MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: unnonimus on May 02, 2019, 23:47

Title: 5 word minimum
Post by: unnonimus on May 02, 2019, 23:47
shutterstock now requires 5 word minimum for all descriptions?

dumb idea
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: Pauws99 on May 03, 2019, 01:24
shutterstock now requires 5 word minimum for all descriptions?

dumb idea
Given how many photos there are on the site it makes sense to me to be honest.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on May 03, 2019, 01:47
Why would you ever want to use less then five?!

You should sue them. As there's no law in the world that states that there must be a minimum of five keywords, it therefore stands to reason that it's illegal to enforce a five keyword minimum. I would start a class action law suit or maybe report them to Interpol.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: dpimborough on May 03, 2019, 02:37
shutterstock now requires 5 word minimum for all descriptions?

dumb idea

Why is it dumb? Its a description describing what is in the image.

5 words is a reasonable limit and probably helps stop image thieves who use one or two words like "Beautiful Nature" etc.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: Artist on May 03, 2019, 03:06
I really like this idea.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: unnonimus on May 03, 2019, 03:33
it is a dumb idea because no one reads the description when making a decision to purchase an image.

it might not be a big deal for people with small portfolios, but when you have 60,000 photos it is a big deal when you have to go back and retitle 10,000 photos just to comply with a requirement that has no effect on sales.

I have had to do this for bigstock and all it does it lead to stupid titles. "smiling young girl" becomes "smiling young girl with long hair" which has no impact on someone's desire to buy the image. it is just a waste of time.

these companies should be making it easier for people to contribute, not harder.

to say you like this idea is just stupid. why shouldn't someone have the right to make a title with 4 words? seriously you think it is a great idea to force everyone else to increase their title length, when they can do it voluntarily anyway? you are opposed to 4 word titles for other contributors?

Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: georgep7 on May 03, 2019, 03:36
If I got it right, best chances are using all title, description and keyword available space or word count to get maximum possibilities?

But sometimes seems quite meaningless. (ok, still a newbie, maybe wrong...)

A  red rose on pot isolated
remains a red rose on pot isolated
even if it is described or tagged from beautiful to awesome to "planted by God's hand itself"

further, keywords seem to mislead if not put in a phrase of a kind,
how about clients looking for Adrenaline, Samurai, Kashmir, Vancouver, Dublin or ....Hope for Humanity!
(random googled source of roses names https://www.stylecraze.com/articles/most-beautiful-red-roses (https://www.stylecraze.com/articles/most-beautiful-red-roses))

:P
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: Video-StockOrg on May 03, 2019, 03:42
it is a dumb idea because no one reads the description when making a decision to purchase an image.

it might not be a big deal for people with small portfolios, but when you have 60,000 photos it is a big deal when you have to go back and retitle 10,000 photos just to comply with a requirement that has no effect on sales.

I have had to do this for bigstock and all it does it lead to stupid titles. "smiling young girl" becomes "smiling young girl with long hair" which has no impact on someone's desire to buy the image. it is just a waste of time.

these companies should be making it easier for people to contribute, not harder.

to say you like this idea is just stupid. why shouldn't someone have the right to make a title with 4 words? seriously you think it is a great idea to force everyone else to increase their title length, when they can do it voluntarily anyway? you are opposed to 4 word titles for other contributors?

what if somebody searches for "girl with long hair"? It will find the "smiling young girl with long hair" photo/video but not the "smiling young girl".
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: Not Today on May 03, 2019, 03:48
it is a dumb idea because no one reads the description when making a decision to purchase an image.

it might not be a big deal for people with small portfolios, but when you have 60,000 photos it is a big deal when you have to go back and retitle 10,000 photos just to comply with a requirement that has no effect on sales.

I have had to do this for bigstock and all it does it lead to stupid titles. "smiling young girl" becomes "smiling young girl with long hair" which has no impact on someone's desire to buy the image. it is just a waste of time.

these companies should be making it easier for people to contribute, not harder.

to say you like this idea is just stupid. why shouldn't someone have the right to make a title with 4 words? seriously you think it is a great idea to force everyone else to increase their title length, when they can do it voluntarily anyway? you are opposed to 4 word titles for other contributors?

It's not about influencing buyers to purchase because they're reading the description. It's about avoiding similar descriptions in bulk (from the same or from different contributors) which can impact your ranking negatively in the search ranking, as it will consider these files to be duplicate if most of the keywords match.

Unique content sells, but with unique descriptions it sells way better.

Also, 'Smiling young girl' is a title, not a description, and might not be recognized as a sentence, rather a list of keywords.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: JoeClemson on May 03, 2019, 03:53
it is a dumb idea because no one reads the description when making a decision to purchase an image.
...SNIP..

I don't think that is true, even among commercial buyers, and certainly not among editorial buyers.

Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: Pauws99 on May 03, 2019, 03:56
it is a dumb idea because no one reads the description when making a decision to purchase an image.

it might not be a big deal for people with small portfolios, but when you have 60,000 photos it is a big deal when you have to go back and retitle 10,000 photos just to comply with a requirement that has no effect on sales.

I have had to do this for bigstock and all it does it lead to stupid titles. "smiling young girl" becomes "smiling young girl with long hair" which has no impact on someone's desire to buy the image. it is just a waste of time.

these companies should be making it easier for people to contribute, not harder.

to say you like this idea is just stupid. why shouldn't someone have the right to make a title with 4 words? seriously you think it is a great idea to force everyone else to increase their title length, when they can do it voluntarily anyway? you are opposed to 4 word titles for other contributors?
The harder the sites make it to submit thousands of generic similars the better. If you can't be bothered to caption them properly then they are probably not worth much. No one has any "right" to submit images anywhere.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: pancaketom on May 03, 2019, 12:07
If it helps stop bulk upload of poorly titled and keyworded images I'm all in.

I suspect it is to help their "world class industry leading machine learning AI" work better.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: Mrblues101 on May 03, 2019, 14:57
shutterstock now requires 5 word minimum for all descriptions?

dumb idea

Minor update... you like it or not, even 5 is short description...
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: cthoman on May 03, 2019, 15:48
A lot of other places already required 7 word descriptions, so it was already a thing.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: odesigns on May 03, 2019, 15:58
Good idea. Descriptions are used in searches, and adding relevant words in your descriptive sentence(s) gives you additional keywords if you hit the max of 50.

Plus, descriptions get placed in the page's title, which is good for search engine indexing.

I hardly think this new minimum should cause anyone any grief.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: k_t_g on May 03, 2019, 16:17
I usually never have to have 5 words in the title. I just get a bit creative and keep it short and to the point.  :)
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: Stu49 on May 03, 2019, 17:15
it is a dumb idea because no one reads the description when making a decision to purchase an image.

it might not be a big deal for people with small portfolios, but when you have 60,000 photos it is a big deal when you have to go back and retitle 10,000 photos just to comply with a requirement that has no effect on sales.

I have had to do this for bigstock and all it does it lead to stupid titles. "smiling young girl" becomes "smiling young girl with long hair" which has no impact on someone's desire to buy the image. it is just a waste of time.

these companies should be making it easier for people to contribute, not harder.

to say you like this idea is just stupid. why shouldn't someone have the right to make a title with 4 words? seriously you think it is a great idea to force everyone else to increase their title length, when they can do it voluntarily anyway? you are opposed to 4 word titles for other contributors?

are u saying they are Insisting u re-title 10,000 +  images that u already have with them ??  Surely not !?
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: swisschocolate on May 03, 2019, 17:25
are u saying they are Insisting u re-title 10,000 +  images that u already have with them ??  Surely not !?

Surely not :)
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 03, 2019, 20:11
Good idea. Descriptions are used in searches, and adding relevant words in your descriptive sentence(s) gives you additional keywords if you hit the max of 50.

Plus, descriptions get placed in the page's title, which is good for search engine indexing.

I hardly think this new minimum should cause anyone any grief.

It's a truly stupid idea because it doesn't address the real problem, assuming the real problem is poor titles.

I write good titles as well as good descriptions; SS ignores the title and grabs the description and it's always more than 5 words.

A rule that makes "Thunder engineering tasty screwdriver elephant" OK but "Granny Smith Apple" not OK is a waste of time and energy for them to enforce.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on May 04, 2019, 00:42
Why would you name a tasty-looking, elephant-shaped screwdriver (surrounded by thunder)... 'granny smith apple'?! You need to work on your keywording skills!
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: dpimborough on May 04, 2019, 02:42
it is a dumb idea because no one reads the description when making a decision to purchase an image.

it might not be a big deal for people with small portfolios, but when you have 60,000 photos it is a big deal when you have to go back and retitle 10,000 photos just to comply with a requirement that has no effect on sales.

I have had to do this for bigstock and all it does it lead to stupid titles. "smiling young girl" becomes "smiling young girl with long hair" which has no impact on someone's desire to buy the image. it is just a waste of time.

these companies should be making it easier for people to contribute, not harder.

to say you like this idea is just stupid. why shouldn't someone have the right to make a title with 4 words? seriously you think it is a great idea to force everyone else to increase their title length, when they can do it voluntarily anyway? you are opposed to 4 word titles for other contributors?

Enough of the insults you are just being rude.

As to being stupid well anyone with any sense would add titles and proper descriptions whilst adding keywords during processing so its no hardship.

I have the sense to realize that a good description added in the metadata is no big hardship.

Plus other agencies such as Alamy as well as Shutterstock actually use the description in the search parameters. 

How do you know buyers don't read descriptions??? Did you do some real research?  I very much doubt that.

So if you are too lazy or are too stupid to add properly worded descriptions in your metadata  carry on your own sweet way
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: steviejto on May 15, 2019, 10:29
I may be wrong here, but the description is the only thing visible to standard search engines like Google or Bing, and since most bog standard search tools are not IPTC aware, doesn't this make the images more visible to more searches?  Maybe not for pros, but for the greater unwashed.  In that case, maybe it's not such a dumb idea.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: wds on May 15, 2019, 10:39
it is a dumb idea because no one reads the description when making a decision to purchase an image.

it might not be a big deal for people with small portfolios, but when you have 60,000 photos it is a big deal when you have to go back and retitle 10,000 photos just to comply with a requirement that has no effect on sales.

I have had to do this for bigstock and all it does it lead to stupid titles. "smiling young girl" becomes "smiling young girl with long hair" which has no impact on someone's desire to buy the image. it is just a waste of time.

these companies should be making it easier for people to contribute, not harder.

to say you like this idea is just stupid. why shouldn't someone have the right to make a title with 4 words? seriously you think it is a great idea to force everyone else to increase their title length, when they can do it voluntarily anyway? you are opposed to 4 word titles for other contributors?

Are they saying you have to go back and re-"description" images that are already uploaded?
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: georgep7 on May 15, 2019, 10:39
I may be wrong here, but the description is the only thing visible to standard search engines like Google or Bing

No idea on pictures, ranking or SEO in general.

But from (uploaded) filename, to text to description to keywords, everything seems to be important to a certain point. Here is an example from Google staff twitting.

https://twitter.com/johnmu/status/849532855264956419
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: rinderart on May 15, 2019, 23:46
Good idea. Descriptions are used in searches, and adding relevant words in your descriptive sentence(s) gives you additional keywords if you hit the max of 50.

Plus, descriptions get placed in the page's title, which is good for search engine indexing.

I hardly think this new minimum should cause anyone any grief.

It's a truly stupid idea because it doesn't address the real problem, assuming the real problem is poor titles.

I write good titles as well as good descriptions; SS ignores the title and grabs the description and it's always more than 5 words.

A rule that makes "Thunder engineering tasty screwdriver elephant" OK but "Granny Smith Apple" not OK is a waste of time and energy for them to enforce.
Agree.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: unnonimus on May 19, 2019, 11:41
Good idea. Descriptions are used in searches, and adding relevant words in your descriptive sentence(s) gives you additional keywords if you hit the max of 50.

Plus, descriptions get placed in the page's title, which is good for search engine indexing.

I hardly think this new minimum should cause anyone any grief.

increasing the length of a title increases the length of the URL which is then penalized by search engines. this will have the opposite result of what was intended.

having more keywords reduces your keyword density which is also penalized by most search engines

minimum word length = bad idea
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: Tenebroso on May 19, 2019, 20:38


increasing the length of a title increases the length of the URL which is then penalized by search engines. this will have the opposite result of what was intended.

having more keywords reduces your keyword density which is also penalized by most search engines

minimum word length = bad idea





The search engines have a line of valuing the webs. But they are open to indexing anything that skips their values, if the public accesses a website. That is, the engines distinguish that certain errors can be corrected as slow access, or errors in the load. But they will always offer the user what they are looking for, even knowing that they are out of the correct line of optimal web. If the user mass visits a web, that we will always be available and in the first places of indexing, simply by the constant traffic, in spite of not respecting any of the scales of the optimal score of the search engines. Everything that links to the webs, everything that moves on the websites of stock files, will always be indexed with the highest priority, as requested by a large number of visitors, by years of constant presence and by the large number of files and links that leave the web and the link to the web.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: Tenebroso on May 19, 2019, 20:45
Another thing and a separate issue is, the engines loved Fotolia, and with Adobe they get worse. Well, surely yes.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: marthamarks on May 19, 2019, 20:59
Another thing and a separate issue is, the engines loved Fotolia, and with Adobe they get worse. Well, surely yes.

Can you explain why "with Adobe they get worse"? I don't understand why.

Thanks.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: Tenebroso on May 19, 2019, 21:41


Can you explain why "with Adobe they get worse"? I don't understand why.

Thanks.



Yes. Being an opinion based on searches of similar images, of similar images. Similar images of Fotolia appear before Adobe. For example. But of course, it is about my experience, and based on concrete images sought by me, and in a specific sector and under my perception.

Therefore, it is likely that there is a possibility that certain search engines will more easily index images of Fotolia than of adobe, with the same image in the two agencies. It can be a coincidence, a perception of mine. In addition, you can influence the rejection and boycott of google to PDF files and Flash files.

Therefore, I said, surely. I am not in a position to affirm anything. There are shades of gray in my comments. They are not black and white. It may be that search engines are very comfortable accessing files stored on Fotolia and less comfortable accessing files stored in Adobe. It is a possible observation, without any reliable statistics.

Maybe, if you look for similar images, before you see the similar images, same photograph, in Adobe that the same image stored in Fotolia and you show me that I was wrong in my perception.


However, indexing deals with more topics than a search for similar images.


Each web gives access to the robots following some guidelines. There are metadata robots and other types of robots. Programmers give access to certain parts and eliminate or deny others.


Is there a possibility that the search engines find more comfortable Fotolia images and like something less Adobe? I would say, yes.
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: marthamarks on May 19, 2019, 23:52


Can you explain why "with Adobe they get worse"? I don't understand why.

Thanks.



Yes. Being an opinion based on searches of similar images, of similar images. Similar images of Fotolia appear before Adobe. For example. But of course, it is about my experience, and based on concrete images sought by me, and in a specific sector and under my perception.

Therefore, it is likely that there is a possibility that certain search engines will more easily index images of Fotolia than of adobe, with the same image in the two agencies. It can be a coincidence, a perception of mine. In addition, you can influence the rejection and boycott of google to PDF files and Flash files.

Therefore, I said, surely. I am not in a position to affirm anything. There are shades of gray in my comments. They are not black and white. It may be that search engines are very comfortable accessing files stored on Fotolia and less comfortable accessing files stored in Adobe. It is a possible observation, without any reliable statistics.

Maybe, if you look for similar images, before you see the similar images, same photograph, in Adobe that the same image stored in Fotolia and you show me that I was wrong in my perception.


However, indexing deals with more topics than a search for similar images.


Each web gives access to the robots following some guidelines. There are metadata robots and other types of robots. Programmers give access to certain parts and eliminate or deny others.


Is there a possibility that the search engines find more comfortable Fotolia images and like something less Adobe? I would say, yes.

OK. I do appreciate that. Thanks again!
Title: Re: 5 word minimum
Post by: YadaYadaYada on June 19, 2019, 15:50
shutterstock now requires 5 word minimum for all descriptions?

dumb idea

You can't come up with 5 words to describe your photos. Don't you want them found, SS uses the description for search, and that's what Google uses to find matches. SS is trying to make your pictures found and you are against that?