Ludicrous keywords

[Thyrsis]

4 hours ago, vpics said:

I do wonder how most of the images even passed QC. Some aren't even the right way up. 

Agencies bypass QC.. Perhaps they shouldn’t!

[Cryptoprocta]

4 hours ago, sb photos said:

They are likely from another agency, as if a contributor QC would have seen the issue.

Is there any evidence, or even hint, that QC looks at keywords etc?

I understood that they do not, but ICBW.

[Joseph Clemson]

11 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Is there any evidence, or even hint, that QC looks at keywords etc?

I understood that they do not, but ICBW.

 

I'm pretty sure you are  not wrong. Not all contributors embed keywords in their images on upload, so there could be no consistent inspection of keywords at that stage. In any case, as we all know, Alamy QC only inspects a small sample of each upload, so a checking of all keywords is out of the question.

 

The nearest thing we experience to keyword inspection is when Alamy occasionally  trawls the library for images it feels the need to remove from the collection, or to impose editorial restrictions, usually at the request of intellectual property holders, etc.

 

It has been suggested in the past that a facility should be made available for contributors to flag images in the collection which are in some way inadequate, or contravene Alamy guidelines. This is a beguiling idea, not least because contributors who want the Alamy collection to be the best it can be, for the ultimate benefit of all contributors, see it as a way of tidying up the collection. However, the person hours required to undertake such a task, even if the initial donkey work was done by ordinary contributors, would be prohibitive - and that leaves aside the posibility of vindicitive flagging of images by jealous competitor contributors.

 

It looks like we are probably stuck with the problem of some contributors making a right pig's ear of captioning and keywording. The only usable weapons in our armoury are to educate those who will listen, and to allow the Alamy search algorithms to bury poorly keyworded images deep in the wastelands of the dog end of search results.

[Cryptoprocta]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 However, the person hours required to undertake such a task, even if the initial donkey work was done by ordinary contributors, would be prohibitive - and that leaves aside the posibility of vindicitive flagging of images by jealous competitor contributors.

Thney could make it that a correct flagging would receive e.g. 10c if only a flagging was needed, or 25c if it was flagging plus the most egrecious mis-keyword, but an incorrect/malicious flagging would be fined $10.

That would mean that only the worst keyworded files would be flagged, where there was absolutely no doubt, but that would at least be something.

 

However, I doubt if Alamy really cares, sadly.

[John Morrison]

2 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

a correct flagging would receive e.g. 10c if only a flagging was needed, or 25c if it was flagging plus the most egrecious mis-keyword, but an incorrect/malicious flagging would be fined $10

 

Possibly the worst idea ever to be aired during the long history of stock photography!

[Phil]

It will probably cost Alamy more to try and straighten out that hot mess than leaving them on their servers as is.

 

With the captions and keywords so messed up the images will sink to the lower reaches of search results.

[spacecadet]

16 hours ago, John Morrison said:

 (including a few of mine, no doubt)

 Occasionally I come across one of mine with a shortcoming in the caption (usually an unintended duplication) but the tags would usually be OK. Happened the other day.

Surely we're all very careful here, but admittedly once a batch is signed off, one is unlikely to revisit them systematically just to check for errors, especially in a collection of some thousands.

[Cryptoprocta]

6 hours ago, Phil said:

With the captions and keywords so messed up the images will sink to the lower reaches of search results.

That's theory. It doesn't always work that way in practice.

[MizBrown]

On 26/10/2019 at 04:01, Cryptoprocta said:

Property: No means that they don't have a property release.

Unless you can see, which I can't, that they've indicated that the image doesn't need a release?

 

It's very unfortunate for the collection as a whole when Alamy ingests images wholesale like this with no checking for even orientation far less keywording. It's like it's only to boost numbers they can boast about. They'll never be found for what they really are, and will pollute searches for what they aren't.

 

Okay, I misread that as the "optional" question is "Is there property?"   Property release: no.

[Richard Baker]

Assuming that the CTR on these collections is low, I wonder if buyers actually see this poor material?

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Richard Baker said:

Assuming that the CTR on these collections is low, I wonder if buyers actually see this poor material?

 

they will if looking for a photobooth in Helsinki, or an Aldi at Canary wharf..

 

for someone like me where all my sales to date have relied on obscure subjects, i worry that a buyer would just give up when confronted with 90% irrelevant results.  (thankfully non of the KW have hit my subjects.) 

[Russell]

On 27/10/2019 at 15:34, meanderingemu said:

 

 

but the issue is if it affects clients who now come for a search for "Photobooth Helsinki"  end up with this

 

https://www.alamy.com/search.html?qt=photobooth helsinki&imgt=0

 

and decides that Alamy is useless...  

Sorry if I'm being thick, but I don't see "photobooth" anywhere in the caption or tags for these images - why does the search find them?

 

There are 59K Helsinki images, 2k Photobooth, but the combined search gives these 245 images none of which have a photobooth tag.

[meanderingemu]

20 minutes ago, Russell said:

Sorry if I'm being thick, but I don't see "photobooth" anywhere in the caption or tags for these images - why does the search find them?

 

There are 59K Helsinki images, 2k Photobooth, but the combined search gives these 245 images none of which have a photobooth tag.

 

 

it's in there after "Parent and toddler parking"  sigh!

[Russell]

This is bizarre. When I click on the first of the images presented I see only:

 

"acton town aldi local asda autumn leaves becontree heath leisure centre british airways bus stop london"

 

As tags, with no "show all" option.

 

This occurs on both a Windows PC, and an Android Tablet both using Firefox.

 

However on attempting to copy and paste the seven tags that I see on screen into this message I find I get:

 

acton town aldi local asda autumn leaves becontree heath leisure centre british airways bus stop london cable car emirates calm lane church cu london dagenham dhl

show all

emirates greenwich peninsula finavia finnair give way sign greenwich halifax havana close helsinki helsinki lentoasema icon outlet jubliee place canary wharf lady gaga liberty shopping mall london metro helsinki morrisons mulberry north greenwich northfields o2 areena parent and toddler parking photobooth pound land pride zebra crossing romford rowland golf centre s market santander street sign london traffic jam london underground vuosaari metro station west ham united wheel chair wilko

 

It seems to me that as well as sorting out this contributor, Alamy have some work to do correcting their search webpages.

 

Russell

[Vincent Lowe]

Click on the 'Restore down' button at top right of the browser window to reduce the size.  Does the 'Show All' appear? 

 

If it's the same as on my PC then it will - and it stays there if I then re-maximise the window.

 

If I move the window to a second monitor the 'show all' link appears as soon as the window starts to move.

 

Edit;  I think I've figured it out - i think it's because there are more than 50 keywords.  I've still got a few old film scans on Alamy which have more than 50 keywords (a lot of them duplicates from the old ess/main/comp days).  I've just tried it with one of these and it's the same.  Maybe it's a feature that Alamy have purposely added to discourage using more than 50 - i.e. they normally won't be seen. 

 

Edit 2;  I've reduced the keywords on one image to 49 - I'll see what happens after the update.

 

Incidentally, I hadn't realised this before but if you click on the the 'show all' link the duplicates are ignored.  I had 62 keywords on this image but only 38 were shown when I clicked on 'show all'.

[Russell]

Thanks for your feedback on this Vincent. In my case (I'm not using firefox full screen) I have to make it fullscreen, then reduce it and yes the "Show All" appears. Obviously a quirk in the way the pages are rendered.

[Ognyan Yosifov]

Same here in the yesterday's #ContributorSpotlight on the Facebook page....

Captions and keywords way off....

[Allan Bell]

It is also costing Alamy money to host these images on their servers.

 

Allan