pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Number of title and image keywords in best selling images  (Read 14273 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 20, 2014, 09:40 »
-14
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-submissions

Check 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
« Last Edit: March 18, 2015, 23:06 by einstein »


« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2014, 10:14 »
0
how many sales do you have by day? in how many files ?

Dook

« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2014, 11:33 »
+5
This statistics matter IF number of keywords and length of title makes any difference. And we don't know that.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2014, 11:34 »
+3
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-submissions

Check 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


Well, for a not so big fee I could read your information

« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2014, 12:07 »
+3
I'll wait for somebody whos been in Micro for over 6 months to make these claims. You want money to know best number of keywords, based on what? Title description. How did you come to these heavy work decisions.

« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2014, 12:24 »
+10
The implication is that you put the right number or keywords and title info and you will rocket in sales. Perhaps it is more important to have a great image and relevant keywords, title and description. I don't think this info have a great deal of relevance.

« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2014, 12:27 »
+6
I'm inclined to think number of keywords is less relevant than the keywords themselves and the image in question :-\

« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2014, 14:04 »
+6
If all it took to having a best selling image was the magic number of keywords and words in the titles I would think the author would be making a mint w/ best sellers on SS instead of trying to get us to pay for this maybe not quite so valuable information.

« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2014, 15:17 »
-3
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.

Quote
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 :D

« Last Edit: September 20, 2014, 15:23 by einstein »

« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2014, 15:45 »
+1
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.

dpimborough

« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2014, 16:11 »
+5
Roll up! Roll up get your snake oil here!  ;D

« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2014, 18:02 »
+4
I would guess (without any investigation), the right number is 7 - isn't it?  8)

« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2014, 18:16 »
-1
I would guess (without any investigation), the right number is 7 - isn't it?  8)

Either that, or it's eleven. Or maybe it's lucky 13!

Whatever.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2014, 18:36 »
+3
I would guess (without any investigation), the right number is 7 - isn't it?  8)

Either that, or it's eleven. Or maybe it's lucky 13!

Whatever.

It's always 42.

OM

« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2014, 18:55 »
+8
This is free and the major factor is 'luck' combined with an HCV image. Your image goes into the Shutterstock 'new' lottery along with 350,000 other images that week. Your image, as with any other of those 350,000, is dependent on a potential buyer looking in 'new' for a particular subject because maybe they don't see what they want in popular. Unless your image at thumbnail size does not immediately look appealing....fuggedaboutit. Within a few days, in the more popular categories, it will be lost forever if not sold multiple times within the first week.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2014, 02:27 »
+2
[] 100 images times 3 keywords - you saved yourself 300 keywords. []

If you have 100 different images representing 100 different subjects you will have, anyway, to write different keywords for each image.
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
Maybe you should spend less time to do useless researches and more time to improve your workflow?

I would guess (without any investigation), the right number is 7 - isn't it?  8)

My friend from the CERN in Geneva tells me that the right number is 17.54698
« Last Edit: September 21, 2014, 02:30 by Beppe Grillo »

« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2014, 02:40 »
+2
My friend from the CERN in Geneva tells me that the right number is 17.54698

Hmm, maybe I should delete the last letters of each title? Or write it this way: beauti, ful?  8) 8) ;) ;)


Beppe Grillo

« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2014, 03:33 »
0
My friend from the CERN in Geneva tells me that the right number is 17.54698

Hmm, maybe I should delete the last letters of each title? Or write it this way: beauti, ful?  8) 8) ;) ;)

Yo,u go,t i,t!  ;D ;D

« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2014, 06:35 »
-6
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).

Quote
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 :D (but it's not shutterstock).

Quote
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?  8) 8) ;) ;)

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 :D


Batman

« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2014, 07:16 »
+4
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.

« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2014, 07:56 »
0
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 :D

@einstein: beautiful, of course, was just an example, it could be any other w,ord 8) Have a nice sunday!


« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2014, 11:01 »
-2
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 :D

@einstein: beautiful, of course, was just an example, it could be any other w,ord 8) 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 :D You might be into something there :D

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?

« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2014, 12:40 »
0
Quote
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?

saying there is a perfect number of keywords for ALL images is just silly - some images only need a few, some can have 20 or 30 completely legitimate keywords - eg an isolated pencil vs a complicated street scene near an historic landmark

 

dpimborough

« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2014, 14:39 »
+4
Quote
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


I guess you never tried uploading to Dreamstime then :)

They hate similars  ::)

« Reply #25 on: September 21, 2014, 14:55 »
0
Quote
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.

nicksimages

  • contact : nicksimages.com
« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2014, 14:56 »
+9
Such research is impossible.
You must have a lot of exact same images accepted with differen keywords. Shutterstock would never allow that.

Even if you would have, the results are only for now and in your specific area within specific competition. The slightest tweak to the search algorithm and results are different.

Looks to me more like you want to sell junk for profit


cuppacoffee

« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2014, 15:34 »
0
Lots of similars get through these days at DT. Take a look at the latest photos. http://www.dreamstime.com/new-stock-photos-images

« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2014, 15:46 »
+7
I can't believe that anyone would even bother offering something so obviously time wasting and irrelevant - but for what it's worth for anyone new happening upon this discussion:

Your first priority should be your images - usefulness and technical quality.
Your second priority should be assembling a complete and relevant list of keywords. Come up with a useful title.

Nonsense claims about magic numbers of keywords or title words are just that.

« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2014, 00:00 »
-1
fwiw - here are the most popular keywords on symbiostock sites -- anyone who limits their keywording to these overused tags is not going to get noticed

   Keyword       Sites    Used    Views
   green      164   31553   28566
   white      163   69223   35832
   background      162   54819   34210
   blue      158   40558   26689
   red      157   31438   20574
   nature      156   42794   20570
   water      150   23361   16997
   summer      148   26879   14306
   yellow      148   18489   11015
   food      144   21741   26283
   black      143   22104   16573
   color      142   26635   10523
   isolated      139    47672   28286
   sky      138   28780   14657
   tree      137   14067   10370
   orange      137   12261   7756
   holiday      136   16852   11577
   travel      135   26151   10419
               
            
               similar lists for most used keywords, most viewed keywords, etc at http://cascoly.com/symbio/symbiostock-keywords.asp
 

Uncle Pete

« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2014, 17:46 »
0
Also SS has the most popular keywords searched, which includes some that I can't write here, (which don't appear on their site and no matching images either) so the obvious conclusion to that is, searched and sold are not the same thing. One is not necessarily linked to the other, like some would assume on the surface.

I am guessing that moist popular you mean by artists, not by buyers? Interesting how many are colors, which I'd still include but not count on for much value.

fwiw - here are the most popular keywords on symbiostock sites -- anyone who limits their keywording to these overused tags is not going to get noticed

« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2014, 18:13 »
0
so the # of k words doesn't matter? I was told by fellow contributors veterans it does. I've always felt relevance was more important .
« Last Edit: September 22, 2014, 18:22 by gimages »

« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2014, 01:19 »
0
Also SS has the most popular keywords searched, which includes some that I can't write here, (which don't appear on their site and no matching images either) so the obvious conclusion to that is, searched and sold are not the same thing. One is not necessarily linked to the other, like some would assume on the surface.

I am guessing that moist popular you mean by artists, not by buyers? Interesting how many are colors, which I'd still include but not count on for much value.

fwiw - here are the most popular keywords on symbiostock sites -- anyone who limits their keywording to these overused tags is not going to get noticed

right -- the column for 'used' shows how many images in the symbiostock database use a given keyword.  views is the number of times that keyword has been searched for across all symbiostock sites including the global search sites

I played with other stats and reports such as a comparision for s specific site to see if they are getting more or fewer views than would be expected for a given site, but it takes a lot of server time so I haven't opened it up for general use.  mostly it's handy to find keywords you might not have thought of  -whether that results in sales, we cant track
« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 01:22 by cascoly »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2014, 10:48 »
+2
Yes the # of keywords Might matter. It does on DT for example and Alamy, but I never tested SS. If (big if), SS uses relevancy like DT and Alamy, the number keywords, divided by the total matching keywords, would give you a relevancy level.

So two similar images, same size, everything else except number of keywords (one controlled variable) 4 out of 40 is 10% and 4 our of 15 is 37%. The second image would rank higher in the search.

There could be many other things, file age, DLs, views with no DLs, time since last DL, views that produce sales... it's impossible to know what they are using. Also it wouldn't change anything, except in a few small ways. It's just a mental problem with little value.

There are 42 million images. Lady with headset 20,000 - Business Handshake 45,000 - sliced tomato isolated 45,000 (really just for fun, but how many are needed?) does anyone think their new image in the most popular download searches has any chance at all of making a return on the investment? This is a universal dilemma in Microstock and SS at this point.

But if I understand the OP he's saying the number of words in the title, and the special number he came up with, not meaning how many relavant keywords but some magic number?

Yes the number of words, might matter, but it's not like seven or 15 is the right secret number.  :o It's different all the time. Title? Interesting question. How much does title effect anything on SS?

If he meant something else, it would be good for Einstein to explain. I find the $5 to read his study a little strange. People here share information, it's not, I'll sell you questionable secrets or theories, pay me and then read them.


so the # of k words doesn't matter? I was told by fellow contributors veterans it does. I've always felt relevance was more important .

« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2014, 11:10 »
+2
Thanks for the  info .It's confusing sometime others telling u no u need more and some saying u have plenty as long as they are relevant . I just try and go with my own gut instinct.
Sometime I put maybe 7 other times I will put 30 or so.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2014, 11:18 »
0
You are correct. As many as you need to accurately define the image and what's in it. Some will have less words, some will have more.

I think there's some old "wisdom" (superstitions die hard too) from Micro that more words is always better and I think that the agencies have compensated for that. Maybe in 2005 packing the words, would get you more views and more DLs. Now it just makes for angry customers, because their searches are full of inappropriate results.

That's mostly Opinion and Conjecture except the first sentence.

Good accurate keywords will get best results. Don't leave out words because of counting numbers and don't add questionable or unrelated words, just because you want more words.



Thanks for the  info .It's confusing sometime others telling u no u need more and some saying u have plenty as long as they are relevant . I just try and go with my own gut instinct.
Sometime I put maybe 7 other times I will put 30 or so.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2014, 11:20 »
+1
even with the very best possible keyword strategy, how much are the sales going to increase ? 10% ? 20% ?

how long is going to cost to rekeyword your entire archive ? what if they change the algo tomorrow ?

moral of the story, the only thing that makes sense is shooting more and more since it's a numbers game anyway.

i remember some posts by alamy contributors with archives larger than 100K images, the algos have been changed a few times, the agency has now millions of new images, they have rekeyworded part of their archive, end of the story no big deal in terms of views and sales while those seeing major ups and downs are the ones with small portfolios.

same with google : trillions of web pages indexed but the top tier sites are always in the top-30 at least, no matter the algo hacks every 6-12 months.

conclusion : it's 2014 guys, search algorithms have reached a good standard nowadays, there's no way to cheat and expect it to last long.


« Reply #37 on: September 25, 2014, 20:54 »
+2
The secret is not in the number of keywords, but in a creative image with keywords that represents them. Simple as that. I speak this by pure observation of my pictures and images of others. If you make something new and interesting, real quick this will be at the top of the rankings, or at least on the first page of the search.

« Reply #38 on: September 25, 2014, 21:09 »
+1
I am trying to keep my keywords to between 10 and 25. Will try to assess if fewer keywords works. And relevant of course.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #39 on: September 26, 2014, 21:18 »
+3
The secret is not in the number of keywords, but in a creative image with keywords that represents them. Simple as that. I speak this by pure observation of my pictures and images of others. If you make something new and interesting, real quick this will be at the top of the rankings, or at least on the first page of the search.

yes.

if we look at the best sellers they all have a common pattern : they instantly look good at first glance, even at thumbnail size, no matter if they were buried among 100s of similar thumbs, they just stand up among the crowd.


dpimborough

« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2014, 01:52 »
+1
Here's something different why not:

1. Take good photos
2. Don't flood the market with junk
3. Don't submit thousands of the same shot taken at different angles
4. Keep your keywords relevant accurate and honest no spamming

5. Be original don't follow the herd shoot something different.


« Reply #41 on: September 27, 2014, 01:55 »
0

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).



I have only around 200 vector on Shutterstock, without any peculiar keyword strategy, I use between 40 and 50 keyword for each image always. I have several sale a month (in 2014: min 617, max 766) and "more expensive sales" are about 10%. How much you think I can increase this performance according information that you sell?

Uncle Pete

« Reply #42 on: September 28, 2014, 21:29 »
0
Shhhh! I thought you promised not to tell the secrets of success.  ;)

Now everyone will know!


Here's something different why not:

1. Take good photos
2. Don't flood the market with junk
3. Don't submit thousands of the same shot taken at different angles
4. Keep your keywords relevant accurate and honest no spamming

5. Be original don't follow the herd shoot something different.

« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2014, 08:16 »
0
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%


« Reply #44 on: October 01, 2014, 11:46 »
+1
....

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

....

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%
""

more statistical RUBBISH

those numbers are meaningless  - 7% of what? compared to what?   total sales of all images?  chance of 1 sale a month?  and EVEN if you happen to actually find a hit here, you've missed the most basic of all statistical rules - CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION

you've still presented nothing to show you're even minimally qualified to talk about this subject - from either a statistical or business side


as far as spamming - just how is adding blue going to get caught?  if any site has such a capability they're dong a terrible job using it


« Reply #45 on: October 01, 2014, 12:00 »
0
I can't believe that anyone would even bother offering something so obviously time wasting and irrelevant - but for what it's worth for anyone new happening upon this discussion:

Your first priority should be your images - usefulness and technical quality.
Your second priority should be assembling a complete and relevant list of keywords. Come up with a useful title.

Nonsense claims about magic numbers of keywords or title words are just that.

one again , well spoken .
but every once in a while, someone wants to sell horseshit secrets of my success
and the web is full of horseshit secrets of my success
which in the old days we used to call them snake-oil.

oh btw, i have a fail-safe method to making lots of $$$$$$$
it's available to anyone for a P.O. of a quid

shhhh, don't tell anyone, after u receive my method, ok? 8)

« Reply #46 on: November 01, 2014, 01:43 »
0
I believe that the right keywords. And the more the better the results.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
6704 Views
Last post May 11, 2006, 16:01
by admart01
10 Replies
6080 Views
Last post April 03, 2008, 03:09
by Valaaami
11 Replies
4673 Views
Last post February 23, 2012, 18:13
by Mantis
5 Replies
2823 Views
Last post June 07, 2013, 21:34
by Ron
5 Replies
4198 Views
Last post July 22, 2013, 18:28
by cascoly

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle