ok i'll have to admit it IS sorta addicting.

I wonder if the image search rankings are going to be determined in part due to this.  I think probably.

It reminds me of a google game similar to this where two people would be looking at the same picture at the same time, and have to think of 1 common word.  The 'game' was timed and you and that other person in cyberspace were supposed to try and do well..... a way to get images gleened from the net keyworded.

Another complete waste of time from IS.

I'm sure the forums over there will be full of happy comments about this amazing new invention and how it improves the life quality of all involved 

I wish they would make the submitting process less of a hassle instead of these useless updates. 

We may have misunderstood the concept. The whole idea with istock is possibly to create a full time hobby for the contributors. The more hours invested, the better. More time consuming features are just added steps towards fulfillment of that task, and for the creation of the ever happy, happy istock family who contributes with ecstatic enthusiasm to fill the coffers of the mother of all stock: Getty Images

epixx ... you shock me ... shock me to the core. Do I detect a the faintest hint of cynicism here? How could you entertain even the teensiest-weensiest doubt about the wonderful things iStock are doing for us photographers?

I mean ... you only have to read their forums to realise how wickedly awesome they are.   

noooooo.... you must have misunderstood me completely         

How can you compare a wild animal to a group of kids   I assume they are meant to have similar keywords but all it shows up is keyword spaming or bad disambiguation.

I hope this doesn't affect site placement as I dont really see how it could be accurate.

(the animal I assume was a baby goat - ie a kid).

Yeah, if only they solved the problem with IPTC data and let us copy disambiguations and categories from any previous submission, instead of creating games in the office...

iStock's very latest 'feature', I've just discovered, is an unusual one with the disambiguation.

While disambiguating, enter any new word(s) in the box at the top of the keyword list, click on 'Add' and, no matter what the word is (or words are), you get 'undefined' in your keywords and a little warning sign.

What fun!

Actually, there is a way around this. Clear your browser cache before disambiguating, and it should stop happening. Even more fun.

Thank you iStock ... you've always got something up your sleeve.

Bateleur,

Is that a new problem?

I don't know how new it is. I was disambiguating some of my files last night (yeah ... I know ... I still have a massive backlog to do from when the introduced this marvellous new 'feature') and at the same time I tried to add some new keywords that came to mind.

Every time I entered a new set in the box at the top and clicked on 'Add' they vanished and I just got the word 'Undefined' in my keyword list with a little warning symbol beside it. I tried other images and the same thing happened.

I went to iStock's forum (I usually try to stay away from there because the sycophancy of the posters makes me want to throw up) and there's a whole thread on this problem. Apparently support have been told about it, but nothing has been done. Probably because they're too busy inventing new games. Yay! iStock, you are soooooo cooooooool   

Anyway, that's how I found out that clearing the cache seems to solve the problem.

Ah well ... back to disambiguating. I just love it. So quick and easy to do ...