Jon Lewis Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Hi All Was just checking kewords were correct for some of my images when I noticed the page populated with some fresh images because of the 20 on the search page 8 were mine. The new images were part of a portfolio of 2,220,414 individual images making up 222205 pages (100 per page) It says its an historic image but its not .many of the 2 million are but not all and the tags bear no relation to the image and the vast majority of the others have inappropriate tags and captions. Is this just an agency dumping images into Alamy ??? should they be allowed to get away with so many inappropriately tagged images . Should Alamy do something about it what do you think or any with larger portfolios i.e. Keith Doc or Jeff. KJ0R4X will give you a clue to find them Regards Jon edit: looks like many/all have same tags just to get then on sale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Richmond Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 You can't sell what the buyers can't find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Lewis Posted November 30, 2017 Author Share Posted November 30, 2017 Thats true John but we tag caption etc correctly this is putting all our hard work at risk by affecting rank I don't think Alamy should allow this ,. Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Lewis Posted November 30, 2017 Author Share Posted November 30, 2017 Thanks for the info Ian is the just an agency hoovering up creative commons and dumping them here?? Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 More to the point, that example is down as archive. It was taken in 2013. What's the point busting a gut or QC if someone can just bypass it be the thousand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Yes but my point was that a 4-year-old image of a church which is extant isn't archive. You and I don't abuse the privilege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 I'm fairly sure this topic cropped up some months back, possibly discussing the same contributor. I'm taking the view that Alamy have, presumably, satisfied themselves that the contributor has met their copyright requirements for uploading. At the same time I note that the contributor is relying solely on the caption for the subject of images to be found (all the keywords seem to be generic). If that be the case, these images will presumably sink to the back of the search results, behind contributors who have troubled themselves to keyword properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 52 minutes ago, geogphotos said: Oh I see, you mean he has pushed that small pic of the church through the Alamy archive route even though it is a modern picture because otherwise it would fail QC? He has certainly been busy! Oh, yes. I didn't notice. That's practically a thumbnail. Awful quality too, noticeable in the popup. If anyone bought that and put it up full-screen they'd reckon they'd been fleeced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 I wonder if the occasional changes to the search engine algorithm help or hinder such contributors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickfly Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 I'm sure that Alamy are aware that they are getting many false negatives, but maybe they think that they will get a few sales out of the 2 milion plus which have been dumped on them, even if it upsets a few picture editors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 45 minutes ago, losdemas said: I wonder if the occasional changes to the search engine algorithm help or hinder such contributors... It's a pity we don't have PM anymore. Now I can only echo RedSnapper: do your market research. Alamy provides ample resources. This forum is full of information also. And then there's gut feeling... wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 54 minutes ago, mickfly said: I'm sure that Alamy are aware that they are getting many false negatives, but maybe they think that they will get a few sales out of the 2 milion plus which have been dumped on them, even if it upsets a few picture editors. I would have thought that Alamy's reputation as a supplier of well key worded quality images amongst buyers would be more important than the odd sale..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vpics Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 This looks like an archival collection maybe done for a museum. Absolutely appalled by the keyworking. But as long as the keywords are in English. Alamy must to look into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 1 hour ago, wiskerke said: It's a pity we don't have PM anymore. Now I can only echo RedSnapper: do your market research. Alamy provides ample resources. This forum is full of information also. And then there's gut feeling... wim You're the research meister/guru, Wim , I went with instinct (gut feeling, as you say) and am quite happy to stick with that. I honestly don't think that I have to do any research in this case...or maybe I should? You tell me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Richmond Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Two points come to mind having looked at the collection in a little more detail. Firstly, is the uploader relying on Google indexing rather than the Alamy search function to drive buyers to the images Secondly, given the large numbers of Creative commons and other internet sourced images in the collection, is the, sometimes dubious, copyright status of those images going to come back and bite both the uploader and Alamy themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 There's sweet FA for Google to index. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vpics Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Many direct copies of artworks here and nothing photographed " in context". No wonder museums approach Alamy to have images removed. Copyright would need to be cleared on quite a few images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 1 hour ago, John Richmond said: Two points come to mind having looked at the collection in a little more detail. Firstly, is the uploader relying on Google indexing rather than the Alamy search function to drive buyers to the images Secondly, given the large numbers of Creative commons and other internet sourced images in the collection, is the, sometimes dubious, copyright status of those images going to come back and bite both the uploader and Alamy themselves Google indexing shows the images among the free ones, so that would rule that one out. My guess is that the uploader is quite good at it and knows pretty well what the caveats are. Btw he used to be a valued regular contributor here, until the blue numbers came about. After that he was one of the few 0 blue number members. Until Alamy shut off that route. (At least in some cases.) He may well be a regular guest here. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickfly Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 3 hours ago, Martyn said: I would have thought that Alamy's reputation as a supplier of well key worded quality images amongst buyers would be more important than the odd sale..... I was being sarcastic Martyn, I think they are being rather silly allowing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoDogue Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 What a waste of hard drive space. Some of them have captions like "No nb bldsa 2c034" Is there a place on this planet where "No nb bldsa 2c034" actually means something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 3 hours ago, fotoDogue said: What a waste of hard drive space. Some of them have captions like "No nb bldsa 2c034" Is there a place on this planet where "No nb bldsa 2c034" actually means something? Sivks lbu vgfdgh go 8f*52? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 11 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said: ... I note that the contributor is relying solely on the caption for the subject of images to be found (all the keywords seem to be generic). If that be the case, these images will presumably sink to the back of the search results, behind contributors who have troubled themselves to keyword properly. In another thread, I noted I'd found three of the top ten files on a particular search ('relevant'), including the top file, had no keywords whatsover, but the words I'd searched on were in the caption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 11 hours ago, losdemas said: Sivks lbu vgfdgh go 8f*52? Klaatu barada nikto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Lewis Posted December 1, 2017 Author Share Posted December 1, 2017 2 hours ago, geogphotos said: You're my wife now Dave...... Local images for local people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.