MDM Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I've noticed recently I've had large numbers of views on search terms such as [MR] Dublin or [MR] Cork Ireland. Now most of my images are without people so they usually get marked as 0 people. The few that do contain people are marked as no model release with the number of people ticked. But Alamy search is bringing up all images which are keyworded Dublin, say, and do not have any people - in other words what one would expect with a search such as [WOP] Dublin, not [MR] Dublin. Obviously this is having a negative effect on my zooms/views ratio as it has spuriously increased my current month views by about 50%. Aside from the negative effect on contributor zoom/view ratio and ultimately Alamy rank, it must be very annoying for buyers to get huge numbers of spurious results containing no people, when they are really searching for model released images containing people. OK perhaps they should have searched [WP][MR] Dublin but surely the search engine is not meant to work like this. [MR] should automatically include [WP] as an intrinsic search term Looking back over the past year in my Alamy Measures, this does appear to be a recent phenomenon or is it? I vaguely recall this being discussed in the old forum. Surely it is not meant to work like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 [MR] also returns images which don't need one because they have no people. One has the option of searching for a specific number of people if they are required. So I'd say that was working properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I think it makes a lot of sense the way it is otherwise loads of images would not be seen at all. Read this from the Alamy blog http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2011/04/18/4867.aspx Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 I think it makes a lot of sense the way it is otherwise loads of images would not be seen at all. Read this from the Alamy blog http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2011/04/18/4867.aspx Pearl Thanks for that. I think I did see it before and take Alamy's point. However, I still think it does not make logical sense in terms of database design - if I do a search for [MR], then I would expect to only find images that have actually got people with model releases. I've had a huge number of irrelevant views in the last few days because of this. Oh well time to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I think it makes a lot of sense the way it is otherwise loads of images would not be seen at all. Read this from the Alamy blog http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2011/04/18/4867.aspx Pearl Thanks for that. I think I did see it before and take Alamy's point. However, I still think it does not make logical sense in terms of database design - if I do a search for [MR], then I would expect to only find images that have actually got people with model releases. I've had a huge number of irrelevant views in the last few days because of this. Oh well time to move on. That is because the category no MR required is missing. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dov makabaw Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 That is the way it works. Small consolation but it used to be worse when the keyword seach included the location field. dov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.