Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

prairierattler · Joined: 23 Nov 2005 Posts: 1546

While I applaud intelligent efforts to control/prevent keyword spamming, the line is not necessarily clear. For example, I recently used keywords "duck" and "swan" on a submission of a goose, two similar types of waterfowl that I thought were perfectly reasonable to include. After all, a buyer who searches for a "duck" might just be searching for waterfowl in general and why not include geese and swans in the search results? If he really doesn't want ducks or swans, then they are easily ignored as he pages through the offerings.

Now, if I had used "condor", "hawk" and "pterodactyl" then that, in my eyes, would have been a keyword spam despite the fact that they are all birds (albeit one a dinosaur version).

I use this example because on another stock site-- one I will not name and do not support-- I had an image rejected for using "duck", "swan" and "pond" for my goose image. That site is implementing a big keyword simplification and accuracy initiative that, in my view, is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

So... I'm curious... in the views of buyers who read this post, is the presence of "duck" and "swan" an unacceptable abuse of keyword use?

joao · Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 2 Location: Nottingham, UK

Thanks for all the tips. I'll review the keywords of my (still) tiny gallery and I'll try to be much more careful in the future!

Joao

jps · Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 12094 Location: Denmark

Prairierattler i disaggree with you there.
I think its up to the buyers to think of the different waterfowl and search for both swan, duck, goose if they want to.
And then find pictures with those birds in.

I think that we should ONLY use keywords that describes what is actually in the picture, and we should be rather concrete.

If we all fill up with keywords we imagine the buyers will search for there is no end to confusion and all searches will be meaningless.

As we sell digital information here, its very important to keep it structured, else it will end up becoming meaningless noise.
It already is to a high degree, and that is dangerous.

There could come a point where searches were so time consuming that buyers gave up finding what they needed.

If you want to keep the ever growing database of pictures relevant you must keep them structured. I fear that half of the 2 mill pictures here, are already dead due to that problem and are more or less meaningless noise on the harddisk.

But what is worse....When such a unstructured load lies there on the harddish it influences the structure of the newcoming pics by adding so much noise that you cannot hear the music.

The shutterstock team relies on quality and quantity in pictures. That is wise. BUT both will be useless, and already are to a degree, when information degrades to noise when keywording is not precise.

There is an immidiate danger of database degredation, that would kill shutterstock.

And it is unwise to use resources on noise when it can be brought to active life and earn money by simple precise keywording.

In the digital age we have to think differently. We are not piling up paperphotos in archives here. The trade is structured information. Information can soon change to noise, by sheer volume or by lack of structure.

pdecelle · Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 9

I've posted this question elsewhere, but this thread may be more relevant. I'm having major keyword frustrations and have read the tips, but they don't seem to apply very well to the types of images I create.

I submitted my first ten images last week. All were rejected.

One was rejected for 'Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition.'
Um, OK... Image link below. Sorry - I don't know how to embed images..

http://www.fractalus.com/paul/discus.html

The other nine were rejected for 'Keywords--Your keywords must be in English, and they must directly relate to the image. Please edit your keyword choices and resubmit.'
Image links for these other nine images are below:

http://www.fractalus.com/paul/upstream.html
http://www.fractalus.com/paul/dreamcatcher.html
http://www.fractalus.com/paul/aunatural.html
http://www.fractalus.com/paul/draftsman.html
http://www.fractalus.com/paul/hardrapture.html
http://www.fractalus.com/paul/encore.html
http://www.fractalus.com/paul/diesthefire.html
http://www.fractalus.com/paul/goodwynn.html
http://www.fractalus.com/paul/syrix2.html

For these nine images I used keywords like 'fractal', 'abstract', 'digital art', and so on.

I've tried to get some clarification on the specific keyword rejection reasons, without success. Fractals are by nature abstract images, and I can't seem to come up with acceptable keywords for them.

Any useful suggestions are appreciated - Thanks!

jps · Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 12094 Location: Denmark

fractal, digital art, etc are appropriate.
What were the others.

stitcherladyxx · Joined: 07 Apr 2007 Posts: 176

algorias · Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 7

chachaman · Joined: 24 Mar 2008 Posts: 179 Location: Denver, Colorado

Thanks for using Denver as your example!

riffmax · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 3048 Location: Florida, USA

algol · Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 348

Doesn't matter - think I figured out the answer to my question here.

bobbigmac · Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 128 Location: picNiche.com

Interesting thread.

I'm currently writing a keywording application for www.picNiche.com and thus weighing up the benefit of many of the common keywords like abstract, background, design, illustration, photo, image, etc etc.

I started on my own photos adding 50 keywords every time, but now I'm finding the benefits in reducing them (running at about 20 per image at the mo).

Anyone have any experience with reduction of number of keywords to only the content-based necessities and it's impact on sales for those images?

Cheers

shensher · Joined: 08 Sep 2008 Posts: 12

I also disagree with not putting in the location. I work as a designer in the educational publishing industry, and many times I have had to use inferior location-specific shots because no others could be found. Clients will often demand that a specific shot be located in their state or province, even if it's a seemingly generic subject. Sometimes we go as far as to hire local photographers to shoot the subject for us.

Shaun

shensher · Joined: 08 Sep 2008 Posts: 12

guyn · Joined: 30 Jan 2008 Posts: 11

I highly reccomend using the following tool as reference : http://arcurs.com/keywording/
you can search for similar images and see which tags were used.

thegame · Joined: 25 Jul 2008 Posts: 122 Location: Vienna, Austria

I come to the conclusion sometimes I just get Keyword rejections no matter if the keywords are appropriate or not. OK, uploading again, same keywords, approval... its annoying but thats the way it is.