MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: kelby on May 15, 2013, 02:16
-
How is possible that many files of this contributors have such of wrong keywords on his new files ?
for example :
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-24438529-friends-stretching-on-beach.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-24438529-friends-stretching-on-beach.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-24437981-friends-stretching-on-beach.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-24437981-friends-stretching-on-beach.php)
have these keywords :
Mode of Transport, Land Vehicle, Commercial Land Vehicle, Bus, Double-Decker Bus, Capital Cities
infact if you search double decker bus on istock you can easily find these two images on top.
It's just ridicolous.
and there are something more wrong in there...
-
Most of the ingested stuff has truly ridiculous keywording. It seems to be accepted without any inspection, and certainly Keywordzilla, who removed evening from a photo taken half an hour before dark, hasn't been let loose on them.
I have no idea why they put in so many totally irrelevant keywords anyway. Maybe they use one of the keywording programs or oursource it to five year olds in non-English speaking countries.
And the 'setting the table' bug is back. I found it on several new ingested Agency images. How there's a bug which specifically adds the keyword phrase 'setting the table' to ingested images, I can't imagine.
The badly-keyworded ingested images seem to automatically arrive unable to be wikied and set as 'needs review'. I believe the keywords team is supposed to check them later, but there is a very long backlog, if indeed they look at them at all.
Set Keywordzilla onto them. H*ll, I'd do it for payment (in the Good Old Days, I used to have delusions about working for Team Keywords), but the subjects are boring, so probably I'd just fall asleep.
-
That is incredibly annoying and just hurts search.
-
Which is an example of why nobody trusts them to handle the "simplification" properly.
-
I'd say its one of many reasons trust is nonexistent with them.
-
It's all whacked. We got no idea what's going on under the hood.
-
It's all whacked. We got no idea what's going on under the hood.
Nor have the people working on it :)
-
This is the reason the best match is so screwed up, IS ingested over 18,000 images in the past week from this Getty Contributor.
-
How do those files have more than 50 keywords? Doesn't IS limit us to 50?
-
How do those files have more than 50 keywords? Doesn't IS limit us to 50?
They do, but:
1. Ingested files don't need to follow any rules
2. Even us plebs can go over 50 if we can tick two words in a disambiguation. Simple example: say you had 50 keywords and one of them was referring to an orange, you could correctly DA to orange (fruit) and orange (colour) then you'd have 51.
-
.
-
This is the reason the best match is so screwed up, IS ingested over 18,000 images in the past week from this Getty Contributor.
It's impressive work.
-
This is the reason the best match is so screwed up, IS ingested over 18,000 images in the past week from this Getty Contributor.
I just clicked on the first two keywords for the first file mentioned and sorted the results by photos and best match. That file is not in the first 200 results in fact in each of the two searches only one Agency file showed up in the first 200 results.
I just did another search and no Agency files show up in the first 200. How is it messing up the Best Match?
This has happened before with a large ingestion of Getty Images into IS. Here is one example posted in the best match thread.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353233&messageid=6886281 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353233&messageid=6886281)
-
.
-
shocked istock accepted this photo - it's washed out - no detail and terrifically boring. submitter must have some gratis there - i've sure had much better photos rejected. and keywords omg i've had a couple rejects mostly conceptual but never nouns - this photo never went through an inspector - but it did . . . speechless oh Yo!