Author Topic: more detailed keywords? worth it ? (Read 4273 times)

saschadueser · « **on:** August 06, 2015, 06:52 »

i just realized that you can more detail the keywords on istock?
that means for example for the keyword "leaf" you can click the little plus symbol to choose there "oak leaf, birch leaf, banana leaf, whatever leaf"

really just found this today.
is it there already a longer time ?
could it be worth it to check it and detail the keywords more?
or is that just a waste of time in that case.

saschadueser · « **Reply #1 on:** August 06, 2015, 07:02 »

okay, after tried i saw its just placing more and offer keywords.. its not doing that what i expect.

you could delete this post.
( i have no idea if i can delete it on myself)

Mantis · « **Reply #2 on:** August 06, 2015, 07:02 »

It's been there for a long time. This is their controlled vocabulary. Unfortunately they have created their own language. Some appropriate keywords will not be accepted because their "dictionary" does not include that definition. You have to site mail them and make a request to add a missing definition. Stupid.

But in answer to your question it is always best to use the detailed check boxes as deep as you can go. Since we do not know exactly how their system works, take it to the extreme. For example, a keyword called, "beauty in nature" exists on Istock's controlled vocabulary. I know of no buyers who would use that keyword (I know plenty of buyers and I used to be one) and we also don't know if that is a singular keyword or whether there are other keywords linked to that phrase.

Best bet is to go deep "only if it makes sense".

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** August 06, 2015, 07:17 »

It's always best to keyword as best you can, just in case their system ever improves to the extent that their CV/ best match actually works properly again.
For example, in the 'leaf' DA you presented, if your leaf was actually a fig leaf, ticking that box would let your photo be seen by buyers who wanted a fig leaf.
But Do Not Spam - if someone wants to buy a Fig Leaf, and searches for it in particular, they will not be happy to see someones photo of some other leaf keyworded 'fig leaf', and it's very unlikely that they'll suddenly decide to buy a banana leaf image if they had specifically searched for 'fig leaf' in the first place. Spam is really messing up their searches.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #4 on:** August 06, 2015, 07:42 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 06, 2015, 07:17

Spam is really messing up their searches.

Spam is messing up the searches on ALL sites!

Noedelhap · « **Reply #5 on:** August 06, 2015, 09:28 »

Although I understand their desire to control keywords with a defined vocabulary (to prevent spelling mistakes, improve definitions and disambiguous words), it's a failed attempt due to their very limited dictionary. It makes keywording very tedious and frustrating, and buyers may feel they're not getting the images they want because specific keywords are being generalized while other keywords are too specific.

So yes, try to detail your keywords the best you can. It may improve sales, but then again, lately it doesn't seem to make a difference anymore due to general lack of sales.

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** August 06, 2015, 16:18 »

Now with new files unlikely to sell except as subs, maybe not being in the CV is a signal that a file shouldn't be on iStock. I take it as a hint to send it to Alamy. (Apart from stupidly jumping at the Getty/editorial bait. Fool me once...)
Especially when they don't think that the very long-standing bug which makes non-CV words totally unfindable is important enough to fix.

Nikovsk · « **Reply #7 on:** August 06, 2015, 16:28 »

I don't have the time and patience to keyword for IS.
When they scrap this whole idea I may start uploading again.

Hongover · « **Reply #8 on:** September 02, 2015, 01:14 »

First time upload there this week and it was not a good experience. I have no idea how it's going to show up on the search results.

Their vocabulary seem to be limited, and doesn't have a good sense of technology in general. When I want the word "Immersion", I want mental involvement, not Sunken or Underwater.

skyfish · « **Reply #9 on:** September 02, 2015, 01:29 »

Had so many cases when my keywords were deleted or replaced by something not related to the image. Because of this it is useless to spend time for that on IS

FlowerPower · « **Reply #10 on:** September 02, 2015, 13:31 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 06, 2015, 16:18

Now with new files unlikely to sell except as subs, maybe not being in the CV is a signal that a file shouldn't be on iStock. I take it as a hint to send it to Alamy. (Apart from stupidly jumping at the Getty/editorial bait. Fool me once...)
Especially when they don't think that the very long-standing bug which makes non-CV words totally unfindable is important enough to fix.

Non-CV not found, title and caption/description are not searched. Words missing in CV don't get saved for the search just stored. Limited dictionary makes words that should be included, not right for the choices offered. Unlike the rest of IS, where questions get no answer or 6 months for a vague reply, the people in keyword suggestion read and answer. They added 2 for me but then going back to correct those words in 200 photos wasn't worth the trouble. Good for the future.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: more detailed keywords? worth it ? (Read 4273 times)

saschadueser

saschadueser

Mantis

ShadySue

cuppacoffee

Noedelhap

ShadySue

Nikovsk

Hongover

skyfish

FlowerPower

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors