They always used to say that the order your wrote your keywords in didn't matter, and that the best match would rearrange them to relevance over time. Over time hasn't meant much recently as new files have fallen so quickly.

However, I've been dripping up marker files for months now just to see if it becomes worth properly shooting / uploading new work.

I remarked the other day that a file arrived in my portfolio at position 28 out of 391, for its most important keyword, where it still is. However, just before I confirmed the upload, I discovered I had forgotten to keyword 'passerine', so I added it in at the beginning. I doubt if many people search on 'passerine', but it's perfectly possible that someone might want to see what's available in passerines of a certain geographical area. So, passerine became my first keyword, and on a search for 'passerine' only, my file was an is 13 out of 3255. I noted that but couldn't be bothered going into the previous and next 12 to see where 'passerine' featured on their keywords, but did think that the proportional difference was notable.

I also wondered if the new 'similar' feature was going to hit new files which are struggling to get views, therefore have no chance of gaining keyword relevance.
I did notice that that marker photo shows up reciprocally on the files which appear in its similars, but that several other tests, there is no reciprocation.

Anyway, it's official (if a post from Lobo counts as official - it's as official as we're going to get).
"I've seen mention of how newer files are experiencing some weirdness with their similar offerings. This is entirely related to keyword order. However, as newer files have actions performed on them the keyword weight of the more relevant keywords will increase the relevancy of the similar files that are provided. We are going to put together an updated Keyword Guide for early September. In the mean time I would suggest people try and add their most relevant keywords before adding their more general keywords." (my emphasis).

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355588&messageid=6927338

Hmm, "keyword guide in early September". We're still waiting for the newsletter or at least 'information' he was going to get to us by the end of July. Maybe that was just about the similars thing, but how can we know? If they changed the relevance of upload keyword order shouldn't we have been told about it as soon s they knew they were going to do it?
DM users are unhappy about this (IIRC DM alphabetises keyword order (?):
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=57564&messageid=6926950 (ah, other people were suspecting this about the same time as me - that post was made yesterday before Lobo's recent announcement.

The problem I've seen is when keywording during the upload process the order that you put your keywords in gets scrambled once you hit the upload button.  Maybe it's best to add the most relevant keywords once the image has been inspected cuz I believe those go to the head of the line.

Quote from: mlwinphoto on August 16, 2013, 15:33

The problem I've seen is when keywording during the upload process the order that you put your keywords in gets scrambled once you hit the upload button.

I've never seen that, but I upload directly.
Are you using DM (or some other uploader)?

I upload directly, too (or at least I used to.....).  The times I remember checking after the upload the keywords had been rearranged.  But, I haven't uploaded in a few months so perhaps that isn't happening any longer.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 16, 2013, 15:44

Quote from: mlwinphoto on August 16, 2013, 15:33

The problem I've seen is when keywording during the upload process the order that you put your keywords in gets scrambled once you hit the upload button.

I've never seen that, but I upload directly.
Are you using DM (or some other uploader)?

I upload directly, too (or at least I used to.....).  The times I remember checking after the upload the keywords had been rearranged.  But, I haven't uploaded in a few months so perhaps that isn't happening any longer.

They keywords do get rearranged after they've acquired some keyword relevancy, by views or sales. But most files now are getting so few views and sales that it's probably as well to make sure your most relevant keywords should be at the front, or they'll be double disadvantaged in not showing up in the best match and not showing up in the similars (though having the advantage of making the 'similars' showing up not very 'similar', so looking stupid by highlighting your file).
I'm don't intehnd going back through my older files. It would take forever, and by that time they'll have thought up any number of other hairy schemes to negate any work we do on this.

BTW, I noticed someone over there was complaining about some of the links on peoples' own lightboxes being broken. True, but iStock broke them. 

thanks, I was wondering about this. what a bummer.

or... not. doesn't bother me one bit if the similars offered up by iS aren't relevant.

Wow, this really would've been nice to have known sooner.

Also nice too see that this VERY significant piece of info is buried in a thread instead of the contributor news or somewhere else more prominent. I don't understand how their Communications person still has a job.

Do they have one? Maybe they disappeared with SearchFairy and OldLadybird, both of whom seem to be on extended absence.

Very irritating to find that keyword order DOES have a relevance for new files. Previously, I did the boring stuff first (hz, nobody, etc to), whereas I probably should have done the relevant stuff instead.

What an unnecessary mis-direction of my effort, it would seem. But then again, what does my "distributor" care about my time or effort?

Pshaw!!!

What I find most weird is... that there are people who still upload to IS...

... just to be recorded - I quit uploading to IS this summer - with this last collection changes - and if they will not put my best sellers from main collection to  higher prices s collection - I will start to delete my files,,,

It is probably good practice to put most relevant keywords first - I mean it can't hurt?  FT for sure take it into account and possibly others.  I tend to add them in IPTC, single word only and give everyone the same thing - life's too short to keyword based on each site's preferences.

Dredging up an old thread. Has anyone ever determined if keyword order makes any difference or not?

Jury's still out, AFAIK, but it seems that keywords can be reordered by the time they even become searchable, so I guess it doesn't, much.

Also, once a file has been uploaded, can you change the order? I have some older files that are getting few views, but should be getting much more and I noticed that on some of them the most relevant keywords are way down the in the order and was wondering if I could reorder them for more views. Thanks!

Nope, any new keywords you add will be put into the middle. I think that applies no matter where you put your new words. However I haven't had to do it for a few weeks, so it might have changed in that period.

Also worth noting that if you add a multi-word keyword term which isn't in the CV, and which hasn't been used by someone else, it won't show up and is unsearchable. I noticed this bug several weeks back and reported it, but it's clearly low on the bug-sorting priorities. This could make uploading certain new files even more pointless than most.