| Author |
Message |
mariapiabenzer
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 5
|
Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 12:42 pm
|  |
I'm new to Shutterstock and am very excited to be apart of it.
Here is my problem:
I uploaded scenic pictures of the California coast. I specificly named them by the city. For example, I put Pismo beach in the title of two of my pictures. It's been over 3 days since they got accepted. Now when I search for them I obviously put in Pismo Beach, but they do not show up! I'm very dissapointed because if not even I can find my photos, then the buyers deffinetly can't find them.
Here's the numbers on my photos if anyone would like to investigate. Thank you! Pia
30830197
30830206
30830209
30830215 |
|
vclements
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Posts: 2441
Location: http://www.vdavidclements.com
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 12:51 pm
| |
Search for "Prismo Beach" and take a close look at the keywords of the resulting images.
Then take a close look at your keywords.
You will see that your keywords contain neither "Prismo" nor "Beach".
How do you expect a search engine to find something when the keywords are not there? |
|
mariapiabenzer
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 5
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 10:08 pm
| |
Well, I thought that the title is included when people search, but I guess not. Because I have Pismo Beach in the title, I thought that I did not have to put it in the keywords, but now I know.
I understand that maybe it was a dum question to you, but you have to try to remember that we're all beginners at one point. |
|
pharm
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 8997
Location: Never quite sure
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 9:22 pm
| |
Not a dumb question, Pia. We just get cranky sometimes (me included).
Makes me homesick and I'm not even from California (from Florida):
 |
|
vclements
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Posts: 2441
Location: http://www.vdavidclements.com
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 5:58 pm
| |
Sorry, not a dumb question at all.
As Perry mentioned, I might get a bit grumpy from time to time.(too much work..no sleep...etc etc)
As a computer geek from the days when the C64 was a rockin machine, I tend to assume everyone else is the same.
Didn't mean to sound gruff.
My apologies.
(p.s. I would have gotten to this sooner if I wasn't so busy) |
|
mariapiabenzer
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 5
|
|
Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 12:30 pm
| |
Ok, I feel much better now!
Thank you so much for the replies. |
|
pharm
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 8997
Location: Never quite sure
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:04 am
| |
| vclements wrote: | ...As a computer geek from the days when the C64 was a rockin machine, I tend to assume everyone else is the same...
|
I had a PORTABLE Commodore 64! The SX-64:
"The SX-64 has the distinction of being the first full-color portable computer. The base unit featured a 5 inch (127 mm) CRT and an integrated 1541 floppy disk drive."
See it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sx-64_build_crop.jpg
Have no idea where it is now but I wish I still had it. |
|
vclements
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Posts: 2441
Location: http://www.vdavidclements.com
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:06 am
| |
| pharm wrote: | | vclements wrote: | ...As a computer geek from the days when the C64 was a rockin machine, I tend to assume everyone else is the same...
|
I had a PORTABLE Commodore 64! The SX-64:
"The SX-64 has the distinction of being the first full-color portable computer. The base unit featured a 5 inch (127 mm) CRT and an integrated 1541 floppy disk drive."
See it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sx-64_build_crop.jpg
Have no idea where it is now but I wish I still had it. |
That is pretty cool.
You should see if you can find it. It's probably worth some bucks.
Funny now our cell phones have WWWAAAAYYY more power than that "portable" C64! |
|
gustofusion
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 21
|
|
| |
|
Log in
