Betty LaRue

Have you done your legacy images?

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Maybe it just seemed that way since this was my thread. :)

 

Okay. I'll remember not to comment on your threads in the future.

 

 

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2017 at 22:41, Betty LaRue said:

I'm not so organized myself, John. But better at that than having technical knowledge. I title all of my new subs as I upload.  You know what's in the batch, so soon as it begins uploading you can title it. 

For instance, a few months back one of my uploads was of chocolate cake, home made. Titling "Chocolate Cake" allows me to find that subject in AIM should I want to duplicate some of the tags for a newly uploaded image.

 

And Geoff, you are so right about the forum having a forlorn air without Philippe. His personality is larger than life and he injected that energy into his posts.  

There was another Geoff (Kidd) who was very knowledgeable that I believe was driven out a few years ago because a few people were very argumentative with nearly anything he said. He helped me years ago more than I can say through PMs explaining how to do cutouts among other PS skills. A good guy and a gentleman.

And remember Linda Matlow? She withdrew her images to protect them. She's still busy shooting celebs in Chicago. She was up for trying out about every new camera. :D Miss her on the forum, too. But I keep up with her on social media.

Betty

Didn't know Philippe had gone? That's a shame, he seemed a good guy to me too and always gave good advice, I vaguely remember Linda & Geoff too.

 

I hope he's ok and wish him all the best, if anyone actually speaks to him, let him know please

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing to go off topic.....

Whatever happened to David Kilpatrick ? A useful source of technical hardware knowledge.

 

Geoff (not the one that's gone AWOL)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geoff s said:

Continuing to go off topic.....

Whatever happened to David Kilpatrick ? A useful source of technical hardware knowledge.

 

Geoff (not the one that's gone AWOL)

 

I understand that today he is at Photovision in Ireland promoting Cameracraft. He is on Facebook 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

I understand that today he is at Photovision in Ireland promoting Cameracraft. He is on Facebook 

Happy to know he's still active. Wish he was active here. I always trusted his expertise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Betty and others,

 

Betty, you said in one comment,

 

"My legacy images did not transition well in the new AIM.  Many broken tags with a single end letter missing from a tag and the single letter in a tag box all by itself.  How would you feel about a tag "bird" ending up "bir" "d"?  Every phrase where I used quotes completely shattered. Long strings of what should be single tags clumped together in one tag box."

 

I have not really looked much at keywords in my legacy images for reasons already explained. However only a very small proportion have the problem of loads of keywords all merged in to one tag. Is anyone aware of any reason why that should have happened in those particular instances, and, more importantly, does anyone know of a way of searching out those legacy images where it might have happened, to make repair easier?

 

Kind regards

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doc

It wont make it any easier for you today but I think my merged keywords happened when I lost some commas when dividing my keywords between the three boxes in the old AIM

The keywords came into the bottom box complete with commas, and in importance order.

The I cut and pasted the first most important keywords, complete with commas into the top box.

Then I cleaned up by deleting the dangling comma and maybe the space at the end of the last keyword in the top box. BIG MISTAKE !!!

It meant that there was no comma or space between the last word in the top box and the first word in the middle box, resulting in those two keywords becoming one tag.

The old AIM still needed a string of all keywords separated by commas to convert to the new tags.

Fortunately I was inconsistent in comma deletion, so most came out OK

Edited by Bill Brooks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2017 at 15:42, geogphotos said:

How is this a better system overall, rather than from the perspective of the individual contributor?

 

To put it crudely if your images ( and mine!) were where they were out of merit based on customer activity and sales then being able to elevate them though doing busy work that others won't do seems a strange, actually contradictory, way to improve things for the buyer.

 

 

 

I look at cleaning up my legacy keywording and applying the new features in the new AIM as an upgrade. The same way I occasionally upgrade my software, camera, computer etc.

 

If contributors use the new AIM to keyword properly, eliminate keyword spam, delete inferior images, use keyword phrases, convert some RM to RF, give Google location information, use trending new words, relate old images to today’s problems, fill out the people places info, select the two categories, use the additional information box, indicate if available only on Alamy, I think that would result in a better search experience for the buyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

I look at cleaning up my legacy keywording and applying the new features in the new AIM as an upgrade. The same way I occasionally upgrade my software, camera, computer etc.

 

If contributors use the new AIM to keyword properly, eliminate keyword spam, delete inferior images, use keyword phrases, convert some RM to RF, give Google location information, use trending new words, relate old images to today’s problems, fill out the people places info, select the two categories, use the additional information box, indicate if available only on Alamy, I think that would result in a better search experience for the buyer.

I agree. All of the information a buyer might want would be available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what percentage of the 105 million images on Alamy would you estimate have been reworked so far? And will ever be?

 

My assumption is that none/hardly any of the agencies or larger contributors will find the time, that a lot of contributors have lost interest since they started and are hardly active, and that it will only be a relatively small proportion of contributors and a relatively small proportion of images that ever get to be reworked. I doubt that agencies sending in a new hard disc or submitting by FTP will even get around to using the new AIM system for new and current images. I send in images by FTP,  they go on sale more easily than before, and that is good enough for me. 

 

Surely the whole point is that an individual CAN improve their own position because most images WON'T be reworked.  Great for the contributor but I don't see how it ends up making much difference to the overall search experience.

 

And as yet nobody has pointed out what the problem is that the new system is supposed to be fixing. 

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

And as yet nobody has pointed out what the problem is that the new system is supposed to be fixing. 

 

 

Only Alamy can answer that one. No?

 

My uneducated guess is that there was no overriding problem that the new AIM was supposed to fix. It was just time to upgrade mainly for upgrading's sake, which is a very common phenomenon these days.

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Only Alamy can answer that one. No?

 

My uneducated guess is that there was no overriding problem that the new AIM was supposed to fix. It was just time to upgrade mainly for upgrading's sake, which is a very common phenomenon these days.

 

 

One advantage that was asked for was the ability to add a tag globally to already tagged images without losing the tags already in place. Another, say you have a set of three similars you've just uploaded, tagged ahead of time or not. You can select all three, add a phrase you've just thought of to them at once, or completely tag all three at once,  rather than add it to one in the old system, then copy and paste to each of the other two.

Once I get my legacy images finished, I'll be happy. I tag my images in Bridge. I use Bridge to create templates of often used basic tags that I can apply to new images, then add ones that suit that particular image. (Think bird flying, bird perching) Once in AIM, doing the rest on the Optional page is quick. It probably takes me half the time to ready a new upload in AIM than doing it the old way and having the tags clumped together and then doing all the copy/paste to separate them into three boxes.

I have a basic template with basic information. Then I have separate templates for every bird, butterfly, plant, etc. with common and scientific name in the tag field. Included is location, since 95% are shot in my home town. Any subject that you may shoot multiple times deserves a template.

 

By using templates for commonly used tags, I avoid needing to figure out how to find an old image to copy tags over to a new image. The templates are titled and easy to find alphabetically. Highlight my image(s), apply the template with one click, add a couple of differentiating tags and I'm done. Upload.

So the new system suits me and my way of working better than the old. 

The ability to do the prepping on my iPad is great. My sofa is more comfortable than my desk chair.

This is how the new AIM makes it better for me, but I can't address the buyer's needs.  It seems when I do searches, everything works as before. As far as the tinkering with the search engine, I guess Alamy is attempting to make that better for the buyers, but so far with mixed results.

All that said, the new AIM only makes doing new images easy. But it sure messed up over 4000 images. :P

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"One advantage that was asked for was the ability to add a tag globally to already tagged images without losing the tags already in place. Another, say you have a set of three similars you've just uploaded, tagged ahead of time or not. You can select all three, add a phrase you've just thought of to them at once, or completely tag all three at once,  rather than add it to one in the old system, then copy and paste to each of the other two."

 

Good examples. Those definitely were things that needed fixing in the old system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

And what percentage of the 105 million images on Alamy would you estimate have been reworked so far? And will ever be?

 

My assumption is that none/hardly any of the agencies or larger contributors will find the time, that a lot of contributors have lost interest since they started and are hardly active, and that it will only be a relatively small proportion of contributors and a relatively small proportion of images that ever get to be reworked. I doubt that agencies sending in a new hard disc or submitting by FTP will even get around to using the new AIM system for new and current images. I send in images by FTP,  they go on sale more easily than before, and that is good enough for me. 

 

Surely the whole point is that an individual CAN improve their own position because most images WON'T be reworked.  Great for the contributor but I don't see how it ends up making much difference to the overall search experience.

 

And as yet nobody has pointed out what the problem is that the new system is supposed to be fixing. 

 

 

The new AIM being faster to get new images to live (in my experience) and more slim lined with only two classes of tags/keywords.

 

If visible advantages are not convincing enough, one could speculate that perhaps it could be a back-end issue i.e. the roadmap ahead for developments in the tech that we don't see (storage, search tech, admin etc.) would not agree with old AIM or being a limiter, thus making an upgrade necessary. Just guessing.

Edited by Martin Carlsson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

My uneducated guess is that there was no overriding problem that the new AIM was supposed to fix. It was just time to upgrade mainly for upgrading's sake, which is a very common phenomenon these days.

 

Which is why I aint playing unless they are paying.

 

4 hours ago, geogphotos said:

My assumption is that none/hardly any of the agencies or larger contributors will find the time, that a lot of contributors have lost interest since they started and are hardly active, and that it will only be a relatively small proportion of contributors and a relatively small proportion of images that ever get to be reworked. I doubt that agencies sending in a new hard disc or submitting by FTP will even get around to using the new AIM system for new and current images. I send in images by FTP,  they go on sale more easily than before, and that is good enough for me. 

 

Surely the whole point is that an individual CAN improve their own position because most images WON'T be reworked.  Great for the contributor but I don't see how it ends up making much difference to the overall search experience.

 

And as yet nobody has pointed out what the problem is that the new system is supposed to be fixing. 

+1

 

Regen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, regen said:

 

 

4 hours ago, regen said:

 

Which is why I aint playing unless they are paying.

 

+1

 

Regen

 

Yes, 50,000 images = probably 1000+ hours of computer work = unknown rewards.

 

Even with a potential boost in sales income it does not seem worth the effort compared to putting those hours into something else ( or nothing :))

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is somewhat similar to the film scanning problem photographers had around the year 2000.

 

Some did, some did not. I scanned 6,000 transparencies discarded 4,000.

 

It’s your choice. Thats the beauty of the Alamy system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

I think it is somewhat similar to the film scanning problem photographers had around the year 2000.

 

Some did, some did not. I scanned 6,000 transparencies discarded 4,000.

 

It’s your choice. Thats the beauty of the Alamy system

 

Cant really see the similarity.

 

Trannies were only scanned once - Alamy have revisited keywords etc at least 3 times.

 

Scanning in 2000 produced files which could be sold for very good prices which made the process worthwhile. Fiddling with keywords/tags on existing files in a continually falling market with no obvious tangible rewards is a waste of time.

 

Regen

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/09/2017 at 19:12, Bill Brooks said:

... indicate if available only on Alamy, I think that would result in a better search experience for the buyer.

How does the buyer see that an image is available only on Alamy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2017 at 03:25, geogphotos said:

And what percentage of the 105 million images on Alamy would you estimate have been reworked so far? And will ever be?

 

My assumption is that none/hardly any of the agencies or larger contributors will find the time, that a lot of contributors have lost interest since they started and are hardly active, and that it will only be a relatively small proportion of contributors and a relatively small proportion of images that ever get to be reworked. I doubt that agencies sending in a new hard disc or submitting by FTP will even get around to using the new AIM system for new and current images. I send in images by FTP,  they go on sale more easily than before, and that is good enough for me. 

 

Surely (1) the whole point is that an individual CAN improve their own position because most images WON'T be reworked.  Great for the contributor but I don't see how it ends up making much difference to the overall search experience.

 

(2) And as yet nobody has pointed out what the problem is that the new system is supposed to be fixing. 

 

 

1) Perhaps one can spin it to a positive and see this as a chance for "individuals" to get a leg up against the massive collections from the all the agencies? Of course I fully sympathize with the sheer work that you hypothetically would have to do, but perhaps breaking it up into smaller chunks to make it feel achievable and worthwhile i.e. start out with those that you think are your best and zoomed/sold ones to give further boost? Completely understand the questioning of it all, but without trivialising your plight, it is what it is now.

 

2) There's been suggestions, but without confirmation from Alamy we won't know for sure. Perhaps e-mailing contributor services?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Martin Carlsson said:

 

1) Perhaps one can spin it to a positive and see this as a chance for "individuals" to get a leg up against the massive collections from the all the agencies? Of course I fully sympathize with the sheer work that you hypothetically would have to do, but perhaps breaking it up into smaller chunks to make it feel achievable and worthwhile i.e. start out with those that you think are your best and zoomed/sold ones to give further boost? Completely understand the questioning of it all, but without trivialising your plight, it is what it is now.

 

2) There's been suggestions, but without confirmation from Alamy we won't know for sure. Perhaps e-mailing contributor services?

 

Martin,

 

I need to make my point more clearly. It is not about other individuals or myself.

 

If images have high rank because of their sales record and quality then Alamy surely benefits from them appearing high up in the search results.

 

It doesn't improve buyer search experience to hypothetically allow individuals, who are willing and able to devote time to it, to elevate their own images in searches above the position that they currently have ( through their AR sales record)? This inevitably means that other images are 'demoted'. 

 

I can't see that Alamy constantly shuffling the pack of cards attracts more buyers.

 

Personally, I think Alamy made a rod for their own back at the outset when they decided not to use industry standard IPTC fields. They also have all this image data ( even at individual image level (?), certainly for each contributor and pseudonym) and algorithms from actual real buyer data so why not use standard Caption and Keywords ( as every other agency does) and let the best images from the best contributors float to the top.

 

I wonder what would happen if super-tags were removed and we just had Caption and Keywords - maybe this could be modelled on a  mirror site?

 

 

 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

Martin,

 

You are missing my point entirely. It is not about other individuals or myself.

 

(1)If images have high rank because of their sales record and quality then Alamy surely benefits from theming appear high up in the images.

 

(2) How does it improve the buyer search experience to hypothetically allow individuals who have time on their hands to elevate their own images in searches above the position that they currently have ( through their AR sales record)? This inevitably means that other images are 'demoted'. 

 

I can't see that Alamy constantly shuffling the pack of cards attracts more buyers.

 

Personally, I think Alamy made a rod for their own back at the outset when they decided not to use industry standard IPTC fields. They also have all this image data ( even at individual level (?), certainly for each contributor and pseudonym) and algorithms from actual real buyer data so why not use standard Caption and Keywords ( as every other agency does) and (3) let the best images from the best contributors float to the top.

 

 

 

 

Ian,

 

Ok - but you did mention something along those lines earlier (getting a leg up), hence my continuance.

 

1. Logically that makes perfect sense. However, currently images can't have individual rank, only pseudonyms - correct me if I'm wrong, that would be major improvement.

 

2. From a buyer's perspective there surely are soo many factors that influence the search, not just individual efforts with the new AIM. Alamy re-ranks, new images, new contributors, contributor various efforts with keywording or re-keywording and buyer's various, but hopefully improving, ability to perform well executed targeted searches. Regardless, my impression is that most that refrain from doing any new AIM work on old images are actually better off in searches i.e. tinkering with old stuff and they start to slide down the search - so is this even a real problem? 

 

3. If I remember correctly there was talk a few years back about eventually moving towards individual image rank, hasn't happened yet AFAIK. Would be cool to know/hear about Alamy's roadmap for developments, but I don't think that will happen.

 

Anyway, what are you trying to achieve? ( <-- said in a friendly manner) Making your own mind up about attacking your older stuff or trying to get Alamy to go back to old AIM?

Edited by Martin Carlsson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martin Carlsson said:

 

 

 

Anyway, what are you trying to achieve? ( <-- said in a friendly manner) 

 

Nothing, just chatting on a forum :)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't improve buyer search experience to hypothetically allow individuals, who are willing and able to devote time to it, to elevate their own images in searches above the position that they currently have ( through their AR sales record)? This inevitably means that other images are 'demoted'. 

 

Ian, the problem I had was when the new AIM was introduced, my images that once had a good position through the traditional methods, slipped.

If you have a major tag or more suddenly included in a 6-8 tag string, and while that important tag can still be searched within the string, it doesn't have the chutzpah of a single tag, and won't come up as high in searches. 

I'm just trying to get back to where I was.

if my competing image was above John Doe's before the change on its own merits, (barring sales) it still should be. If it has slipped many pages after the new AIM because of errors caused by the new AIM, that's what's not fair.

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much housebound these days (recovering from an operation), so I've been spending a lot of time working on my old (and not-so-old) images -- adding supertags, deleting and adding keywords, fleshing out captions, etc. So far I'm seeing encouraging results, some almost immediate, including views and zooms of recently updated images. No sales yet of  reworked images, but I'm hopeful. 

 

Consequently, I'd say that -- for those with smaller collections especially -- updating images with the new AIM in mind is probably time well spent. Not sure about contributors with tens of thousands of images, though, as it's very time consuming. I'm a bit shocked at how lazy I've been with keywording a lot of my pics. It's a real learning experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now