Your file "Oqaatsut fisher village, Greenland" has been accepted into the main iStockphoto Collection. [.... ]

Addtional Approval Note:
The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[oqaatsut]}

i am slowly learning what i can use or not with istockphoto

for example hike, hiking etc.. are not allowed if the landscape needs you to hike to photography it, but they are no hikers on the photo, event if its a famous hike, like the Laugavegur in Iceland, Torres del Paine circuit in Chile, Arctic circle trail in Greenland etc..

but this one was strange, Oqaatsut is the name of the village, its in the title, but not accepted as a keyword

is that the general rule or was it a mistake ?

Don't worry about it, such things happen quite frequently. Because the name is in the title it will probably still appear in searches (and also on Google, etc).

Edit the name back into the keywords if you are certain that it is both justifiable and necessary.

I don't think the search uses titles or descriptions, so you need it in the keywords.

Well I mean the IS keywording, CV, etc,  is just IMO, very limited, there is a whole heap of professions missing, etc. I have given up trying to see any logic behind it.

Your file "Oqaatsut fisher village, Greenland" has been accepted into the main iStockphoto Collection. [.... ]

Addtional Approval Note:
The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[oqaatsut]}

i am slowly learning what i can use or not with istockphoto

for example hike, hiking etc.. are not allowed if the landscape needs you to hike to photography it, but they are no hikers on the photo, event if its a famous hike, like the Laugavegur in Iceland, Torres del Paine circuit in Chile, Arctic circle trail in Greenland etc..

but this one was strange, Oqaatsut is the name of the village, its in the title, but not accepted as a keyword

is that the general rule or was it a mistake ?

It's a mistake. I think the inspectors have to work so fast that at least one or two of them reject any keyword they don't understand.
Weird, but it's happened before.
Officially, you're not supposed to reinstate the word yourself, you're supposed to either SM ducksandwich directly, or you can post on the Keywords forum. That way, they can liaise with the inspector concerned, apparently.

It's a mistake. I've sent a few from a small village and soon they added it to the CV keywords and not just the name of the village but they also added named places within the village.

Quote from: Lagereek on May 30, 2012, 09:58

Well I mean the IS keywording, CV, etc,  is just IMO, very limited, there is a whole heap of professions missing, etc. I have given up trying to see any logic behind it.

The logic is that it can be translated to many different languages without losing the meaning.

Which has the unexpected consequence that ape and monkey can't be properly separated in the CV, as the Italians have the same word for both. 

Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2012, 13:30

That's logical. If you had a photo of an island, would you put 'sail' or 'sailing' in the photo (without a boat in the pic) even though you had to go in a boat to get there, or evenif it was a famous sailing venue?

point taken

keywording atm photos i have taken during the 2012 TGO challenge in Scotland ( 2 weeks coast to coast hike )  i resisted adding any hiking keyword !

Hey, how come have I never even heard of that? I can't find the dates on their website: if it was late last week you'd have stewed!
Of course if you have photos of people hiking, you're good to go. 

Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2012, 13:43

Which has the unexpected consequence that ape and monkey can't be properly separated in the CV, as the Italians have the same word for both.  

I do not understand what you mean. 'Ape' and 'Monkey' are both separately in the CV under 'Primate'.

Indeed. And I see that nowadays if you type in one you get 'do you want?' and each as separate options [1]. This is very new: I was previously told that that could not be done because of the Italian language problem.
However, many people seem to have ticked both. For illustrations, fair enough, as many illos have several species. But in photos having an ape and a monkey in the same photo would be almost unheard of, either wild or in the zoo (unless you got a photo of chimps killing or eating monkeys, but as that would be in deep forest, iStock would likely reject it for 'poor light' anyway).

There are 4444 total files labelled both ape and monkey, and 2915 photos tagged both.

[1] which is at least as unscientific as would be keywording 'orange' and getting asked 'did you mean?' orange or lime. And much more stupid than keywording 'man' and getting asked 'did you mean?'  ma nor woman.

Quote from: ShadySue on May 31, 2012, 04:26

I see that nowadays if you type in one you get 'do you want?' and each as separate options ... which is at least as unscientific as would be keywording 'orange' and getting asked 'did you mean?' orange or lime.

Granted there is a modern strict scientific English language distinction but in common use the words 'ape' and 'monkey' are interchangeable. Same in French for example. Unless someone is a scientist. And if they are they can look through the results easily enough for something specific. The CV approach seems to recognise both angles. Which is a big positive thing.

The CV is sometimes imperfect but in this case I believe that being overly pedantic would make it less useful.

I totally disagree in this case.
Most my former pupils with learning difficulties would  easily be able to disinguish between apes and monkeys, as I imagine most people would, even if only on the tail - it's hardly rocket science.

Someone wanting to write a book or article about 'monkeys' or 'apes' of a particular region might just want to see what images are available and type in monkey, Africa or Ape, Asia for example rather than put in species names. If someone wants monkeys they don't want to have to wade through a thousand or more ape pictures and vice versa. If they don't know or don't care, let them type in primate. If they really don't know or care, and they type in 'monkey', would they care that they didn't see any apes? would they even notice?

We must be losing at least as many knowledgeable potential buyers as we retain ignorant ones by this approach. Does it similarly not matter that the third most recent acceptance for 'gorilla' is a photo of an orang-utan? I mean, the sort of people who don't know the difference between a monkey and an ape have probably never heard of a gorilla or an orang-utan, by that argument. The photographer doesn't, as s/he's also tagged it Africa.

I'm actually a GREAT fan of the CV principle, but in this case it's a major let down, even though it's a problem with the Italian language in that case.

I happened to be looking for (not to buy, just checking) Eurasian Nuthatch photos on Getty, so typed in Sitta europea. To my astonishement, all sorts of nuthatches turned up in that search. The top searches came from collections like Flickr, photodisc and Photographer's choice, so at first I assumed ignorant or spammy keywording. Then I came across a White-breasted Nuthatch from the National Geographic collection, so I clicked on it, and it was correctly labelled, described and tagged in the vernacular and scientific.

Checked on iStock (same CV, more or less) and Eurasian Nuthatch maps only to Nuthatch. So someone wanting a photo of Eurasian Nuthatch on iStock has to wade through 460 nuthatches, most of which are not the species they want.

Granted, fewer people buy Nuthatch photos than business handshakes at iStock and Getty, but that's partly chicken and egg. I was at a wildlife photographers' workshop a couple of weeks ago and this was just one of the reasons that serious UK buyers at least (that was the market they were talking about) don't buy from generalist agencies.

I've seen lots of rain forest stuff with great contrast - the stuff I am thinking of was likely shot on E6 and Kodachrome I would guess. But I do not see any reason why stuff shot today with good lenses and processing would look much different.

You should try and get a shot of an ape and a monkey shaking hands.

I've seen lots of rain forest stuff with great contrast - the stuff I am thinking of was likely shot on E6 and Kodachrome I would guess. But I do not see any reason why stuff shot today with good lenses and processing would look much different.

Of course you can get generic 'rainforest' shots with good contrast. (Usually 'too much', i.e. if it's a bright day and the sun is shining down through spaces in the canopy).
But if you're shooting animals or birds you have to take them in situ, with the light that's available. At micro prices, you're hardly going to sit around for 18 months like a BBC crew waiting to get the right action in the best light. And even they sometimes have to take what they get.
(and note that many photos tagged 'rainforest' on iStock are clearly shot in a zoo, nowhere near a rainforest).