Had another boost in demand for keywords since Microstock Expo, so I'm recruiting for more keyworders again. Anyone interested drop me a mail with a link to your port on any microstock site

Recruiting again if anyone is looking for work keywording images

Is your own keywording an indication of the standards required?
I just looked at a random four pics in your iStock port, and each of them had one outstandingly wrong keyword.
The fifth one I looked at was this one:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6746266-horse-beautiful-green-field-in-british-summer-morning.php?st=4226475
which is part of a horse standing in a field looking out of the picture with copy space, for which you have the keywords:
dressage (not in photo)
trotter (maybe so, but it's not obvious, so shouldn't be in, just like if you have a business portrait of someone in a business suit who happens to be a ballet dancer, you shouldn't put 'ballet dancer')
mare AND stallion (impossible, and as you can't tell from the photo, irrelevant)
event (no)
foal (I don't think so, but if so, not a mare and obviously not a stallion)
But you haven't got 'copy space', 'part of' or the generics (colour, photography, horizontal, nobody).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

wild and domesticated ??  surely someone searching for a wild animal wouldn't want this horse.

wildlife and pet ??

habitat ?   Would you search for horse habitat ?

A few long bows in that group. I agree with some , others I wouldn't use myself.

Does anybody ever search "mammal" ?   
151,000 keyworded on IS. Looks like people like keywording it atleast 

what about neutrons, protons and electrons ?
nitrogen = there must be some in the air between the lens and the horse.

I would say "trotter", "dressage" and "foal" are the most outstanding words there but Stallion and Mare are not wrong at all. Most buyers wont know the difference and wont see it as wrong if that image pops up from a search for "Mare or Stallion"

Im missing a few but I came up with a couple more - animal, wildlife, nature, outdoors, farm, outside, grass, grassland, pasture, pastureland, meadow, field, paddock, countryside, grass, pet, horse, domestic, wild, domesticated, mare, stallion, copyspace, green, summer, spring, environment, environmental, habitat, mammal,  

I think the more words the better. Just make sure the buyer will understand why you have put that word there. Although the horse is not in a paddock, the buyer wont take it as wrong keywording.

What you think?

I am particularly talking about iStock, as this is where I found the image; other sites may well be different.

Totally disagree with wild ("animals in the wild"), wildlife, mare, stallion as above, farm (it was explained ages ago that farm should mean a farmhouse or something obviously a farm. This could be a horse in a paddock outside someone's home.), environment/environmental (again, because of the explanation given ages ago on the forum about what these words should be used for, and what they DA to. Environment/environmental DAs to Environmental damage or Environmental conservation, so irrelevant for this picture, unless you're being really exact and referring to the damage to the natural damage to the environment caused by the 'green desert'. Although this is true, I wouldn't actually go as far as labelling a pasture 'environmental damage.' Maybe that's just me.
 There also is a 'Nature' DA for 'environment, which I think lots of people might use for this pic, even though there isn't much natural in it, rendering 'environment' unnecessary; 'habitat' DAs to 'environment' or 'nature'.

Grassland is a particular geobotanical feature. In iStock it DAs to 'plain'; it should be a savannah/pampas/prairie/veldt/steppe.

I don't think the more words the better. I think only the words that really describe the photo should be used, and that is the iStock official line. I'm guessing if a buyer specifies 'mare' or 'stallion' rather than 'horse', that's actually what they want.

Again, other sites may work differently. I was specifying the standards of the site I found the image on.

A women with "wild" hair might make sense to keyword wild.

What is "wild" looking about this horse ?

Maybe if it was running around in its' mamalian habitat with foam froffing from its mouth 

 

ShadySue : Yes I am also talking about iStock. Please see above with regards to "Mare" "Stallion" and other words you disagree with. I agree with a lot of what you are saying but why so specific? We never really know what a buyer wants or is thinking. I'm sure people go on the site looking for dogs and leave with a picture of a cat and a summer holiday picture.

It's subjective. Nobody is wrong here. (Incept for "trotter", "dressage" and "foal")  

The title is horrible "Horse Beautiful Green Field in British Summer Morning" What do you think?

iStock has keyword standards. http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=227
The main problem with iStock's search is that people keep ignoring the standards and apparently 'most' inspectors don't care or people are spamming immediately after acceptance. Any search for 'commercial kitchen' illustrates that perfectly. GIGO

The title seems fine to me. I'd probably not have put 'beautiful' as that's purely subjective ('handsome' men, 'beautiful' women, 'adorable' children are ten a penny and very debatable), but that's just me. I don't see any problem with any of the words in the title.
What do you think is wrong with it?

BTW the CV keyword 'beauty in nature' is an interesting one. I doubt if its used very much by buyers. I'd always taken it as referring to beautiful flowers, birds, animals in a not-unnatural context. But it seems like it has a non-DAd ambiguation for young women in meadows or woodland. Ha, a candidate for a DA if ever there was one. But like I said, I bet it's seldom actually used.