I know this is an old rant and it happens occasionally to everyone, but I just had an image rejected for at least a dozen keywords where every "not fully relevant" keyword is something which is actually in the photo.  I'm talking about objects, construction materials, plants and colors.  I gather that the inspector in this case is a newb, or badly hung over, or else Istock just put a severe fright into the inspectors by threatening to can anyone who allowed irrelevant keywords to pass.

Just for the record, if there are red flowers in the photo, but the photo is not primarily of the flowers, is "Red (Descriptive Color)" considered to be spam?  Or does a color have to be one of the "main" colors in the photo to be promoted to keyword status.

It's a good thing that I didn't add keywords related to the concepts implied by the photo but which were not literally present.

the elements could be literally be there and they'll still have problem with the keywords. in my case, asian ethnicity, medical procedure and number which are all visibly present.

it is the most maddening thing to deal with at is. however, i find that they only do this if they found other faults with your photo as if trying to add insult to injury.  they've never actually rejected just on keywords alone, yet.

Thinking as a buyer might help. If you were a buyer looking for for exemple "red flowers", would you like your picture to show up? Probably not when its just somewhere in the background.

That being said i think some of their keyword rejections are ridiculous ( i DID have pics rejected for just 1 or 2 keywords and no other flaws) and buyers who are looking for a concept can better have it fully worked out in their head.

It's difficult to say without see the image, but as a general rule you should only keyword for the dominant colour of the image and not the objects in it. And you shouldn't keyword anything that's not prominently featured in or a necessary part of the image. Using "flower" for an image titled "woman working in garden" would likely be okay, but not for "woman working in office".

Thanks, this helps a lot.  Some of the rejected keywords were not "dominant" things and were reasonable by these criteria, a few of the rejects were just plain goofy, since they described important elements of the photo.  No need to post the photo and slice and dice it, I meekly resubmitted and after it is accepted I will add back one or two of the most critical keywords.

How about this one:



"The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[ Agave,  Agave (Succulent Plant)]}"

Definitely post this one either in the Keywords forum or refer it to Emyerson (Ethan) who works with the inspectors towards better upholding on the keywords standards. Looks like this one was human error.

On a sidenote: can anyone tell me why i just had a selfportrait rejected on iS for an outdated MR? i always thought selfportraits were an exception...or did i miss something?

There have been several complaints about this: seems the inspectors aren't all reading the same hymn sheet, or maybe don't realise it's a self-portrait.It was mentioned within the past few days, but can't find it. Post on the Help forum.
I've seen suggestions to write bold, red notes in the description that it's a self-portrait, and delete that after acceptance.

Thanks miss Shady
Funny thing is i DID put a note for inspector in the description field pointing out this was a self-portrait.... seems they need to line up the team maybe...

I think some inspectors don't bother checking the description for notes. It would be awfully handy if iStock provided a message box for including notes instead of us having to resort to using the description.

I've often thought that (exclusive) contributors should be allowed to respond to a rejection by sending the inspector a message. If they allowed only two or three rejection responses per month it probably wouldn't bog down the system too much. I know this would be helpful for me when I get a rejection I don't understand, or when the inspector deleted some keywords he/she shouldn't have.

I think some inspectors don't bother checking the description for notes. It would be awfully handy if iStock provided a message box for including notes instead of us having to resort to using the description.

Inspectors are supposed to read the description, it's part of the inspection process because images can be rejected for problems with the description. I know it's frustrating, but as it's a human process occasionally things are missed and mistakes happen. It's better if you put whatever you want the inspector to see at the beginning of your description, less chance for it to be missed that way.  

Quote from: borg on May 28, 2010, 03:42

One of my files named "Coins" was rejected because "Finance" keyword...

You're seriously saying that was the only reason? One wrong keyword? No other rejection reasons further down the email? No other words listed? Seems unlikely, and if it is true you should post it in the keywords forum at iStock because it's an error.

I thought it was an error, so I re-uploaded and then passed...

But I have noticed more and more "bugs" with keywording,  friend told me that  IS refused his file for the same keyword...

here is the problem with the keywording limitations and the disambiguation process at is.

for a photo with a chocolate colored labrador (dog), you can't use the word chocolate because it's not considered a color and it's not a sweet. however i just got a maximum credit sale at dreamstime where the buyer searched specifically after 'chocolate labrador'. for people who know labradors, 'brown' just ain't gonna cut it.

these are the frustrations one face with is every time you upload and it's getting old.

So instead of using chocolate, labrador (dog), why not use "chocolate labrador"? 422 images already have the tag "chocolate labrador".

Hint. Click on "add keywords". Type "chocolate labrador". Click "OK"