Author Topic: Keyword craziness at iStock? (Read 5234 times)

louoates · « **on:** September 23, 2008, 16:08 »

Can anyone make sense of this keyword rejection with this image of a lone football goal post? I can't. I've had several goofy keyword rejections lately but none to top this one.

We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission, entitled Football goal post ( http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/7226776/2/istockphoto_7226776-football-goal-post.jpg) for addition to the iStockphoto library for the following reasons:

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

{[ American Football (Team Sport), Sport, Competition, Competition, Sport]}

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

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** September 23, 2008, 16:14 »

Maybe it wasn't clear what it was. Most goalposts I've seen look thicker (?) than that, with padding and stuff. That just sort of looks like a metal shape. You should have punted a ball over it.

louoates · « **Reply #2 on:** September 23, 2008, 16:30 »

This is just a typical goalpost in the Chicago area.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #3 on:** September 23, 2008, 16:50 »

What has bothered me with the same IS emails I'm getting.... is the words they are objecting to...
I never uploaded!! Heck, some of them aren't even in my vocabulary! So,where'd they come from? I mailed back those sentiments several days ago but have not gotten a reply.

=tom

p.s. I agreed with their observations, the words weren't applicable, but the fact remains, those words aren't in my data base, I didn't upload them.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #4 on:** September 23, 2008, 16:51 »

I've had a couple of odd ones too. I had shoes inside of a shoe storage bin and they tagged "inside" as irrelevant. Not sure why that's not relevant.

CofkoCof · « **Reply #5 on:** September 23, 2008, 17:23 »

I've had some strange keyword rejections also. I remember an image of a sunset with nicely colored clouds rejected for keyword cloud (the only keyword that was listed as inappropriate).

louoates · « **Reply #6 on:** September 23, 2008, 18:55 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on September 23, 2008, 16:50

What has bothered me with the same IS emails I'm getting.... is the words they are objecting to...
I never uploaded!! Heck, some of them aren't even in my vocabulary! So,where'd they come from? I mailed back those sentiments several days ago but have not gotten a reply. =tom

p.s. I agreed with their observations, the words weren't applicable, but the fact remains, those words aren't in my data base, I didn't upload them.

Now that you mentioned it, I too had some strange rejected keywords a few weeks ago that I would never had used. I didn't pay much attention to it at the time because there was another rejection reason with it.

madelaide · « **Reply #7 on:** September 23, 2008, 21:17 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on September 23, 2008, 16:50

p.s. I agreed with their observations, the words weren't applicable, but the fact remains, those words aren't in my data base, I didn't upload them.

Weren't they added by CV and you did not uncheck them during submission?

Regards,
Adelaide

leaf · « **Reply #8 on:** September 24, 2008, 02:16 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on September 23, 2008, 16:50

p.s. I agreed with their observations, the words weren't applicable, but the fact remains, those words aren't in my data base, I didn't upload them.

what, how can you say football isn´t applicable. How does a search for ´football goal´go then without the word football.
And if you have the word football, istock will make you pick ´american football´

Xalanx · « **Reply #9 on:** September 24, 2008, 02:22 »

That's bloody stupid. So I'm on my way to get mass of rejections for keywords, I assume. I have 15 in queue waiting. After months of not uploading anything because of their horrendous upload system.
I hope I'll get another reviewer than this one obsessed with keywords.

Nemo1024 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 24, 2008, 03:26 »

Hmm... I've been down that road as well. This image (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/transportation/6324486-old-maltese-bus-1952.php?id=6324486) was initially rejected due to keywords "clear sky", "car", "vintage"

thesentinel · « **Reply #11 on:** September 24, 2008, 03:50 »

I don't know why the OP was surprised, as people are always complaining about istock moving the goalposts.

Microbius · « **Reply #12 on:** September 24, 2008, 04:56 »

It's pretty clear that the reviewer must not have realized what the photo was of. Out of context it could be an aerial or something.
You'd think that the keywords would have given it away though, I suppose if you're reviewing loads of images it's possible to jump to a conclusion about what a photo is of and not think it "backwards" after seeing the keywords.

Caz · « **Reply #13 on:** September 24, 2008, 05:10 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on September 23, 2008, 16:50

What has bothered me with the same IS emails I'm getting.... is the words they are objecting to...
I never uploaded!! Heck, some of them aren't even in my vocabulary! So,where'd they come from? I mailed back those sentiments several days ago but have not gotten a reply. =tom

p.s. I agreed with their observations, the words weren't applicable, but the fact remains, those words aren't in my data base, I didn't upload them.

It's up to you to make sure the cv has mapped correctly to each of your keywords. For example, if you had the word orange, it's up to you to check or uncheck the drop down boxes asking if you mean orange colour or the fruit, or both. If you ignore the options, then it's likely that some alternative (irrelevant) meaning will be selected. People might say it's a time consuming process, but that it the process and it's your responsibility to check everything you submit is correct.

tomsailor · « **Reply #14 on:** September 24, 2008, 06:50 »

Quote from: thesentinel on September 24, 2008, 03:50

I don't know why the OP was surprised, as people are always complaining about istock moving the goalposts.

lol - although the issue of keywords is a serious one, this topic deserved a goalposts pun!

lisafx · « **Reply #15 on:** September 24, 2008, 12:02 »

Quote from: Microbius on September 24, 2008, 04:56

It's pretty clear that the reviewer must not have realized what the photo was of. Out of context it could be an aerial or something.
You'd think that the keywords would have given it away though, I suppose if you're reviewing loads of images it's possible to jump to a conclusion about what a photo is of and not think it "backwards" after seeing the keywords.

I would certainly hope that reviewers take titles and descriptions into account when they are deciding whether keywords are relevant.

Judging by the link Lou provided, the title of the image was "football goal post".

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Keyword craziness at iStock? (Read 5234 times)

louoates

Sean Locke Photography

louoates

a.k.a.-tom

PaulieWalnuts

CofkoCof

louoates

madelaide

leaf

Xalanx

Nemo1024

thesentinel

Microbius

Caz

tomsailor

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors