Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
willn

'Good discoverablilty' down graded to 'poor' - cause for concern?

Recommended Posts

Hi all, I joined Alamy in 2008 and uploaded a couple of hundred images over the course of the first few years.

 

Photography has taken a backseat since then and I've just let my account tick along with, on average, 2 or 3 sales a year. The problem recently though is that when I open my account all the images, that I keyworded meticulously, are now marked in orange as having 'poor discoverability' when they initially had a 'good discoverability' rating.

 

I'm not sure how I can keyword them any better (without being superflous) so am at a bit of a loss why they have been marked down this way. Is it something I should worry about or shall I just trust that people will find them?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say... "don't worry". Alamy's discoverability idea looks irrelevant to me (and many others). Adding superfluous tags seems kinda pointless...

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, John Morrison said:

I'd say... "don't worry". Alamy's discoverability idea looks irrelevant to me (and many others). Adding superfluous tags seems kinda pointless...

+1

 

Kumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, willn said:

Hi all, I joined Alamy in 2008 and uploaded a couple of hundred images over the course of the first few years.

 

Photography has taken a backseat since then and I've just let my account tick along with, on average, 2 or 3 sales a year. The problem recently though is that when I open my account all the images, that I keyworded meticulously, are now marked in orange as having 'poor discoverability' when they initially had a 'good discoverability' rating.

 

I'm not sure how I can keyword them any better (without being superflous) so am at a bit of a loss why they have been marked down this way. Is it something I should worry about or shall I just trust that people will find them?

 

 

 

Might be worth having a look into the subject a bit more in certain cases and thinking of keywords. The two quirky pictures of the white swan against a blue sky only have three keywords! To help you, you could at least add the following:

 

white swan

mute swan

Cygnus olor

anatidae

waterfowl

 

and perhaps the location, although I don't necessarily think location is vital for pictures where they could be anywhere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks for your swift replies folks, Cal thanks for the suggestions, I'll take them onboard , those photos are probably a bit misrepresentative though as most of my other photos have pretty comprehensive wording (I think?). What puzzles me is how the images were deemed well worded some years ago but not anymore 😕

Edited by willn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure the colour has changed? It's just based on the number of tags, it's not moderated in any way. Could you have deleted some tags?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, willn said:

Thanks for your swift replies folks, Cal thanks for the suggestions, I'll take them onboard , those photos are probably a bit misrepresentative though as most of my other photos have pretty comprehensive wording (I think?). What puzzles me is how the images were deemed well worded some years ago but not anymore 😕

 

 

you still seem to be a bit minimalist.  For example

Image ID: BE7E8RImage ID: BE7E8R Marae, New Zealand 

 

 

the image is actually only a "close-up" of "wooden" "sculpture" representing "insert what this face is" which is "architectural detail" of a building in "East Cape" 

 

none of these words are there, so people looking for this will likely not find it. And i assume someone looking for Marae are probably looking for the full building. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what Alamy looked like back in 2008, I've only been a member since last year. So a lot could've changed for their discoverability criteria.

What I see is that the Optional tab of information also affects that rating. Make sure to go into it and add/update as necessary for the older images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, willn said:

What puzzles me is how the images were deemed well worded some years ago but not anymore 😕

Eh? Discoverability was  only introduced with the new image manager a couple of years ago.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doc said:

+1

 

Kumar

 

And although I agree with what both these high-end shooters say, your caps and your tagging are not good. Take a look at what Doc and some others do. 

 

Edo

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right thanks guys, it looks like there's a few things for me to look into. Space cadet, I didn't realise it was a newish thing, thanks for the correction, perhaps they were never ranked 'good!' I always thought I'd captioned them in a way that struck a good balance but perhaps not. I shall look into this more. Much appreciated all :)

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy brought in this 'discoverability' idea and then (unless I missed a memo) neglected to explain why!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Steve F said:

Hi Will, don't sorry about getting your images to green 'optimum'. There's loads of threads about it on the forum:

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/9625-poor-discoverability-photos/

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/11478-discoverable/

Steve

 

Thanks Steve, those were really interesting links, I'm going to go through my images just making sure there is nothing obvious that I can add and perhaps completing the optional box otherwise I'll make peace with the orange highlight!!

15 hours ago, John Morrison said:

Alamy brought in this 'discoverability' idea and then (unless I missed a memo) neglected to explain why!

John, I know, there probably was a memo but I also missed it. Seems it's caused quite a lot of confusion going by the 2 links above!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.