Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cryptoprocta

  1. 14 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

    5 for 107.42 net. Two tiddlers that amounted to the 7.42. I put my share of those two under a magnifying glass.

    Well done, Betty!

    I got 7 sales for $31.89 net. Even my gross was considerably lower than the last few months.

    CTR was really good at the beginning of the month, but an almost total lack of interest in the past week brought my month's average to 'normal for me'.

    Still waiting for a notification of a sale from an unreported sale published in TLS in September, notified to CS on 11th June, reminded on 20th July.

    How hard can it be to chase this up? They're supposed to have an 'account handler'.

    What is PA doing for its 20% steal/clawback?

    • Like 1
  2. 5 hours ago, Pietrach said:

    Thank you all for responses. I got the trial subscription and you were right, only one link shown the image and the remaining 4 just contain a link to the other article.

    Makes me think what he other sale was. Considering the price of $$$ I think it may have been for print. I guess none of you have the print paper from 3-4 June? :)

    Did you get $$$ for a newspaper sale (as  you mentioned in the OP)? I doubt if that would be any well-known UK newspaper like the Times, which has the usual heavy discounts.

  3. I'm guessing you're not a native English speaker (however, your English is better than my Spanish, though I've been trying to learn for a few years now).

    I looked at your photo #RE0WYM.

    You have a typo (I'm the Typo Queen) which should read 'aquatic bird', also the species is currently known in English as Western Swamphen, though you could keep the older name Purple Gallinule (formerly regarded as wide-ranging, it has been split into six species, the Western keeping Porphyrio porphyrio. I only discovered that last week while watching a live video about southern Spanish birds). You could also put 'Purple Swamphen' or 'Western Purple Swamphen' which seem to be alternate English names.

    The bird seems to be ringed, so you could put 'ringed bird' (UK English) and 'banded bird' (US English). You could put 'reeds', 'walking' and 'profile'. I'm not sure I'd put bird-watching or ornithology as keywords, as there is no evidence of either activity in the photo. You should certainly keyword 'wild', 'wildlife', 'nature', 'wading' 'water' 'marsh',  the exact location if it was a named reserve, not so if it's just a local marsh. I'd also put 'bird' (singular) as there's only one bird. Also Pantano morado.

  4. 20 minutes ago, Cobaleitor said:

    Thank you very much, I understand that I should only use keywords that are not generic to change the category of the photo, right? How long does it take from making the changes until Alamy decides to turn it green?

    Thanks a lot


    It's automatic when you have fulfilled all the criteria, including all the optional information.

    But note the other thread where Alamy says discoverability doesn't affect ranking.

    The sooner they get rid of the orange/green bar, the better, after all if you typed the, quick, brown, fox, jumps, over, the, lazy, dog, and, Cwm, fjord, bank, glyphs, vext, quiz, hubble, bubble, toil, trouble you could turn most keywords sets to green, but it wouldn't help buyers (Unless it was an image created to illustrate all of that) and could affect your ranking by getting a lot of irrelevant images seen in search but not zoomed -the weighting of various factors seems to change from time to time and I've found it impossible to work out what the criteria are.

    After all, it's not as though someone is judging the relevance of the words to the image to turn the line green.

    If you have some spare time, rather than worry about turning green, why not look at Alamy measures to see what potential buyers are looking for. It can be quite sobering to see how few times in a year some of one's favourite subjects are searched, and surprising to see how seldom some keywords one thinks are important are searched by buyers.

    • Upvote 1
  5. On 23/07/2021 at 14:00, John Morrison said:

    Nilanjan... image R1XPB4 is captioned as 'Steppe Eagle', when it looks more like a hawfinch (?).

    It's correctly keyworded as Red-headed Bullfinch, but the mistake is in the caption.

  6. On 21/07/2021 at 15:39, Jill Morgan said:

    I checked out Alamy's new blog on discoverability, and it seems they are pushing really low low important keywords that will give people more false views than real views.


    This is there image of good discoverability for keywords on an image. They don't show the actual image, so not sure how many other's are relevant.




    Now maybe the people at Alamy don't know anything about dogs, but French Bulldogs and Bulldogs are two different breeds of dog.  So there should not be a Bulldog tag.  And using idiotic keywords like ears, muzzle, patches. snout, nose, eyes and even small and big at the same time. Yet they don't have "Purebred Dog"  or "pushed face dog" as one of the keywords. And they have outdoors and small as both supertags and a regular tags.  And really, 'fresh air" is really pushing it.  I could go on and on.  So Alamy is saying to put in useless words to get that magic green bar that in the long run is only going to drop a contributor's CTR because of all the false views.


    Shame Alamy.



    Maybe they just wanted the blog post to be "polpular".

    It seems particularly useless that they didn't post the photo the keywords refer to (I know it's been identified above, but really, a post which claims to demonstrate good keywording should at least show the image.


    (I thought dogs have 'hair' rather than 'fur'?)


    'Bulldog' is an interesting one. Usually for wildlife, I'd put e.g. "Common Greenshank" and Greenshank, etc etc, so no doubt I'd have keyworded Bulldog as well as French Bulldog. I'm not sure what you  meant by 'Bulldog' as a different breed: English/British Bulldog? (Clearly, I don't know much abut dog breeds)


    • Like 1
  7. Maybe they've discovered that Alamy customers love wading through irrelevant images in their searches.


    Sarcasm apart, I hope they never factor discoverability into ranking.


    It also makes ranking uber important. As a good proportion of buyers only look at the first page, and a good proportion of files in many searches are irrelevant, a lot of relevant files are not being seen by many buyers.


    Shame on you, Alamy. (Again)

    • Upvote 2
  8. 5 hours ago, zxzoomy said:

    For example, I'm thinking of those at the Marcus Rashford mural in Manchester. Are photos of many messages, without context - like a person - included, breaching the authors' copyright? I think the answer is 'yes', but the authors are unlikely to sue. I may take some later so curious what people here think.

    Yes, I'd put property: yes, releases: no and also tick editorial only, to be doubly sure under the new contract.

    • Upvote 1
  9. On 09/07/2021 at 23:59, Bob Graham said:

    I managed to mess up my first three image meta tag data. I had two images highlighted and hence, one of the two images is totally in error for key words and information.

    I have updated the issue in my Image Manager.

    My question is, will the website update this information so the bad stuff is overwritten, or do I need to delete and start over with the two images?



    Yes, it will be over-written, and yours should have changed by now.

  10. And already you're falling prey to trying to 'push' your keywords to reach 'discoverability*', for example D374YF, a lovely photo of a Song Thrush, you have tangential keywords like Bird-watching, ornithology and zoology. Again, we have to ask (and I don't know for sure) if someone searching Bird-watching, ornithology or zoology expects to see a photo of a bird (wouldn't they just search 'bird' or the species name?). I'm not sure that a Song Thrush is really a 'hunter' though I suppose that's debatable. (would someone searching 'hunter' expect to see a photo of a Song Thrush?)

    You could, howerver, add perching, passerine, branch and/or twig and lichen to that image.


    Your words are at least tangential, but some people, in a desperate attempt to turn 'green', use more and more irrelevant keywords. They're surely discoverable, but for totally irrelevant searches, which must annoy buyers and may push your Alamy Ranking down, depending on the algorithm at any particular time (views vs zooms can be a factor, and no-one will zoom on our photo of an apple when they were searching for a book (just a ridiculous example, hopefully no-one has done that, unless it was an apple on a book, or a book about apples!)


    Don't worry. Keyword as accurately as you can and relax. Hopefully Alamy will remove that orange/green bar soon, it just encourages keyword spamming.

    • Upvote 2
  11. On 10/07/2021 at 10:43, Cobaleitor said:

    How do you get the photo to go from poor discoverability to good optimized discoverability, that is, how do I get the photo from orange to green?




    Don't worry about it. It's a very ill-thought-out Alamy 'thing' which only encourages spam by people putting in irrelevant keywords which can only pollute searches with irrelevant photos, thus annoying potential buyers.

    Even in Alamy's own 'good practice' keywording video, they have only put 14 keywords, so 'orange', and IMO one of them, 'island' isn't great for that image. Yes, apparently the photo was taken on 'Fraser Island', which is a keyword, but how likely is it that anyone looking for a generic photo of an island would be hoping to see that image? FF to 1:54


  12. 8 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

    .I have a lot of experience with G, but I will tell you and everyone thatG understands the value of an image and they do not license a valuable image for pennies.  I did have a problem with occasional low fee licenses from G. but I was happy with numerous healthy licenses from them.

    You contradict yourself right there,

    1. "G. do not licence a valuable image for pennies."

    2. "I did have a problem with occasional low fee licences from G."

    It could well be that the sort of bulk buyers who have use for hundreds of images per month seldom have a need for very specific historical niche shots (but sometimes do), while niche publishers seldom need a large 'premium' deal.

    Both G. and Alamy will sell unique photos at the buyer's negotiated bulk discount rate.


    • Haha 1
    • Confused 1
    • Upvote 2
  13. 1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:



    this is a danger, should a buyer rely on your KW and caption and be mislead you could be held liable for any impact on them, you are in the end responsible for your own representation.

    I tend to agree. Though it must be very difficult to keyword in another language (I couldn't do it), it seems that most times someone's keywords are consistently wrong, it's because they're using some sort of auto keywording system. Too risky, IMO.

    • Upvote 1
  14. I just clicked in to #2G4WFW5. It looked to me like a juvenile Black-Crowned Night Heron, and your caption is Garza bruja, which I looked up and found is indeed Black-crowned Night Heron. But in your keywords, you have written 'Green Heron', 'cormorant' and 'phalacrocorax', all of which are wrong.

    In our contract there's a clause saying we are responsible for the accuracy of the information we append to our files, so we need to be careful. Anyway, there's no point in attracting a buyer who wants a photo of a Cormorant, or a Green Heron, to a photo of a Black-Crowned Night Heron.  En cambio, if you don't have 'Black-Crowned Night Heron' in your caption and keywords (preferably both), buyers looking for B-C NH and searching in English, won't see your photo. If I were you, I'd write the caption as 'Juvenile Black-crowned Night Heron, Nycticorax nycticora (Garza Bruja) and also the location and country of the photo in the caption. I'd also put each of these as keywords.

    In your keywords, as well as those I mentioned above, you shouldn't write 'black' (on its own, nothing is black in the photo). I personally wouldn't write feather, feathers or wing on that photo, as most people searching for e.g. 'feather' probably want to see just one actual feather. But that might just be my indocrination from the 'other place' where I sell - it isn't, as far as I know, a rule on Alamy.


    In image #2G5E8BD, you have just written 'woodpecker'. For sure, someone might search only on woodpecker, but it's at least as likely, maybe more, that they'll search on the species name, so it's worth doing a bit of research. I don't know anything about South American Woodpeckers, but on a quick check, your photo MIGHT show  a male Green-barred woodpecker, Colaptes melanochloros tal vez, no sé. You can check that for yourself. If it is that species, you could also keyword it in Spanish, and also Portuguese, as it occurs in Brazil. If it's a different species, use the correct English, Scientific Latin, Spanish (and Portuguese, if relevant) names in your caption and keywords.


    I understand how difficult it must be to have the extra step of keywording in a language which isn't your native language.

    • Like 2
  15. 17 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

    For me, the problem seems to be that Alamy doesn’t appear to appreciate its uniqueness, at least the great editorial content that has always been its strong point.  Instead, they are trying to compete with microstock, but with the wrong kind of library to compete. 
    Maybe we should start producing microstock-type imagery that fits with the prices we’re now getting.

    Start shooting more of those pieces of fruit, brick walls, isolated objects, folks!!

    That's old-school microstock, Betty.

    What's selling nowadays on micro is released images of multicultural groups of people doing 'real' things.

    (Note: I'm not saying it's easy [or even possible, for most people] to break even with these expensive shoots.)

  16. 5 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

    It seems a bit odd that a lot of people coming here from microstock agencies think that Alamy is one as well.

    They soon learn that there isn't the same volume of sales here, as evidenced by many posts on the forum.

    (OTOH, the glory days are well over on microstock for most people now.)

    • Like 1
  17. On 21/06/2021 at 16:57, Ian Cartwright said:

    Thanks for the advice, Steve. I have model releases. I could probably get a property release but I shall not seek one out, and take onboard the advice to make the images for editorial use only.

    You're fine for editorial if you mark them as advised above.

    It's seldom the owner* of the property who could give you a release, but the manufacturer.

    For example, even if I wholly-owned a Ferrari (for example), I couldn't give you permission to use it commercially, only Ferrari could do that. Ditto a Marks and Spencer sweater, or anything which could be recognised as being by a particular brand, manufacturer or designer - it's not just brand names or logos.

    *unless s/he made it themselves, to their own design.

    • Upvote 3
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.