Author Topic: Annoying use of Keywords!! (Read 9371 times)

rossco · « **on:** April 25, 2007, 21:34 »

Hi All,

I know you can submit bad keywords at SS for review but i am not sure whether i am being picky or not? These example are probably borderline but i just find them highly annoying for some reason.

If you search for the word Bee or Bees ordered by most popular you get lots of flowers with not a bee in sight (lots of sunflower images seem to have this). I know you can associate a flower with a bee but clearly if some is searching for a photo of a bee they dont want a flower without a bee near it. I know its not a big deal but i just find it annoying.

Also If you search for communications tower you get copious amounts of heavy duty power lines. I know you can send data through power lines but really i dont see how you can use the keyword communications.

I may not be the best keyworder but i try to check that they are relavent to the image. I admit that i copy keyword from my other images and use them for similar images but i always recheck them.

Any thoughts? any more examples annoying usage of keywords?

/END RANT

-Rossco

sharply_done · « **Reply #1 on:** April 25, 2007, 21:46 »

One thing about keywords that amuses me is how some people get carried away describing every component in the image. And yes, it is annoying to see some people listing things that aren't there.

I use a very methodical approach to keywording:

describe the subject of the shot
describe the background
describe the mood (if applicable)
list the composition and framing
come up with as many conceptual words as possible

I typically let my images sit overnight so that I can have one last look at the keywords with my morning coffee before I upload them.

For FT, I've recently begun to use 2 words from the first set and 5 from the last as my first 7 keywords - my FT sales have been quite poor and I'm hoping this might give them a boost.

rossco · « **Reply #2 on:** April 25, 2007, 21:50 »

Good list sharply!!

Amusingly one of the sunflower shots that has a "bees" as a keyword with no bees that i can see in the shot is in the TOP 50 ever photos list.

-Rossco

ianhlnd · « **Reply #3 on:** April 25, 2007, 22:21 »

Sharply, you are absolutely right in you methodology

I think this all comes from from having a 50 limit on keywords. A lot of people stretch to get those 50.

I would like to see a limit on keywords, say 7 or 10. I think that would make it easier to find a picture that you want, and stop a lot of the keyword spamming.

Bateleur · « **Reply #4 on:** April 26, 2007, 00:05 »

One of the macro sites - Alamy - has developed a system (called Alamy Rank) to try and put a stop to this.

It's horrendously complicated. They've taken out a patent on it and it runs to dozens of pages. But the upshot is they rank the order in which photos appear in a search according to a score for each photographer.

And each photographer's score is calculated through a formula in which the number of times his/her photographs appear in searches is compared to the number of times his/her photographs are viewed or (better still) bought.

Get that?

In other words, if your photos appear in a lot of searches (through keyword spamming) but no one ever looks at them or buys them, you get a low score and sink to the bottom of the rankings. That means your photos appear on the last pages of any search.

On the other hand if your photos appear in fewer searches but you get viewed or bought lots of times (accurate keywording) you get a high score and your photos are shown at the beginning of any search.

Cool? Or what?

P.S. Thanks a million Sharply. I've written out your list and pinned it over my monitor. A great guide!

rossco · « **Reply #5 on:** April 26, 2007, 00:12 »

I read about the alamy system would be good if micros developed something similar.

also i have to laugh at this on at DT it is so blatant:

http://www.dreamstime.com/flowers-image710114#sgk

a picture of flowers with the following keywords:

aalsmeer bee close color colour dutch flower flowers gay holland sex smell up valentine yellow

EDIT: I reported this one

-Rossco

rossco · « **Reply #6 on:** April 26, 2007, 00:21 »

Yet Another

. Picture of an LCD monitor:

http://www.dreamstime.com/monitor-image2099162#sgk

Keywords:
1950s american apple business clicks clothing communications computers conference crystal desk desktop digital digitally display equipment flat generated global image internet key keyboards lcd letter liquid macintosh mid monitors occupation office ornate piano player power screen sign sound speaker spider surveillance technician technologies telephone tft tower vector visual waterproof web working

Yet another completely wrong in this case probably relating to a different image:

http://www.dreamstime.com/recharge-image749867

cornishman · « **Reply #7 on:** April 26, 2007, 03:14 »

I normally try and keep my keywords to a minimum really. Mostly for my work, loads of keywords are not that necessary. Something like....

engine, cutaway, petrol, piston, section, 3D, render, isolated, illustration, technical, cad, machine, mechanical, metal, sparkplug.....

I think stock sites should have a limit to the number, it would definately focus the mind on better, more precise keywording and better search results for the punters.

But then I've never had to describe a portrait or something like that....

GeoPappas · « **Reply #8 on:** April 26, 2007, 05:43 »

Quote from: rossco on April 26, 2007, 00:21

Yet Another . Picture of an LCD monitor:

http://www.dreamstime.com/monitor-image2099162#sgk

Keywords:
1950s american apple business clicks clothing communications computers conference crystal desk desktop digital digitally display equipment flat generated global image internet key keyboards lcd letter liquid macintosh mid monitors occupation office ornate piano player power screen sign sound speaker spider surveillance technician technologies telephone tft tower vector visual waterproof web working

Yet another completely wrong in this case probably relating to a different image:

http://www.dreamstime.com/recharge-image749867

It seems that those three images have already had some keywords removed.

As a matter of fact, that last image now doesn't have ANY keywords. Whoever removed all of the keywords, didn't bother to add any new ones.

I will suggest a few so that the image might be found by someone.

StockManiac · « **Reply #9 on:** April 26, 2007, 06:36 »

Sorry, but I have a problem when someone complains about something like this, and they do the same thing themselves.

Here is one of your images of a bird sitting on a rail:

http://dreamstime.com/commonsparrow-image2207831

which contains the following keywords: beak, claw, feather, fly, veranda

First, if someone is searching for the words beak, claw, or feather, they probably want to see a close-up of those animal parts. They don't want to see every animal that contains those. If you are going to add those words, then why not ears, eyes, blood, etc?

Second, although this bird might be in a veranda, there is no way to tell that from the photo. If a buyer is searching on the word veranda, then this image would be considered spam.

Third, although a bird does fly, this one is firmly planted on the ground.

Another one of your images:

http://dreamstime.com/securecommunicationstower-image1727299

Contains the following long list of keywords:

aerial air airwaves area array atm australia barb barbed bendigo blue broadcast business busy cell cellular clouds commercial comms communicate communication communications coms data directions dish domes ears high hill hub industrial industrialized industry jardine lattice listening mast mobile net network netwrok one phone power powerful probe radiate radiation radio receive receiver relay rigid ross satellite secure shading signal sky soar speed steel structure sureveillance technical technology telecommunication telecommunications telephone television tower transmit transmitter transmitters tree victoria waves wide wire

I won't even start on this one, because I'm probably sure that you can see where this is going...

Finally, I have no problem with a few stray keywords here and there. If I was searching for a bee and didn't want to see flowers, then I could just use "bee -flower" to remove the stray images. It has been shown many times, that including keywords that are associated will help to sell an image.

The real issue is with true "spam": a photo of a church with the keywords "sex", or a beach scene with the keyword "business".

sharply_done · « **Reply #10 on:** April 26, 2007, 08:14 »

I have to say that I am amused - it turns out that the person complaining about poor keywording is one of the people he is complaining about.

How does that go again? People who live in glass houses ...

sharply_done · « **Reply #11 on:** April 26, 2007, 08:59 »

Further to my original reply, I use my keywords in the description of the image, usually in the form of [subject] with/in [background, [composition]. Here's a recent example:

title:

desc:

key1:

key2:

key3:

key4:

key5:

airplane

propeller airplane flying in stormy sky, silhouette, closeup, b/w, square frame

airplane,propeller,executive,business,private,aeroplane,airplane,flying,plane,flight

thunderhead,thunderstorm,thunderclouds,stormclouds,storm,clouds,cloudy,weather,sky

menacing,turbulent,dramatic,violent

monochrome,black,white,blue,bw,closeup,close-up,detail,silhouette,square

ominous,adversity,risk,challenge,danger,dangerous,risky,perilous,jeopardy,daring,defiance,bravery,hazardous,determination

With regard to using only 10 keywords - I don't think that is enough to adequately market an image. The above example uses 47 keywords, all of which are related to the image. Sure, I could weed some out, but I want to get the most out of every tool I have in order to maximize my exposure.

... and yeah, I'm the guy who specializes in aircraft.

chellyar · « **Reply #12 on:** April 26, 2007, 14:40 »

Thans for your comments Sharply....

My keywording process is quite ad-hoc, and your process might help with some of my non-sellers..

I'll re-keyword a couple and see if they sell..

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #13 on:** April 26, 2007, 16:59 »

Enjoyed and appreciated your commets Sharpley Done...
I have to admit that in the beginning I was one of those that would go nuts with keywording. Because, that's what I thought I was supposed to do. Not neccesarily spam in that the words had nothing to do with the image. But in that the words were not truly appropriate to the image. For example, using 'feather' when the image was a flock of birds in the sky. Not really spam, but thenagain, not really appropriate to that image.
In recent times have drastically cut back on that trying to use words very specific to the image. Where I can, I am going back and correcting many of my early posts. I'm trying to keep the buyer in mind.
Why? Nothing ticks me off more than blatant spam. Sometimes I will see where my pix are showing up in searches under my keywords. The other night I looked for some of my "Maine" images on IS... the first couple pages came up loaded with photos of trucks and studio shots of people. Nothing to do with "Maine"
My point. I don't want to be that guy.... studio shot of a woman, keyworded "grand canyon, ducks, trucks, pencils, red, Idaho...etc.

I cleaning up my act. thanks

-tom

madelaide · « **Reply #14 on:** April 26, 2007, 17:37 »

Very good procedure by sharply_done. It is surely useful to all of us.

Once I tried a search for lipstick (I was working on images of makeup items) and was amazed that maybe 90% of the results were photos of women, though not necessarily in closeup or with a lipstick in hand. So it's like evey photo of a person in full body people pick "eyes, ears, mouth, lips, cheek, hair, hands, fingers, ..." and if a woman they also add "makeup, lipstick, ..."

To me it's quite obvious that someone looking for "ears" is looking for images in which ears are the main subject or a prominent part of it, not just a detail. And even considering that people may use the keyword as a second filter, I can't see much sense in looking for "woman NOT ears" (unless the person is looking for a conceptual PSed image of a woman without ears...)

Regards,
Adelaide

rossco · « **Reply #15 on:** April 26, 2007, 17:39 »

Stockmaniac:I didnt say i wasnt the best keyworder in the world and will be checking mine and cleaning up my act. Feel free to report them if you like. PM me your gallery links be happy to go through yours and check yours for you. $:-\$

-Rossco

admart01 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 26, 2007, 19:17 »

Quote from: madelaide on April 26, 2007, 17:37

Once I tried a search for lipstick (I was working on images of makeup items) and was amazed that maybe 90% of the results were photos of women, though not necessarily in closeup or with a lipstick in hand. So it's like evey photo of a person in full body people pick "eyes, ears, mouth, lips, cheek, hair, hands, fingers, ..." and if a woman they also add "makeup, lipstick, ..."

Regards,
Adelaide

I had the same experience this weekend -- looking up carnival. I tried "fair" but that was worse. To be "fair" there wasn't any way to indicate fair skinned so I got an eye-full

As with most things - when I switch roles I learn a lot about both sides - that is, when I searched for a certain type of image I learn a lot that I can apply to my keywording of images.

michaeldb · « **Reply #17 on:** April 26, 2007, 22:08 »

I have always assumed that keywords of things which are not in the image are usually simply laziness on the part of photographers.

Phogographers often submit photos in a batch, from one shoot. They simply use the same list of keywords for each image. If they take a picture of a sunflower and a bee is on it, then the 'bee' ends up on the keyword list of every image in the batch.

To me, it is stupid to intentionally spam keywords. I think every site has a policy against it. Who knows when a site will start to crackdown and kick off keyword spammers?

StockManiac · « **Reply #18 on:** April 27, 2007, 05:00 »

Quote from: rossco on April 26, 2007, 17:39

Stockmaniac:I didnt say i wasnt the best keyworder in the world...

Well, maybe neither was the artist that you were complaining about.

And like I previously said, I have no problem with associative words. "birds" and "feather" should flock together

Everyone thinks slightly differently because of their upbringing and experiences. We all live in different parts of the world. When you see an image of a bird it might conjure up the word "fly" for you, but it might conjure up the word "spring" for someone else. We shouldn't complain about these associative words. And buyers shouldn't expect to find the image that they are looking for on page 1 of a search, when they only type in one word (e.g., "bird").

The problem that I have is with obvious spamming. When someone is obviously putting words into their image that have nothing at all to do with it. For example, a photo of a toy that has the word "business".

I'm sure that you tried to be careful with the keywords in your images when you submitted your photos, but that is probably true for most of us. We shouldn't attack each other over keywords unless it is blatant. Give the artist the benefit of the doubt.

I personally think that IS has got it all wrong with respect to this issue. They have instituted a policy that says that you have to see the word in the image and that it has to be a prominent part of the image. While this sounds good at first glance, it is a horrible policy. You can't see words that are concepts, such as idea, future, love, etc. So these words are being removed. Words used in complex phrases are also being removed. For example, the keyword "paper" would be removed from an image of a cut on a finger (even though it was to be paired with "cut" as in "paper cut").

IS has also implemented a "keyword wiki" where members can complain about the misuse of keywords. But this has turned into an arena where members can attack each other. What has happened, is that members are "correcting" images that show up at the top of searches in hopes that it will raise the ranking on their own images.

IMO, it is a shame that we attack each other so easily, when we should be joining forces against the agencies that are taking such advantage of us.

ManicBlu · « **Reply #19 on:** April 29, 2007, 14:45 »

I do occasional keywording for hire and Sharply Done has the right idea. I also agree with Stockmaniac about including parts that are naturally a part of a bird etc. when the entire animal is in the image.

The added suggestion I would make is when I keyword for a client I give them all the keywords that are relevant to the image but stipulating that they should decide first how they want to sell the image then choose the ones out of the list that fit. It's rare that I cannot come up with over 100 esoteric keywords for many images but with the new controlled vocabularies all will not work even if that many were acceptable. I recently keyworded an image of a single man standing looking out on a beach scene. The photographer had keyworded this image negatively i.e. lonliness, sad, depressed etc.
I suggested selling the image in a positive manner using keywords such as vacation, travel, pleasure, which tend to be more in demand than negative imagery. She was pleased and decided to leave it as it was for awhile and if it didn't sell this way she would then change the keywords to fit a new perspective.

Shoot your image with a idea in mind of how you want to sell it. Many people just shoot and then try to figure out how to make it useful.

I'm not saying never to mix and match when you just can't come up with enough keywords. I've done this when it was necessary. But, it's better if you can shoot and keyword an image to meet a specific market.

madelaide · « **Reply #20 on:** April 29, 2007, 16:10 »

Quote from: StockManiac on April 27, 2007, 05:00

"birds" and "feather" should flock together

I may be wrong about that, but I think feather should only be a keywords if it's a relevant part of the image (a closeup of a bird and not birds on a lake at distance). Otherwise all photos of people would have eyes, ears, cheeck, lips, etc as keywords.

All birds have feathers (any exception?) and if someone looks for feathers he possibly doesn't want an image in which a feather is no more than a few pixels long.

Regards,
Adelaide

fintastique · « **Reply #21 on:** May 13, 2007, 17:44 »

Just found this one when I did a search for one of my illustrations at SS

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1675431-abstract-view-of-shovel-teeth-of-bulldozer-blade.html

I think by looking at the title then the keywords they were quite creative with their keywording, legitimate keywords in bold. 6/46

blueprint, boots, build, builder, commercial, concrete, construction, contractor, control, diesel, dig, fabricate, flag, foreman, fuel, had, hard, harness, heavy, house, industrial, industry, insurance, labor, laborers, lay, machinery, men, pave, pipe, plan, pour, prepare, quit, safety, scrape, site, steel, stop, time, toe, trench, union, vest, weld, work

I actually did a search for "bulldozer shovel blade" and this picture did not appear just shows that keywords are more important than title at SS

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Annoying use of Keywords!! (Read 9371 times)

rossco

sharply_done

rossco

ianhlnd

Bateleur

rossco

rossco

cornishman

GeoPappas

StockManiac

sharply_done

sharply_done

chellyar

a.k.a.-tom

madelaide

rossco

admart01

michaeldb

StockManiac

ManicBlu

madelaide

fintastique

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors