As a 0,1 percent contributor and 99,9 percent customer at iStock, historically my biggest gripe with iStock keywords has been lack of relevance. Lately another thing is happening as the iStock site simply replaces my search.

Exempli gratia I search for turbo and iStock replace my search with engine. That gives me 21.000 hits to go through - most with little relevance to my search. There have been many similar occurrences lately.

How on earth do they think replacing my search terms helps me find images?

Exempli gratia I search for turbo and iStock replace my search with engine. That gives me 21.000 hits to go through - most with little relevance to my search. There have been many similar occurrences lately.

Hahaha, this is TRUE! And even more, first images are related to internet search engines. Are they using turbines? 

As a "99.9% customer" why don't you try searches at other microstock agencies to see if you get results more relevant to your needs?

Whilst the CV is a great idea it is still not yet developed enough for all subjects and, in such cases, can be worse than useless.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 05, 2010, 05:21

As a 99% customer, I'd be surprised if you hadn't shopped in the last 3 years to experience the controlled vocabulary IS uses.  "turbo" for example, is not in the CV, but it is linked to "engine", which may or may not be equivalent, depending on your need.

Read more here:
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/the-controlled-vocabulary-and-you/

I am well aware of CV, which sometimes have been helpful refining my search. But I have never before until recently experienced iStock actually replacing my search words to something rendering my search useless.

It's not replacing your search.  The disambiguation choice for "turbo" is engine, so no need to refine.  It presents you automatically with the result.

Turbo is of course something different from engine.

I'm curious as to what one would expect "turbo" to return.

Quote from: Whitechild on May 05, 2010, 06:10

Turbo is of course something different from engine.

I'm curious as to what one would expect "turbo" to return.

A turbo is a component of an engine

I would expect to see the part not an engine

If I wanted an engine I would search for that

Does IS CV suggests "turbocharger" when you enter "turbo"? If it does, than it's ok, but if it doesn't, than it should.

Quote from: Whitechild on May 05, 2010, 06:10

Turbo is of course something different from engine.

I'm curious as to what one would expect "turbo" to return.

I was initially looking for something to illustrate "turbo"; that could be a turbocharger as sjlocke pointed out (or even better something with schematics), or something like below. Anyways, iStocks 21.000 hits engine gave me nothing but bewilderment.

would this work? http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9913512-white-plastic-button.php Found using the keywords "Turbo, Word". 

Quote from: Whitechild on May 05, 2010, 06:37

Thermal is not visible it self, but the only thing that birds use to fly in circles and gain altitude is thermal, so it's visible in some way. Air is also not visible, right? But the air is often used as a keyword. So, it's not really true that only visible things are included in vocabulary. Wind is also invisible, but branches and grass swinging on the wind are visible, as well as birds soaring on the thermal. It's a very specific phenomenon, and it can't be replaced with just "flying" or "soaring".

You're right. and in any case 'soar' maps only to 'flying', so if you type in bird soaring you have to wade through 19518 results. Photos only takes it down to 14722. Add 'group of animals' and you're down to 851, but none of the 'top 200' are soaring in a  thermal. However, Vulture, group of animals, flying cuts right down to two, both vultures in thermals. Of course, I don't know how many I've missed by doing that (people who didn't put 'group of birds', perhaps because they put 'small group of birds' or 'medium group of birds'. One more turns up by searching on flock vultures, though flock is pretty inaccurate IMO.
Interestingly, although soaring maps only to flying, 'gliding' is a keyword in its own right, presumably because it relates to gliding (the sport).

And a buyer is supposed to understand all of the above when searching for images? I know I would get frustrated and go somewhere else. I totally understand the concept of the CV and in a lot of instances it works, but in a lot it doesn't. There is a lot more work to be done on that whole technology.

I'm not a buyer or a big-time contributor.  But it just seems to me that IS leaves a lot of money on the table because of the CV.  Shouldn't 'concept' images be a big part of microstock?  Isn't the contributor the logical person to assign 'concept' keywords to an image, subject to approval?  

"Thermal", attached to a group of soaring, circling birds, makes perfect sense.   That is in fact exactly what the photo is showing.  It's not the photographer's fault that our atmosphere is transparent and so a 'thermal' is invisible.

Do you mean a "turbocharger"?

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&order=4&perPage=200&showTitle=true&showContributor=true&showDownload=true&text=turbocharger

either term is acceptable

"A turbocharger, or turbo, is a gas compressor that is used for forced-induction of an internal combustion engine."

Quote from: stockastic on May 05, 2010, 10:45

"Thermal", attached to a group of soaring, circling birds, makes perfect sense.   That is in fact exactly what the photo is showing.  It's not the photographer's fault that our atmosphere is transparent and so a 'thermal' is invisible.

Ok then __ let's see how much it helps not having a CV and where the word 'thermal' can be used with complete freedom by the contributor. Try doing a search at FT on 'bird thermal' and see what you get. DT isn't much better.

I think we are all talking about the same thing, but we don't listen to each other good enough.
I was saying, I think IS should invest more in faster development of CV. They should have more people more specialized in some areas who will develop CV. I don't think they have to pay huge money to genetic engineers, or linguists, or astronomers. I think they should pay some small money to more people who would help development of CV in certain areas. No offense, but I'm sure I know much more about biology, medicine, or astronomy than average person, and they could hire me to make suggestions in these areas. I'm sure everyone of you guys also have experience and knowledge in certain areas that could help CV development.
IS could provide a form where contributors could write their suggestions, and we could analyze and approve, or correct if needed. Maybe you guys who submit huge numbers of photos don't have time for this, but there are people who would do it. I would do it in the first place. I am not a pro photographer, I don't depend on microstock completely, and I have time to do it. there are probably more people like me who could help.

And a buyer is supposed to understand all of the above when searching for images? I know I would get frustrated and go somewhere else.

I also don't think a search engine should be designed for experts using boolean operators.  See the searches in DT (those that are listed in our sales) or Alamy and you will see people type one or two words.  We have to have an open mind about how a buyer will perform a search, and in this sense "thermal" should be adequate even if we can not see it.

I was saying, I think IS should invest more in faster development of CV. They should have more people more specialized in some areas who will develop CV. I don't think they have to pay huge money to genetic engineers, or linguists, or astronomers. I think they should pay some small money to more people who would help development of CV in certain areas.

Exactly!  Better yet they could take advantage of the vast wealth of knowledge from their contributor base and allow contributors to suggest alternate meanings.  Many contributors uploading in specialized areas know enough to suggest relevant terms.  Istock would only need one or two people to approve or reject those suggestions.  A simple google search would help them determine if the suggestion was valid. 

Quote from: stockastic on May 05, 2010, 10:45

"Thermal", attached to a group of soaring, circling birds, makes perfect sense.   That is in fact exactly what the photo is showing.  It's not the photographer's fault that our atmosphere is transparent and so a 'thermal' is invisible.

Ok then __ let's see how much it helps not having a CV and where the word 'thermal' can be used with complete freedom by the contributor. Try doing a search at FT on 'bird thermal' and see what you get. DT isn't much better.

And at Alamy, as you might guess, it's hysterical. With whichever meaning of hysterical you choose.

Quote from: Whitechild on May 05, 2010, 11:24

I was saying, I think IS should invest more in faster development of CV. They should have more people more specialized in some areas who will develop CV. I don't think they have to pay huge money to genetic engineers, or linguists, or astronomers. I think they should pay some small money to more people who would help development of CV in certain areas.

Exactly!  Better yet they could take advantage of the vast wealth of knowledge from their contributor base and allow contributors to suggest alternate meanings.  Many contributors uploading in specialized areas know enough to suggest relevant terms.  Istock would only need one or two people to approve or reject those suggestions.  A simple google search would help them determine if the suggestion was valid. 

I suggest things all the time. Sometimes they get changed immediately, sometimes after weeks or months, sometimes not yet. But if more people did it, the system would be vastly improved, provided they increased the Team Metadata to cope.

Quote from: ShadySue on May 05, 2010, 12:43

I suggest things all the time. Sometimes they get changed immediately, sometimes after weeks or months, sometimes not yet. But if more people did it, the system would be vastly improved, provided they increased the Team Metadata to cope.

So when you say you suggest things all the time, do you mean that you use the "Wrong Keywords, Tell Us" function when you look at the keywords for an image, or do you make suggestions some other way? Just wondering what the best way to do it is.

I do a lot of wiking with a few words in my area of interest. Some are spam, some 'genuine mistakes'. If the latter, sometimes I SM the author first, as I'd hope people would do with me if I made a mistake.
But also sometimes when I'm wiki-ing, I find that the person has keyworded correctly, but the CV maps it wrongly; this often happens in the natural history field. In that case, I SM ducksandwich. Same if I find when I'm uploading that a word doesn't exist or is mapped wrongly. If it's just some lesser known species I just leave it 'for my own use' if it isn't in the CV, but if the CV is wrong I SM Ducksandwich.
I also SM Ducksandwich to ask for general additions, especially if the word you want already exists with a different mapping, meaning you can't actually have it even just 'for your own use', which often happens with place names.
If I'm not sure, I post for other opinions on the Keywords forum, and Duck or Ethan usually pipe in with an authoritative view.
(Sometimes you'd be surprised why they can't make what seem like very obvious changes. Like monkey is given as a subset of ape and vice versa, but apparently Italian, which is one of iStock's languages, unbelievably doesn't have different words for monkey and ape - at least a couple of Italians chipped in and said so, and Google translate gives scimmia for both.
All that said, I think iStock generally has the best system and gives the best returns, but it's definitely a 'work in progress'.

As with many things IStock, there are just too many hoops, and things take too long. 

If the keywords I really need for an image aren't in the CV, I'm screwed, and I have little motivation to spend time altruistically helping others by using a 'suggest keyword' feature, or making forum posts, or emailing "Scout" who apparently lives on Neptune.   I won't put that image on a list and keep trying it again, hoping the keywords I need have been added.   I just forget about it for IS, and submit it to other sites.

If they want to have searches totally constrained by a controlled vocabulary, they need to get serious about it because this low-cost "crowdsourcing" isnt' cutting it.  They're losing images, and many images are submitted with just a few of the keywords they really deserve, and no one is going to go back and fix them later, when the CV is more complete.

 

Adding the same keyword after approval, even tho it doesn't suggests relevant keyword from CV

That's the part I don't get - apparently you can add keywords that aren't in the CV, but I don't understand how/when you can do this, and DeepMeta doesn't make it clear to me.   

As you can see I'm just not the right personality type for IStock   

Quote from: Whitechild on May 05, 2010, 16:16

Adding the same keyword after approval, even tho it doesn't suggests relevant keyword from CV

That's the part I don't get - apparently you can add keywords that aren't in the CV, but I don't understand how/when you can do this, and DeepMeta doesn't make it clear to me.   

As you can see I'm just not the right personality type for IStock   

I don't upload or keyword using Deep Meta - I don't think the limited part of the CV that I noticed there the last time I looked (ages ago) matched up with what I mostly do; it's more geared up to the top 'Stock-y' themes, which is fair enough.
So uploading using iStock's on system, when you type in e.g. 'spingleplonk' which isn't in the CV, you get a blue message saying 'spingleplonk is unknown'. You then click on the link (it's blue, so that was a clue) you then get,
"If you choose to add this new tag it will be for your personal use only, and will not be added into the structure of the Controlled Vocabulary for translation. If you feel this is a tag that is a necessity for the CV, please email [email protected] with the relevant details." There's then an 'add' button which you click and that adds the word in English only. If it's one word like spingleplonk, buyers will find it by typing in spingleplonk, but it won't be translated into the other iStock languages, which may or may not matter, depending on the word.
If you type in a word of phrase that someone else has added 'for their own use', it will appear in the Terms column with a ! in a triangle beside it, which lets you know it's not in the official CV, and is only available in English (or whatever language you keyworded in). Like I wanted 'curly-horned' recently; it wasn't in the CV, but someone else had already added it. (LOL! I just checked and the 'someone else' was me last year!!!)
If the keyword you want to add is a phrase, a buyer needs to know, by osmosis, that they need to put it into quotes, e.g. when they search they have to put "curly horned" or "blue sky" into the search engine, whereas if you type clear sky in the Search box, Clear Sky will appear underneath, and if you click on that, you'll get the phrase "Clear Sky" to search on. I have NO idea why whoever wrote the CV went for Clear Sky rather than Blue Sky, but there you go.
And strangest of all, these non-CV words are called 'legacy terms' even if you add them tomorrow.
Hope that helped.
Now you can sort out my flat light rejections. ;-)

Like I wanted 'curly-horned' recently; it wasn't in the CV, but someone else had already added it. (LOL! I just checked and the 'someone else' was me last year!!!)

LOL

is there someone who can explain what IS search engine does with words that are not in CV? Seriously, this is not a trick question or an ironic one. Does it count these words or not? Like names of cities that are not in CV for example.

I sort of covered that in the above post, but to be specific:
A town near me is called Kilwinning and it's not in the CV.
If I took a photo of Kilwinning and added Kilwinning 'for my own use' as explained above, any searcher wanting a photo of Kilwinning would be able to find it, no problem, just by typing in Kilwinning.
Where you'd have problems is where either the place name is used in many places, for example there's a small village in Ayrshire called Moscow (!) or the village I was brought up in is called Law. Now since there's a place called Moscow, and Law has other meanings, you can't add the word 'for your own use' and you have to decide whether to ask the Metadata Team (via Ducksandwich) to add it, or maybe, in the cases of Moscow and Law, decided that the chances of anyone looking for an image of these villages on iStock are remote, and send them to Alamy or another RM site. (Don't get me started on Alamy's much worse search system and engine. I try to limit my rants on that topic!).

Any search-engine should start strong with total relevant keywords, i.e.  "jet engine"  then the entire 1st page should be full of close-ups of jet-engines not showing a full-size  stationery aircraft with four jet-engines.

Dont understand why they cant get that together? and as far as conceptual keywording?  well thats beyond belief.

They can, and do.  That's how BM2 works.  Although some have said it's acting a bit wonky lately as far as relevance.

Dont understand why they cant get that together? and as far as conceptual keywording?  well thats beyond belief.

Even tho it's very important to sort all this out, it's also enormously boring, and very complicated, and it can never be perfect. So I guess no one really wants to start to sort these things out. At least not while earnings are decent even with this CV.

Thanks ShadySue and Sjlocke for the explanation.

Quote from: gostwyck on May 05, 2010, 10:46

It's not down to 'technology', it's just a matter of them dedicating the manpower to provide adequate choices for words that have multiple meanings. I get the impression it has largely been left as it is rather than someone continually refining it.

I agree^^.  When the CV was first implemented there were lots of changes and improvements made on a regular basis.  Jordan (Keywords) was available to refine the CV according to contributor suggestions.  

Does he even still work for Istock?  The last activity on his account appears to be in 2007.

And AFAIK nobody else has stepped into the role of refining the CV.    It is still so far from perfect - there ought to be somebody in charge of continuously improving it.

The last I heard, Jordan/Keywords still works in Team Metadata, but he doesn't reply to emails and doesn't post on the forums. That part of the job has devolved to David/Ducksandwich.

In the past I sent Jordan many suggestions, with dictionary definitions.  Never saw any of them included, then stopped bothering.

I don't pretend to understand why some suggestions can be implemented immediately and other can take months or years. It took years for me to get my current home county in the CV - previously they only had Strathclyde, which only existed for 22 years and was abolished in 1996! Meanwhile my county existed before, during and after the Strathclyde fiasco. Ayrshire mapped only to Ayrshire Cattle (so unlike most other counties, I couldn't even add it 'for my own use')!
For a while, I couldn't understand why a search on Bustard (a group of species of birds) had loads of photos of water drops, then I discovered the Polish for bustard is 'drop', and it was causing the CV to seize. That's mostly been sorted now. :-) Off to wiki the few remaining non-Bustards. ;-)