Author Topic: Dumb rejections (Read 19073 times)

Karimala · « **Reply #25 on:** May 11, 2009, 12:09 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 06:25

... and once again, ranting about keyword rejections without showing the image in question is useless.

Fair enough...this is the image rejected for the CV keyword "Asian Ethnicity." The guy is Korean and IMO pretty much looks Asian!

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** May 11, 2009, 14:06 »

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 09, 2009, 12:22

try to be more literal with your keywording. then once it is accepted, you can add some more peripheral words. I wouldn't have included the following initially, but you could probably add them afterwards safely.

Police Officer, Prison, Trapped, Trapped, Unlocking, Bondage, Fetishes, Law, Authority, Law, Security, Security System (Security Equipment), Security

Not if I was wiki-ing heh-heh.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #27 on:** May 11, 2009, 14:13 »

Quote from: Karimala on May 11, 2009, 12:09

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 06:25
... and once again, ranting about keyword rejections without showing the image in question is useless.

Fair enough...this is the image rejected for the CV keyword "Asian Ethnicity." The guy is Korean and IMO pretty much looks Asian!

Didn't MJ say you had checked "Asia" and not "Asian Ethnicity"?

Karimala · « **Reply #28 on:** May 11, 2009, 18:04 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 14:13

Quote from: Karimala on May 11, 2009, 12:09
Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 06:25
... and once again, ranting about keyword rejections without showing the image in question is useless.

Fair enough...this is the image rejected for the CV keyword "Asian Ethnicity." The guy is Korean and IMO pretty much looks Asian!

Didn't MJ say you had checked "Asia" and not "Asian Ethnicity"?

No. The rejection notice would say "Asia," if I had accidentally ticked the wrong box. It says "Asian Ethnicity." And I just looked at the file in DeepMeta, and everything is properly ticked.

The rejection reason really is "Asian Ethnicity."

loop · « **Reply #29 on:** May 11, 2009, 18:19 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 11:48

So for a photo of handcuffs, "arrest" is not sufficiently relevant. But "nobody", is ok.

IStock is truly another world. I think I'll start adding "walrus" and "carpenter" to all my IStock submissions.

Of course it isn't. An arrest is an action. A hand is a hand. A police officer is a police officer. Nobody tells precisely that there's not any person in the shot: it's ok.
Put these handcuffs in human hands and the matter would change. But without them, all I can do is wonder why in hell you are complaining.

melastmohican · « **Reply #30 on:** May 11, 2009, 18:26 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 08:58

How would it get the point across? People'll still do it next time, if there was no penalty.

I knew it's all about penalty...

Seriously how much more work is to delete keywords instead of enumerating them? I usually get specific list so reviewer already took time to hand pick them. They must intend to punish me cause I have to spent more time on the same picture. And of course it takes my available upload slot too. Usually I choose to take couple cycles off from uploading there instead to getting frustrated.

loop · « **Reply #31 on:** May 11, 2009, 18:31 »

Yes, deleting these kind of keywords and blocking the ability to edit them in these cases would be the best solution.

stockastic · « **Reply #32 on:** May 11, 2009, 18:39 »

Then I think you can add "no elephant" too, if there's no elephant in the shot.

Reason with me here. IStock allows the keyword "business", it's in their controlled vocabulary. But you can't photograph a business. It isn't an object, it's a concept that gives context to what's actually in the image. So when, exactly, can I use the keyword "business"?

gostwyck · « **Reply #33 on:** May 11, 2009, 18:45 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 18:39

I think you can add "no elephant" too, if there's no elephant in the shot.

If that was included in the CV then, yes ... but of course it's not because it's not a regular buyer requirement.

You sound like an immature, pouty 14-year old who refuses to accept the common-sense his parents are patiently trying to explain. Hopefully you'll grow out of it eventually.

stockastic · « **Reply #34 on:** May 11, 2009, 19:18 »

Gee I'm sorry, Dad.

But I think it's a perfectly logical question and relates directly to the original poster's complaint. In order to use the keyword "business" do I need to have people in the photo who are obviously engaged in "business"? A quick search on IS tells me the answer is "no". There are many shots of objects that relate to "business" far less directly than a pair of handcuffs relate to "arrest".

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #35 on:** May 11, 2009, 20:13 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 19:18

But I think it's a perfectly logical question and relates directly to the original poster's complaint. In order to use the keyword "business" do I need to have people in the photo who are obviously engaged in "business"? A quick search on IS tells me the answer is "no". There are many shots of objects that relate to "business" far less directly than a pair of handcuffs relate to "arrest".

Read this thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=85022&page=1

DanP68 · « **Reply #36 on:** May 11, 2009, 20:22 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 11, 2009, 12:02

If you have walrus and carpenter in your images, then you shouldn't have a problem. If you add in zoo, ocean, workshop, j e s u s, and whatever else you can think of that might be remotely related to the walrus and carpenter but that does not appear in the photo, then you will rightfully get a rejection.

A stock photo of j e s u s would probably sell decent if you could get a model release. A stock photo of j e s u s and a walrus however would be gold. Especially if j e s u s was wearing a shirt that said "Goo Goo G'Joob"

stockastic · « **Reply #37 on:** May 11, 2009, 20:26 »

Ok, I read that IS thread about "business". What a bunch of immature, pouty 14-year olds.

gostwyck · « **Reply #38 on:** May 11, 2009, 20:31 »

dirkr · « **Reply #39 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:07 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 18:39

Then I think you can add "no elephant" too, if there's no elephant in the shot.

Sh!t. Doesn't work for me. Too many shots with elephants in them...

MichaelJay · « **Reply #40 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:37 »

Quote from: Karimala on May 11, 2009, 18:04

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 14:13
Didn't MJ say you had checked "Asia" and not "Asian Ethnicity"?
No. The rejection notice would say "Asia," if I had accidentally ticked the wrong box. It says "Asian Ethnicity." And I just looked at the file in DeepMeta, and everything is properly ticked.

The rejection reason really is "Asian Ethnicity."

No, I didn't state that it was wrongly disambiguated, just bringing it up as a potential reason. In this case I'd have to agree that the rejection was unjustified (yeah, well, even inspectors are humans) and you shouldn't have a problem to resubmit with the same keyword.

Caz · « **Reply #41 on:** May 12, 2009, 04:50 »

Quote from: Karimala on May 11, 2009, 18:04

No. The rejection notice would say "Asia," if I had accidentally ticked the wrong box. It says "Asian Ethnicity." And I just looked at the file in DeepMeta, and everything is properly ticked.

The rejection reason really is "Asian Ethnicity."

I'm rather sceptical that the "rejection reason really is Astian Ethnicity". It takes more than one bad keyword for a rejection (if you're not exclusive). Are you sure there isn't another reason further down the email? The keywords you're requested to remove for re-submission are always listed first on the email, you have to keep reading.

Karimala · « **Reply #42 on:** May 12, 2009, 05:39 »

Yeh...it was also rejected for banding and a couple of other keywords, like landscape and blue (as in the non-CV-listed "blue sky"), which I agree with. Big deal. Sometimes the inspectors get part of their rejections wrong. Does it really matter if it is the only rejection reason or part of several for one image? I wasn't even complaining. I just thought it was funny that one of the keyword rejections was for "Asian Ethnicity" when it's perfectly clear that my model is Asian.

stock shooter · « **Reply #43 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:17 »

Maybe I'm making a wrong inference, but I assume that sometimes image buyers need, want, should be, reminded of alternatives. You know i worked as a designer for a few years before starting to shoot stock and when I searched for an image for a project, sometimes, many times, I would find alternatives that hadn't occurred to me that ended up working better in the design or worked as an additional image in the design. Hence, related but not literal keywords. That's how and why I think the way I do when keywording. Police officers use handcuffs. I'm dyslexic so maybe that doesn't make sense to anybody else but it sure does to me. If you're searching for a police officer then a picture of handcuffs show up, you might say, "that's a good picture of handcuffs, I could use that here instead of that other imgae or maybe I'll throw that in over here under this text in addition to that other image." As a designer I worked very organically, so sometimes my designs evolved, they were not always 100% set to the initial layout. So a different image from my original idea, that popped up in searches would sometimes get used. Extra money for the agency. Again, that is just my way of seeing things.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #44 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:26 »

On iStock, buyers prefer to find what they are looking for. The search return is not a brainstorming tool. That should be the responsibility of the buyer to come up with various ideas.

Police officers also eat donuts. Should all donuts be keyworded with "police officer"?

tan510jomast · « **Reply #45 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:37 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 12, 2009, 09:26

On iStock, buyers prefer to find what they are looking for. The search return is not a brainstorming tool. That should be the responsibility of the buyer to come up with various ideas.

Police officers also eat donuts. Should all donuts be keyworded with "police officer"?

yes, but only if those police officers eat at TimHortons

stockastic · « **Reply #46 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:38 »

IStock can have any keyword rules and search algorithms they want. The difficulties contributors have with the current rules are:

1. They're different from all the other microstocks.
2. They're different from what they used to be.
3. They're not clearly spelled out anywhere, at least not that I've seen.
4. Various IStock contributors will give you differing spins on them.
5. IStock's reviewers apply them inconsistently.
6. Even IStock's own people can't give you definitive answers (see thread about "business").
7. Guess wrong, and your AR is dinged and you go back to the end of the review line.

null · « **Reply #47 on:** May 12, 2009, 10:00 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 12, 2009, 09:26

On iStock, buyers prefer to find what they are looking for.

Correct, that's why Istock is the best.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 12, 2009, 09:26

Police officers also eat donuts. Should all donuts be keyworded with "police officer"?

Of course that never happens on Istock. Looking for "police donuts" gives this on Page #1:

Keywords: Doughnut, Police Officer, Eating, Breakfast, Indulgence, Overweight, Food, Morning, Cream Cake, Doughnut, Elevated View, Snack, Sugar, sweetened, Yeast, Restaurant, Diner, Baking, Bakery, Freshness, Dieting

Where is the indulging overweight baking police officer dieting on his lofty elevated restaurant taking sweetened donuts for diner?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #48 on:** May 12, 2009, 10:12 »

Ouch! Thus, one of the problems with crowdsourcing.

KB · « **Reply #49 on:** May 12, 2009, 10:27 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams link=topic=7844.msg97352#msg97352
Of course that never happens on Istock. Looking for "police donuts" gives this on Page #1
[/quote

IS returns 31 matches for police and donuts. 26 are "correct", 3 are just donuts, and 2 are just police officers without donuts.
SS returns 50 matches. 14 are "correct", 34 are just donuts (actually, at least 3 contain muffins, not donuts), and 2 are just police officers without donuts.
DT returns 19 matches. 6 are "correct" and 13 are just donuts.
FT returns 12 matches. All 12 are just donuts. That's right; 0 "correct" images returned (no surprise to me that FT's search results are the worst).

IS isn't perfect, but based on this search, it's better than the others.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Dumb rejections (Read 19073 times)

Karimala

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

Karimala

loop

melastmohican

loop

stockastic

gostwyck

stockastic

Sean Locke Photography

DanP68

stockastic

gostwyck

dirkr

MichaelJay

Caz

Karimala

stock shooter

Sean Locke Photography

tan510jomast

stockastic

null

Sean Locke Photography

KB

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors