.

[Guest]

.

[Mr Standfast]

It happens, with 170 million pictures, heaven knows what's in the dark corners of Alamy. I look through my old keywords and captions on rainy days, always finding school boy errors. Silly typo's are inevitable but a review sometimes finds things which changed over time. New relevances become apparent.

[Guest]

.

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, Jan Brown said:

I was recently testing search results for my photos (as one does when new, I guess) by using the search term 'Flog It' and was dismayed to find a lot of photos of frogs being returned. Also the odd flog of sheep or seagulls, and one flog of cormorans [sic]. Is it that English is not the photographer's first language (although the rest of the caption is often perfect), laziness, predictive text or something else I haven't thought of?

Whatever's happening, it must make finding what you want that much more difficult for any potential buyer. Especially in combination with the sheer volume of irrelevant words and tags that some contributors use.

Have a feeling this may be a perennial bugbear here so if I'm picking at old scabs, my apologies.

PS have just found a blanket of flog and the Thai flog flying. At half mist, perhaps.

 

It teaches us to be careful- I occasionally find a typo in captions years later.

Also, all the more for us- images that will never be found are no competition.

BTW I had a decent licence of a pregnant female rana temporaria the other week. We came across her on a riverside walk a few springs ago . Immaculately annotated, naturally.😉 No flogs.

[Guest]

.

[Inchiquin]

5 hours ago, Jan Brown said:

 

 

Have a feeling this may be a perennial bugbear here

 

 

It's certainly spawned a lot of comment in the past.

 

Alan

[Alex Ramsay]

12 hours ago, Inchiquin said:

 

It's certainly spawned a lot of comment in the past.

 

Alan

 

When it comes to accurate captions, I've always toad the line

 

Alex

[spacecadet]

Whatever you do, just don't google "flog frog".