which has sold 30 times as a Vetta is on the second last page for "African Elephant" (above several of my files, and many others, with 0 dls) because "African Elephant" has become low in its keywords, although it was my top keyword on upload. Apparently the buyers 'behaved' on Africa, Elephant.
They have said for years that best match depends only on the top four keywords, as determined by buyer behaviour.
And now they're saying that the allegedly 'similar' files shown on our pages is also determined by the first four kyewords, as determined by buyer behaviour.

But my simple example demonstrates this not to be true - the system is changing the order of the keywords before any buyer ever gets to see the file.

So which is it - don't they understand how their own sytem is working, or do they know, but are deliberately misinforming us? Neither of these possiblities inspires confidence.

Quote from: ShadySue on September 12, 2013, 10:50

Quote from: tickstock on September 12, 2013, 09:54

Quote from: ShadySue on September 12, 2013, 09:43

Quote from: tickstock on September 12, 2013, 09:30

I think you can use the new DM to rearrange keyword order, I read something about that but I haven't looked deeper.  Also if your most important word isn't in the CV then there probably aren't a lot of competing files so search order doesn't matter.  There aren't too many non-CV words that have thousands of results.

True on the non-CV point.

But it does point out the misinformation that our order of keywords gets changed by buyer behaviour, as has been stated for a while, and the importance of 'putting our most important keyhwords first' on new uploads, as recommended by both Lobo and CR:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353233&messageid=6936486
Whether this is deliberate lying or total cluelessness about how the system works, I would not assume to guess. The old iStock 'malice or incompetence?' debate.

I don't understand your point?  I think they are saying that now because things have changed.  The system doesn't work the same now as it did years ago.

They've said for years that it didn't matter at first what order you put things in, but that the best match would sort out our keyword relevance based on 'buyer behaviour' on our files. So that, for instance, one of my files, which has sold 30 times as a Vetta is on the second last page for "African Elephant" (above several of my files, and many others, with 0 dls) because "African Elephant" has become low in its keywords, although it was my top keyword on upload. Apparently the buyers 'behaved' on Africa, Elephant.
They have said for years that best match depends only on the top four keywords, as determined by buyer behaviour.
And now they're saying that the allegedly 'similar' files shown on our pages is also determined by the first four kyewords, as determined by buyer behaviour.

But my simple example demonstrates this not to be true - the system is changing the order of the keywords before any buyer ever gets to see the file.

So which is it - don't they understand how their own sytem is working, or do they know, but are deliberately misinforming us? Neither of these possiblities inspires confidence.

I still don't get what you're saying?  You put "african elephant" in as your first keyword years ago, buyers bought your image using the keywords "africa" and "elephant" (they are the top keywords) and didn't buy it using "african elephant".  "african elephant" became low on the list because buyers didn't use that keyword.  That is how the search is supposed to work, you can fault buyers for not using your best keyword but I don't see what Istock did wrong here?  Since "elephant" is your top keyword I would expect it to be relatively much higher up the search for that keyword.

My top keyword on that file, as I entered it, is "African Elephant", but I'm expected to believe that (almost) no buyers searched on "African Elephant", but chose instead Elephant, Africa.

But my faith in that story is eroded by the fact that this newly uploaded file has had its keywords significantly rearranged with absolutely no possibility of buyer interaction.

I'd have thought that was clear enough from my previous two posts.
I note that Lobo recently has made quite a few "I don't understand what you mean" posts in reply to perfectly clear questions and points, particularly in the exclusive forum. Does iStock have a Disingenuity 101 course I should know about?

They have said for years that best match depends only on the top four keywords, as determined by buyer behaviour.

I have never heard that before. Are you sure they have been saying this for years? It was only recently that I read somewhere (maybe here) that following recent changes there might be some short term advantage to ensuring that the first 4 keywords at upload were the most important.

I understand that you are frustrated with iStock but agree with what Tickstock is saying about how people probably search for elephants in Africa at iStockphoto. It's not a science and wildlife agency. You are dealing with PR people and graphic designers for the most part. Not science bods

I don't know what new file you are talking about either, but keywords get rearranged when you check boxes.  Those move up to the top of the list I think.  You should probably use deep meta and optimize your keywords if you want them in the correct order.

Of course  you don't. The file is not yet searchable. Is what I'm writing being rendered invisible or incomprehensible?

So you're saying that if a word doesn't need to be checked, as it has only one meaning, it automatically sinks underneath those which need to be DAd? In what universe would that make any sense?

Why should DM 'hold' a keyword order better than iStock's own keywording system?
That is insane, and adds more 'clicks' and another program to a workflow because iStock can't or won't sort out their own system.

Quote from: ShadySue on September 12, 2013, 11:42

Quote from: bhr on September 12, 2013, 11:35

Quote from: ShadySue on September 12, 2013, 10:50

They have said for years that best match depends only on the top four keywords, as determined by buyer behaviour.

I have never heard that before. Are you sure they have been saying this for years?

Yes, at least since BM2.

No, there was never any restriction to the top four keywords.  best match did depend on the relevancy factor of the term vs. the terms on the image, and yes, the top four were used in the "see more" link.  But best match was not restricted to four.

Four was definitely stated, but the forum search is impossible and I can't be bothered wasting an hour trying to find it.
TBH, I must concede that I can't remember how 'official' the "four words" thing was or whether it was contributor observation.

Quote from: ShadySue on September 12, 2013, 11:47

Quote from: tickstock on September 12, 2013, 11:24

I don't know what new file you are talking about either, but keywords get rearranged when you check boxes.  Those move up to the top of the list I think.  You should probably use deep meta and optimize your keywords if you want them in the correct order.

Of course  you don't. The file is not yet searchable. Is what I'm writing being rendered invisible or incomprehensible?

So you're saying that if a word doesn't need to be checked, as it has only one meaning, it automatically sinks underneath those which need to be DAd? In what universe would that make any sense?

Why should DM 'hold' a keyword order better than iStock's own keywording system?
That is insane, and adds more 'clicks' and another program to a workflow because iStock can't or won't sort out their own system.

What I'm saying is that if you put all your keywords in, they'll show up in that order but when you click on the subcategories it may move those up to the top of the list.  I know when you check all the boxes and then hit the "add" button it moves the checked ones to the top so it probably does the same when you submit the file.  That's just my guess as to how it works.  I've said it 3 times now, you can use Deep Meta (the new beta version) to sort your keywords and put the ones you want into the first 4 slots.  DM has added functionality to rearrange keywords, that's just how it is.  If you want the order to be correct then use DM, that's just the way it is.

Yup, I noticed that only today, when I removed 'West Midlands' because it had gone to the top. I didn't realise that was the reason, though.
Well, if I have to use DM to play their stupid game, that's just one more reason to avoid uploading to iS as much as possible.
However, the ticky box thing doesn't explain all, or even most of the changes between the order I keyworded and the order they appear on the photo's page (affecting best match placement and alleged 'similars') before anyone, other than the inspector and me, has seen the file.

Apparently there is no point in trying to change them once 'buyer activity' has changed their order. Did you check to see if the order had changed after you made the changes? I and others have found that it does not hold your changes.
Lobo has also said as much:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355588&messageid=6931914

Anyway, while the above discussion was raging, I had another photo accepted, so went straight to look at the keywords, and although they are 'almost' in the order I uploaded them, the two 'not in CV' location names aren't to be found in the keywords on the page (which I've noticed on some earlier, random, files, but it's certainly not consistent).
I'll need to wait until it's in the searchable database to see if it can somehow still be searched on under these names.

Oh, when you said hundreds of files, I thought you meant older ones too.

Before any views or downloads may have locked in the keyword order, you can "Edit File Information" and put the keywords in any order you want by reentering them in the desired order.