Discoverability

[Cobaleitor]

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?

 

Thanks,

 

[Cryptoprocta]

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?

 

Thanks,

 

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

 

[Cryptoprocta]

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.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[Cobaleitor]

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

 

[meanderingemu]

27 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

 

green is quantitative based not quantitative.   don't pay attention to it.  

 

i had a look at my stuff, 7% of my images are green, and they represent 0% of my sales.  i have only sold "poor" discoverability images, because they were properly keyworded.  

[Cryptoprocta]

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.

[Cryptoprocta]

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.