I recall several posts asking admins to chat about how categories help and there was no real clear logic except Peter at Stockfresh, who did away with them )from StockXpert to SF).  So I agree with you, Liz, that key wording quality and functionality could offer real differentiation.  Where it tends to go haywire is special treatment algorithms (artist/image exclusivity, premium collections, etc) because they weigh images (regardless of usability in some cases) differently.  So I think that a good key word search has to have some clarity around what you are buying, why it is different (more expensive) and simplicity around staying in a price aligned collection.  DT has a far better system that IS when it comes to image pricing; the more it sells the more it makes....no special collections, etc other than artist and image exclusivity, but it works. 

what categories?
I only do: title description, keywords, MR. there are no categories to add things to, unless it's my own gallery.

On the home page of the site, under the Search Box, there is a list of categories, which at the moment consists of:

Landscapes
Nature Macros
People & Portraits
Business
Children
Animals
Food & Drink
Architecture

When I posted the OP, it was 'nature' not 'nature macros', so I guess these change from time to time. The nature macros is a much cleaner search then the Nature one was (If you accept cultivated flowers as being 'nature'). Actually most of the results are better than when I looked then, though there are some isolated studio shots in the 'architecture' section.
So I'm guessing from what you wrote that these 'categories' are derived from the Keywords, and, as everywhere else, there are some keyword spammers.  Ah, yes, when I clicked on architecture, the keyword search field went to 'architecture or building or house'. Tx.

yes there probably are spammers, even though there was a very good webinar tutorial about such things (particularly aimed at newbies). I personally love that I can get away with fewer keywords. I've had a few images rejected for style, nothing said about keywords so far, so I guess it's open slather. sad but realistic that there will always be a few who are selfish (and ... what's a nice word for "stupid"?).

I guess all sites have info about keywording. iStock has at least two very good ones aimed at submitters, but probably most people either don't know about them or ignore them.
For many buyers, the keywords are most important. For example, a dust spot can be seen and cloned out, but if your photo is keyworded France and you the buyer buy it and it turns out to be e.g. Spain, or Mediterranean beach which turns out to be Caribbean beach, and you publish it, you risk looking pretty stupid. (True, if you are suspicious, you can check the keywords which no doubt have 'France, Spain, Italy, Portugal ..."
I've posted before about the safari company which claimed to "know Africa like the back of our hands" yet had a photo of an Indian One-horned Rhino on a double-page spread, pages 1 and 2 of their brochure. We had six safaris with another company, which we also recommended to other people, some of whom travelled with them; so that was a lot of money to lose on the ignorance of their brochure designer.

Quote from: gillian on July 15, 2013, 05:54

yes there probably are spammers, even though there was a very good webinar tutorial about such things (particularly aimed at newbies). I personally love that I can get away with fewer keywords. I've had a few images rejected for style, nothing said about keywords so far, so I guess it's open slather. sad but realistic that there will always be a few who are selfish (and ... what's a nice word for "stupid"?).

I guess all sites have info about keywording. iStock has at least two very good ones aimed at submitters, but probably most people either don't know about them or ignore them.
For many buyers, the keywords are most important. For example, a dust spot can be seen and cloned out, but if your photo is keyworded France and you the buyer buy it and it turns out to be e.g. Spain, or Mediterranean beach which turns out to be Caribbean beach, and you publish it, you risk looking pretty stupid. (True, if you are suspicious, you can check the keywords which no doubt have 'France, Spain, Italy, Portugal ..."
I've posted before about the safari company which claimed to "know Africa like the back of our hands" yet had a photo of an Indian One-horned Rhino on a double-page spread, pages 1 and 2 of their brochure. We had six safaris with another company, which we also recommended to other people, some of whom travelled with them; so that was a lot of money to lose on the ignorance of their brochure designer.

I've been known to boycott caf�s purely on the font they use for their name.... that's $4 they surely missed.  
I did see some images this morning of succulents with "hipster" in the keywords. wasn't sure what was going on there.

Quote from: gillian on July 15, 2013, 23:40

I've been known to boycott caf�s purely on the font they use for their name.... that's $4 they surely missed.  

Wow! I thought that was only me!
Long before computers / I'd ever heard of fonts or thought anything about them, I subliminally realised that what turns out to be fonts used on the menu outside a cafe/restaurant was a good indication as to whether I'd like their food.
Honestly - and I'm seriously food faddy, and ashamed of it.

oh you are not alone! it's an important skill I think, especially when you travel. We've just come off a 3 week road trip and I have a 3 point process to determine if the coffee will be drinkable. maybe I should turn my knowledge into a downloadable e-book (complete with red and yellow underlined bold italicized headings)

I find I get easily distracted watching TV as I am more interested in the lighting and camera set ups