|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - einstein
26
« on: October 01, 2014, 08:16 »
OK guys I was quite busy, so I couldn't visit here earlier. As I mentioned before, I can't guarantee anything. I just noticed that while on some websites the best selling images have as little as 3.x keywords in their title, they are significantly longer somewhere else. If this pattern occurs in an overwhelming amount of best selling images I thought some people here might want to know.
Other thing no one realized, I was selling the information incredibly cheap (try to get that information yourself and you'll see how much pain it's to get reliable numbers). You didn't grab it, you didn't get it.
By now I also started researching single keywords, and I debunked some keyword myths. The word "blue" for example mentioned by cascoly isn't such a bad keyword. It's true that you have a huge competition if you just enter "blue" into the search box (how many people will look just for "blue"?), but it is highly searched in combination with other keywords. It might not directly lead to sales but it will get you views (which you need to make any sales at all).
Just to warn keyword spammers: if blue is not the dominant color of your image, it probably won't get you views but instead it will downrank you for keyword spamming.
But if you have lot's of blue, you might want to specify it closer.
Here are some hand picked sale probabilities per view (under few assumptions such as landing close to the top in search results + I won't reveal for which website):
powder blue: 7%
deep blue: 9%
cold blue: 9%
isolated on blue: 15%
electric blue: 26%
27
« on: September 21, 2014, 14:55 »
Firstly: if you submit a big bunch of similar images, most of them (if not all) get rejected for that very reason (unless you sell your photos on some unknown website in which case they might go for your images anyway). Secondly, if all images are keyworded the same you will compete with yourself in the search results and the missing variation will extremely limit the number of keyword combinations your images can be found under. But I think you just want to tease me to reveal more of what I learned or know.
1. similars DO get accepted at all agencies
2. I'd love it if a search only generated a bunch of MY images for the buyer to choose from! why put all your efforts into one perfect image when a variety of images will create more buyers?
1. Not my experience, but maybe I just had bad luck. More than 5 similar images and all others got rejected in my case. Fotolia is even worse. Good for you if you had different outcomes. 2. But the probability is so much lower for that to happen at the first place. What makes you think it's still better? In my eyes it's like hoping for a rare event happening in a lottery. Just putting all your bets on one single thing and hoping that lottery strikes. For 25 cents. And nothing for a long time again.
28
« on: September 21, 2014, 11:01 »
They say beautiful has a rating of 0.005 (good keywords are beginning at 20.0). However beauti has an incredible rating of 116.922 (probably because no one uses it but foreign people mistype often) and ful has a rating of 42.8 
@einstein: beautiful, of course, was just an example, it could be any other w,ord  Have a nice sunday!
Yeah, sometimes I take what people say too seriosly  Sorry about that, don't blame me. I'm a nerd. Have a nice Sunday as well  Btw, I couldn't resist but check it again. Guess what they say: "ord" scores a 305 You might be into something there http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Maybe I was implying a causation too strongly, I guess it was the enthusiasm that tricked me ("emotionally compromised" as Mr. Spock would say ) However I can still defend my cause: Speculation about causation may lead to the truth anyway. You need a hypothesis first. Anybody have some Wellingtons it's getting deep in here. Why not tell us for free since you now took the 5er offer down. SS would not care what you write because it's horseshit.
If that's such a horseshit, why do you want to know? No one wants horseshit, why would you then?
29
« on: September 21, 2014, 06:35 »
Interesting, as far as I can see their explanation, I think they have been contacted by shutterstock to pull my offer down. I asked them to clarify, I think the answer will be interesting, because I don't see how I was violating the rules they mentioned in their explanation. But here you have it. Everyone should be happy. Me (I can keep the information for myself, it seems its value is not recognized here anyway), you guys (you didn't see the chance in front of your face and you don't appreciate me with your -11 votes) and shutterstock (who probably like google has interest in people not knowing how their search works). It's always 42 I'm not an expert in cryptography but I wouldn't be a computer scientist if I didn't get the joke. It's actually more insightful than you probably intended (but it's not shutterstock). If you have 100 images of the same subject you will copy the keywords from one image, then select the remaining 99 images and paste the keywords in the 99 images in one time And have you sold any of those images? Sounds to me like the worst idea ever. There are multiple things wrong with that. Firstly: if you submit a big bunch of similar images, most of them (if not all) get rejected for that very reason (unless you sell your photos on some unknown website in which case they might go for your images anyway). Secondly, if all images are keyworded the same you will compete with yourself in the search results and the missing variation will extremely limit the number of keyword combinations your images can be found under. But I think you just want to tease me to reveal more of what I learned or know. Seriously, this may be one variable that can influence search placement (it's not rocket science to see that, given 2 similar images, the one with 3 times the number of keywords is likely to contain spam and, therefore be less relevant). But only variable one of many that can include dumb luck in terms of placement. In any case, 300 images over a few months is statistically insignificant given the volumes in MS.
Thank you. I have to agree with everything you said. Probably the main reason why they punish you for too many keywords. They often get spammy once you run out of ideas. I'm still not sure if they detect spam keywords automatically or if they just assume them to be present when a certain level of keywords is reached. The first apporach is increadibly cheap to implement. The second one costs more but it would be more just to contributors who put great effort to make sure their keywords have high quality. Since the second approach is more expensive (CPU time) you can guess why I think most of them will implement the first one. In other words, I have more reasons to believe, you shouldn't use all 50 keywords, but use that optimal number that has proven to be successful instead. If you do more, you might actually get punished for quality. That my 300 images are of very little statistical significance, I said that myself. I still think it's enough to have a rough idea about things. Unless your image at thumbnail size does not immediately look appealing....fuggedaboutit.
True Hmm, maybe I should delete the last letters of each title? Or write it this way: beauti, ful?
Actually you might have more sales if you do it that way (not really joking) On most websites the keyword beautiful is a bad word that doesn't sell (with few exceptions). And I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion. If you google around you will find http://research.picworkflow.com/They say beautiful has a rating of 0.005 (good keywords are beginning at 20.0). However beauti has an incredible rating of 116.922 (probably because no one uses it but foreign people mistype often) and ful has a rating of 42.8
30
« on: September 20, 2014, 15:17 »
I started my microstock adventure in the beginning of this year. I increasingly rely on software I have written for myself. Analysis of the keyword length and title length is my newest addition. I have build in those results into my software, but since it was so much effort to figure that out, I thought this information should be valuable to others. At least I would have expected some excitement because it's something I always wanted to know. By now I only have around 300 images online which is by far not enough, since I spent more time writing the software than making photos and submitting. I have at least one sale a day (average 2, sometimes up to 5). Recently my number of the "more expensive" sales went up but it had nothing to do with the new algorithm yet. It was because I'm learning how to do better images, which images sell and I'm filtering out "bad" keywords depending on stock website. I'm not promising it will rocket your sales but I can imagine that knowing the number from other popular images should give you a small extra boost. And even if not, why to look for a couple extra keywords when it turns out you don't have to. It can be a lot of work, especially if you have serious amounts of images to submit. 100 images times 3 keywords - you saved yourself 300 keywords. I see a lot of people saying that too many keywords are diluting the good ones and other people saying that the more keywords the better the chance that someone finds your image. I just wanted to get closer to the truth, not the speculation, and I wanted to know it for each website separately. Plus I always wrote monster descriptions and I wanted to know if it's worth the effort. The data is not field tested yet, you have me there, but if you want, I can make a report in 6 months (just write me a message to remind me then). The only problem with that is, I will optimize more than just the number of them. For example I'm getting into questions like, where does plural make a difference or if the word "red" is better than "cherry red", given there is cherry red in the image. If you have couple of thousand of images, I would expect some impact, that's all I'm saying, I can't prove that. I will use that data from now on whenever you will as well or not. I also admit that the biggest surprise so far was not shutterstock but dreamstime. They seem to have two sweetspots with a large gap in between. But I haven't yet done all the research to fully confirm it. I'm inclined to think number of keywords is less relevant than the keywords themselves and the image in question Quality is extremely important, no question there, but I think quantity is important as well. Especially for fotolia, istock and dreamstime (clearly below 50 if anyone noticed ). Just do a random search yourself. Actually I think it's important for lots of them. At 123rf I accidentally used the right number of keywords already and my images sell twice as good as on fotolia (and now I know why). At least I strongly believe that after seeing some preliminary results. On 123rf I get quite often into the first page because of that, especially if someone uses 2 search words in my niche. Plus, let me express my unrelated enthusiasm, I love 123rf for their uncomplicated submission process
31
« on: September 20, 2014, 09:40 »
Hi guys I did some heavy work to figure out -the best number of keywords to submit to shutterstock -the best number of words to use in the title/description Given the time I invested, I decided to offer the information for a small fee here: https://www.fiverr.com/manmademagic/reveal-best-number-of-keywords-for-shutterstock-submissionsCheck it out and if I see enough appreciation, I will do more research for other websites as well. I found the results quite interesting. Have fun einstein 19.03.2015 Just an update for the haters: Istock confirms how much title and description matters. While you waisted time hating me, I have done it for several months now. By now I am also hitting many first pages, especially on bigstock and 123rf, many of them are single keyword searches. 50 description keywords is btw not the optimum for istock, it's not surprisingly between the numbers they tested (assuming that a description is accurate as they noticed themselves). I wonder why they need to rewrite 20000 descriptions and plan a rewrite for another 100000 to find out what I already know. I guess they want to increase sales for current images after that realization. Otherwise it's really not the most efficient way to get the data. Here is the link: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365797&page=1
32
« on: June 28, 2014, 15:19 »
Hm... The dilemma I'm facing is, that I can learn developing for chrome much faster than for firefox, since chrome makes it a lot easier for developers. However I can hope to reuse at least some of the code for Firefox later. Google has an annoying submission process where you sometimes wait up to 2 weeks to get your plugin approved. Approval is triggered by certain words in the description or if the code is using certain stuff, but it's not a nice lottery if you get flagged but have an urgent update. Firefox is harder to learn, because it was the first app-store-like plugin system of its kind and it hasn't changed much since the begin of its existence. Meanwhile other companies like google learned from some design flaws to make it less painful for developers. They also built an entire infrastructure around it, while the Firefox infrastructure remained somehow rudimentary and primitive. Chrome just disabled all 3rd party apps that aren't in the google store As long as my app gets approved into the google store, it shouldn't be a problem I think. Firefox has a somehow similar but at the same time very different issue. As far I understand it, each plugin must specify the version of Firefox that can be used with it. If you update your Firefox a few times, it might stop working unless developers provide regular updates just to fix the version number they once specified. Most plugins blocked by the versioning check would work perfectly fine if there was no check. This also often holds true when you want to stick with an older version while the plugin gets marked for a newer one.
33
« on: June 23, 2014, 16:49 »
Sorry to be the contrarian ... but Chrome.
Wow, twice as many Firefox users? For some reason I have the impression that Chrome users are silent here, because Firefox users have strong feelings and are more likely to let me know about it
34
« on: June 20, 2014, 17:51 »
Although I probably shouldn't underestimate the number of Apple users in microstock area, Safari is not a priority for me right now. Should I decide to make such plugin public, I want to reach as many people as possible and I don't think that Safari can't compete in that area: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.aspI'm only asking about Firefox, because I can imagine that there could be a different balance among microstock community between those browsers. I can't however imagine that the number of Safari users would be greater than that of Firefox or Chrome users. A lot of people might not like those statistics but that's the reality one must face. Once the plugin would be out and a lot of people would like it, I can think of continuously adding support for more and more browsers. For now, Safari users would have slight disadvantage and have to install Firefox or Chrome on their system, in parallel with their favourite Safari browser. The plugin development process can be quite different for each browser, even though most plugin Systems are JavaScript based.
35
« on: June 20, 2014, 09:23 »
Hi guys,
I had an idea to develop a browser plugin that could drastically shorten the time during the final part of submission (After FTP/site upload). If you wished that such a plugin existed, which browser would you prefer to be supported first? Firefox or Chrome?
The background is that I once used the plugin from picworkflow, but when I measured how much time it really saves me, the additional hassle was not worth it in my case. Especially their categorization tool was useless and did actually cost me more time than going directly to the submission page. I believe I can do that much much (much) better.
36
« on: May 26, 2014, 05:57 »
Update: I wrote them an email and they never answered. So that's about their excellent service I finally figured out myself what was wrong: Bigstock doesn't use "IPTC.Title" for the title. It uses IPTC.ObjectName Very intuitive programmers on Bigstock
37
« on: May 25, 2014, 16:07 »
You use Deepmeta or you can practically forget about submission to Istock.
Your call.
I've been submitting to iS directly for over six years.
But I could do without more competition, so fair enough.
Didn't think about that one, so I'm not going to argue much. I guess you have indeed a good point there If that's part of their strategy and they think they can get away with it, they are welcome to try. But let me say this: People will most likely go for the greatest choice of images and it's undoubtedly shutterstock. By limiting submissions, they will increase the gap between them and their rival.
38
« on: May 25, 2014, 11:16 »
According to exiftool, the Title is stored in the IPTC data as ObjectName.
Thanks a lot! I had that problem since a long time! I would have never guessed that they are reading IPTC.ObjectName. I always used IPTC.Title and it worked everywhere except those two. In the future I will write both into the file. At some sites like Fotolia and Dreamstime, they offer some kind of batch-editing, Fotolia calls it "Indexing", Dreamstime "Auto-Populate"...
Dreamstime autopopulate seems just to copy everything, so it's not very useful since I'm trying to diversify my keywords as much as possible. But I just found the indexing feature of Fotolia. This one is really nice! Now they just need to get rid of those categories: Shutterstock 30 Depositphotos 36 Istock 163 (I think those are for images only) Dreamstime 171 Bigstock 173 Fotolia 816 = 392 categories + 424 concepts!!!istock - And their software "DeepMeta" which they try to smuggle onto your pc
Really? That must be very new.
IME, you have to choose to download the program.
Anyone else find them trying to 'smuggle' DM onto their computer?
I meant it as BaldricksTrousers explained. They basically are forcing you to use it instead of fixing their website. You use Deepmeta or you can practically forget about submission to Istock. The keywords are included in my uploaded files. They need rearranging in the three (well, two, usually) boxes.
Are those keywords at least in the same order when you edit them? I never analyzed that, but if they are, it would at least speed up the process of cutting them, since my keywords are ordered by importance already. For some reason SS FTP hasn't worked for months.
SS FTP works for me just fine. Unless you mean the waiting time to show up after upload Or do you get error messages?
39
« on: May 24, 2014, 16:05 »
Start by figuring out why your IPTC data isn't getting handled by all those sites. Bigstock has no problem reading mine, and I don't bother with more categories than are essential. One or two at most, and I assign those to a batch of related images in one operation.
What are the names of IPTC Fields you are using in order to get the title recognized? Are there any special characters you are avoiding? And how do you "assign" your categories to a batch in one operation? Do you mean IPTC by that? This would blow my mind if they recognize categories via IPTC.
40
« on: May 24, 2014, 15:02 »
I just spend more than half a day submitting 56 images to 8 websites. I uploaded them (mostly) via FTP and they already did contain all the IPTC data (keywords, title, description). I was curious to write down how long each submission took in order to face the truth.
So here are the results:
photodune (envato) - 1 min of my life
No complaints here. I feel valued.
123rf - 1 min of my life
No complaints here. I feel valued.
canstockphoto 13 mins of my life
marking each image as illustration
editing and resubmitting 5 images where they complained about keywords
veer - 15 mins of my life (btw. veer's FTP generally doesn't work so I had to use their online upload functionality here)
I had to choose meanings of lots of my keywords. Clicks usually didn't came through and I ended up with a lot of website errors.
I had to reload the site a couple of times and most of those clicks got lost. At the end I ignored half of the keywords that I would have to explain.
pond5 - 23 mins of my life
applying template, choosing image type because that template part doesn't work, checking "go to next item" explicitly
The images must be process in linear manner, one needs to wait until next image shows up.
bigstock - 41 mins of my life
Titles were not retrieved from IPTC Data, had to copy and paste manually, 3 categories per image needed to be chosen. For those 3 categories one needs to go through 6 dropdowns.
shutterstock - 42 mins of my life
choosing categories and marking images as illustration, keywords will not be displayed if one blocks javascript
fotolia - 66 mins of my life
Did read Description as Title which led to a Title that was too long. Would be far slower if I hadn't chosen my categories in advance.
Each image must be marked as illustration, keywords are recognized but still require one unecessary additional click, terms must be accepted each time, often clicks to display all categories necessary.
dreamstime - 95 mins of my life
Titles were not imported from the IPTC data, needed to copy and paste manually, 3 categories needed to be chosen
The submission process is linear and one needs to wait until the next image shows up. I had complaints about too many keywords, because dreamstime flattens keywords not only by space, but also by the minus-sign.
istock - would have taken half a day and I was not willing to do that
No FTP upload, each file needs to be uploaded separately, so it already starts there. Even the upload (which I'm not counting here) would take ages.
Overwhelming number of categories (similar to Fotolia)
Each word has to be explained. Uploaded 1 image few months ago, and nothing since then. It's just beyond acceptable how they treat contributors during the submission process. And their software "DeepMeta" which they try to smuggle onto your pc instead of fixing the root cause of the problem, doesn't work under Linux.
alamy - would have taken entire day
No FTP, crashing flash upload, images can't be edited before approval, flash again to edit image data, no IPTC possible because they have 4 classes of keywords and IPTC only supports 1 keyword list, several attributes must be chosen each time, keyword limits by letters instead of keyword count.
depositphoto - If you ask yourself why I didn't include it: I can't offer any experience, they think my images aren't of commercial value
Additional conditions: I already have chosen categories before downloading, so I only needed to look them up from a list when submitting. Otherwise Fotolia, Bigstock
and dreamstime would have taken a lot longer.
Anyone has any tricks up his sleeve how I can do all this painful online-stuff faster?
41
« on: May 21, 2014, 09:08 »
Yay!! I wish Fotolia and Istock did the same Categories are plain horrible there.
42
« on: May 20, 2014, 18:22 »
Maybe I'm mixing something up, but I thought that you need to categorize your images at pond5 (I submit to lots of websites).
I believe to remember that I had to categorize my images, but I can't find that field during submission. I keep lists of all categories for each website locally on my PC so I wonder whenever I wrongly renamed my list as "pond5". I used those lists with a tool I have written for myself and I don't want to keep categorizing if I don't need to.
Here is the list:
"abstract", "aerials", "alpha channel / greenscreen", "archival", "animation", "animals / wildlife", "backgrounds", "buildings and monuments", "business / commerce", "celebrities / paparrazi", "church and ministry", "crowds", "clouds", "concepts", "elements and effects", "explosions", "fire", "food and drink", "globes", "health and beauty", "holidays / celebrations", "industry", "lifestyle / people", "lower thirds", "loops / vj", "medicine", "military", "music related", "nature scenics", "news / documentary", "politics", "retro", "science", "slow motion", "sports", "stereoscopic 3d", "technology", "textures", "timelapse", "transportation", "travel", "underwater", "cities / urban scenics", "verticals", "virtual sets", "transitions and wipes", "weddings"
Is or was this Pond5? Any idea which other website this could be? Can I throw that away? Google search wasn't very helpful.
43
« on: April 14, 2014, 07:38 »
I use the following IPTC field to write my titles into jpeg files: "Iptc.Application2.Headline" Shutterstock reads the data out correctly, but on Bigstock I need to reenter the Title manually which is very annoying. Is that Bigstock's fault and should I contact their support or do they just use a different Field for Titles? If they use a different IPTC field then which one is it? "Iptc.Application2.Title" is not supported by IPTC standard: http://exiv2.org/iptc.html
44
« on: March 28, 2014, 01:30 »
Just came across this here.
I'm having trouble understanding who would want to become an exclusive photographer for istock.
Just making my first experiences with them and so far they have proven to be the second most frustrating agency.
The submission process alone is .. I admit, I didn't try DeepMeta yet, but it already rings all alarm bells when I feel pushed to use Windows software that helps with that very submission problem instead of having the process fixed at its root.
As far as I'm concerned they are just trying to aggressively lock everyone in. If you become exclusive your rise and fall will depend on just one agency (And when they fall, have fun resubmitting the images somewhere else). And ever heard of income diversification / spreading risk? Why would anyone want to enslave himself like that?
Their conditions seem aggressive to me and I would never want to fall into such claws. I rather earn less but remain free. And how can you guys be sure that the earnings they are currently promising for exclusives will stay that way?
Another thing I wonder about iStock: When will companies finally learn that lock-in strategies are economically not sustainable?
45
« on: March 25, 2014, 07:58 »
Same under Linux, I couldn't find any FTP software that actually works with veer. In particular FileZilla doesn't, despite being recommended by them. It works with all other agencies just fine.
46
« on: March 24, 2014, 09:23 »
I'm not saying, I get 100% acceptance rate everywhere else, but for example if shutterstock rejects something, I really get their reasons most of the time. Fotolia cuts about half of my images and that's very unusual, especially since some of the rejected ones belong to my best sellers. It feels very aribitrary. I don't see it that negatively if an agency doesn't reject that much. Sure, they should filter a little what's coming in, but why reject things where you can't tell in advance whenever they will sell or not? One can be easily surprised what people want. My personal experience with fotolia reviewers is, that they are not very skilled fortune tellers But I can always be wrong. Maybe their customers are so different that those images really wouldn't sell. However I find that hard to believe. A good acceptance rate is friendly and motivating to the contributor and gives him a chance to expose all his ideas to the market. I discovered 3 niches in just a month that way. Second of all, if those images are so bad, they will never sell or appear on the first page anyway (well, eventually in the "new"-section, but they will disappear from there pretty quickly again). And about the storage, I wouldn't mind if they send me an email once a year, asking me to confirm, which images of the unsold ones I want to keep online. Maybe even with some automated analysis giving me clues why they don't convert. I'm perfectly happy with deleting stuff that keeps my customers from seeing what else I have. I'm just saying, instead of doing so much fortune telling, at the end the customer himself should decide whenever images are worth something or not. That's the only objective way of determining the true value of something. Reviewers should only be there to reject obvious and common sense cases. Having 1000 images of the same thing IS such an obvious case. As a customer I would rather prefer a tighter selection As a customer I wouldn't care unless I begin noticing that my search results are spammed with low quality images. And a broader selection makes it more likely to find what I look for, doesn't it? Well, the number of images an agency has is strategically important, whenever one likes it or not. Working hard is worthless if you don't work smart. If you look it up in literature, this is called taking advantage of "positive network externalities". As long as the quality standard doesn't fall too low, quantity is very important factor when they want to rule the market. It's not just psychological. In that sense, those agencies where you get >99% acceptance rate are not that stupid at all. As long as they don't accept eye catching crap (in which case they are stupid), they still have a chance on the market. Especially if their competition makes a mistake.
47
« on: March 23, 2014, 18:29 »
Hi guys,
I get unusually many rejections because "similarity" at Fotolia. It's quite annoying since my submission effort of larger batches is not rewarded very much. Any advice?
Some cases are not understandable to me at all, others could be understood, but they get accepted everywhere else.
About the ones that I can see how that could be justified:
On shutterstock, when I have similar versions of the same image, I can make a special kind of release to link those images together. For example I had a background that was selling very well, so I made more versions of it. No problem at shutterstock and the other backgrounds sell nice as well now. And it actually boosted the sales for the original image. Fotolia on the other hand seems not to provide such functionality. Is that right? I'm not sure if their uniqueness craze is such a good marketing strategy. Especially in cases where someone wants to make more of what he/she knows will sell.
About the other images that are not so similar and where it's a little less understandable:
I have a particular style and I wonder if their reviewers don't confuse style for similarity.
I also wonder, since I developed software for myself to keyword my own images, if they count the number of shared keywords between images. There are some keywords that occur in almost every image of mine, since they address my style.
It almost looks to me as if they had some software that generates some metrics for the reviewer and the reviewer rejects based on those metrics, possibly not even caring about the actual image.
Anyone else having a hard time with Fotolia like that?
48
« on: March 22, 2014, 10:10 »
Just an update about that second application if anyone is interested The image is not suitable for commercial use. The image is not suitable for commercial use. The image is not suitable for commercial use. The image is not suitable for commercial use. The image is not suitable for commercial use. Why am I not surprised? No harm in trying again, but even if I ever get through, I'm asking myself what kind of images I really want to put there when I consider their unfriendly licensing.
49
« on: March 18, 2014, 12:27 »
Thanks, good to know that illustrations are referred as graphics. It probably explains why the word is so heavily in use still.
I'm also not sure about "vector". This word is so spread, it almost amazes me. Does that really work? Most websites will have a filter for that and entering that into search box does not always outputs vectors only. The customer would probably be annoyed by that and use advanced search soon. It seems to me that everyone is just using the word in hope to get a piece of the vector-cake without having any vectors. I didn't make any experiments, but it would be interesting to know if someone was able to boost his jpeg sales with that word. I would expect the opposite to be honest but I keep wondering why people keep doing that. Are vectors so popular that it could still work?
50
« on: March 17, 2014, 17:44 »
I wasn't sure where to post it. I guess it's general discussion indeed.
When I do my keywording, I always wonder whenever it's wise to add some very generic keywords which fit into almost every image.
nobody, anything, pic, picture, image, graphic, one, color,...
I'm confused by them. Here are my thoughts:
nobody - can be useful to filter out people from the search. But are buyers even aware that they could do such a trick? Does anyone has experience with that keyword?
anything - user is bored and enters "anything" into the searchbox - is that even realistic? Even if he does - sale or waste of keywords?
pic, picture - user could use that to filter out video or audio. But again, does that make any sense?
image - anyone ever entering that word into the search box?
graphic - especially web designers might look for "web graphic". Or not?
one - if there is one object versus multiple objects, does that matter to most buyers? Do I waste my keywords again?
color - if I look for "green frog", I won't enter "green colored frog" or "frog green color". Why would anyone enter "color" into the search box? I would assume that potential buyer will just name the color and that's it.
What is your experience with generic keywords? Are they worth it or are they junk? Which are junk?
"Color" for example, is used a lot, and I don't understand why. Is that just some mistake made by lots of people?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
