There seems to be no penalty for using the same caption and tags on batches of pictures.

[Kent Johnson]

Not only does my research on captions and tagging seem to show no negative effects for uploading sets of similar images with the same caption and tags. What I am seeing seems to suggest this method of uploading to have a positive effect on the images position and page rank. I'm quite surprised to see this happening, I would have thought custom tagging to deliver a superior result but it looks like volume wins with regards to captions and tags. Does anyone else have any insight into this phenomenon? I've been doing a lot of work on tags and captions since Alamy gave us the tagging seminar a month or two ago.  And paying a lot of attention to what turns up in tag/keyword searches. 

Edited September 8 by Kent Johnson

[geogphotos]

If the images are similar why shouldn't they have the same caption and keywords?

[Nick Hatton]

I think nothing of tagging 20-30 images with the same caption and tags if the scene is similar, a narrowboat passing through the Cheshire countryside is just that, the only thing that would change is the location and perhaps background.

[Steve F]

Ditto to the above from Ian and Nick. Kent, are you proposing that you expected better CTR results for single images with a caption, than multiple similars? I tend to think that unless you've got a 'money' shot, a variety of views, angles, zooms etc of a scene make it more likely one will sell.

 

I'm also suspecting that because there are multiple similars of images generally, have more than one in your Portfolio can help you get seen!

[Kent Johnson]

5 hours ago, geogphotos said:

If the images are similar why shouldn't they have the same caption and keywords?

 

2 hours ago, Steve F said:

Ditto to the above from Ian and Nick. Kent, are you proposing that you expected better CTR results for single images with a caption, than multiple similars? I tend to think that unless you've got a 'money' shot, a variety of views, angles, zooms etc of a scene make it more likely one will sell.

 

I'm also suspecting that because there are multiple similars of images generally, have more than one in your Portfolio can help you get seen!

Yes, I was very surprised. My background of keywording for blogs and website SEO tells me that repeated information is the death knell for any additional pictures - so yes, really surprised, but this is apparently not the case for Stock here at Alamy; though I do note that very large collections, say 50 to 100 similar images don't all remain at the top of 'All'  images.

 

Thanks for the feedback - I will keep your positive experiences in mind.

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, Kent Johnson said:

 

Yes, I was very surprised. My background of keywording for blogs and website SEO tells me that repeated information is the death knell for any additional pictures - so yes, really surprised, but this is apparently not the case for Stock here at Alamy; though I do note that very large collections, say 50 to 100 similar images don't all remain at the top of 'All'  images.

 

Thanks for the feedback - I will keep your positive experiences in mind.

Are you sorting the search results by "Relevant" or "Newest"?

 

Mark

[NYCat]

One problem with uploading many images of one subject is that your best one might not be the first one the client sees. If they are all more or less the same quality I guess it wouldn't matter but I almost always have a favorite and want it to be on the first page.

 

Paulette

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

IMO, similars exposes a weakness,
(yes, I have spells)
inability to commit to one or two best;
drains time away from adding more
variety to one’s collection…?  Even if
tagging is same, each similar must be
processed = less time shooting new images…

[geogphotos]

2 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

IMO, similars exposes a weakness,
(yes, I have spells)
inability to commit to one or two best;
drains time away from adding more
variety to one’s collection…?  Even if
tagging is same, each similar must be
processed = less time shooting new images…

 

 

I drove 20 miles x 2 today to take pictures of a ship. I haven't started processing them yet or even looked at them. I will be unlikely to commit to only one or two, more likely to end up with at least 4 or 5 of the ship plus more general views of the port from different vantage points and angles. For me it wouldn't make sense to attempt to whittle this down to only 1 or 2 images.

 

The time taken in processing is only a matter of a minute or two for each image. So I don't feel the same as you that tighter editing would be beneficial - the time 'saved' in processing would not have led to more new images being created. 

 

I add captions and keywords as a batch so the number of similar images is immaterial in that process. 

Edited September 8 by geogphotos

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

Whoa Nellie !!

Similar images of same subject
≠
different images of same subject

I was on same ship 21 days,
took ~1000 images on/of that ship,
am editing/submitting ~500 different images
of which a teeny tiny small percentage
will be similars…
also, zoomed shots showing detail

≠
wide angle shots showing overall

[Kent Johnson]

9 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Are you sorting the search results by "Relevant" or "Newest"?

 

Mark

Relevant.

[geogphotos]

Reading Jeff's response I think we have to distinguish between sisters and similars.

[M.Chapman]

On 08/09/2024 at 03:27, Kent Johnson said:

What I am seeing seems to suggest this method of uploading to have a positive effect on the images position and page rank.

I haven't noticed this, but haven't explicitly tested for it. What I do see is the "dispersal algorithm" in action. If I have multiple images that meet the search criteria, they are spaced out in the results with a separation of 19.

 

Mark

[Harry Harrison]

26 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

If I have multiple images that meet the search criteria, they are spaced out in the results with a separation of 19.

Just done a quick test and I see that this is still happening with 'Relevant' even though I still have no idea how that 'Relevant' search works. A search for 'Henley-on-Thames water' (a daft search in reality) brings up some I took of a Post Box topper a few months ago on pages 1 & 2, separated by 19 as you say but it shares the page with images of all ages.

[geogphotos]

46 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

I haven't noticed this, but haven't explicitly tested for it. What I do see is the "dispersal algorithm" in action. If I have multiple images that meet the search criteria, they are spaced out in the results with a separation of 19.

 

Mark

 

 

At the risk of being a pedant it's the 'diversity algorithm'?

 

“We first order images by the highest combined score for relevancy and rank. The diversity algorithm ensures that the images in the results are mixed up rather than dominated by the contributor with the highest combined score.”

Edited September 9 by geogphotos

[Kent Johnson]

4 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

At the risk of being a pedant it's the 'diversity algorithm'?

 

“We first order images by the highest combined score for relevancy and rank. The diversity algorithm ensures that the images in the results are mixed up rather than dominated by the contributor with the highest combined score.”

Where have you guys found this important secret information? I'm trying to work this stuff out and it is driving me a little crazy - though, to be fair I was a bit crazy to start with!

[M.Chapman]

8 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

At the risk of being a pedant it's the 'diversity algorithm'?

 

“We first order images by the highest combined score for relevancy and rank. The diversity algorithm ensures that the images in the results are mixed up rather than dominated by the contributor with the highest combined score.”

Mmm, ISTR Alamy's patent called it a "dispersal" algorithm, but I could be wrong. In order to ensure customers see a more diverse range of results, images from each contributor are dispersed.

 

Mark

Edited September 9 by M.Chapman

[M.Chapman]

3 hours ago, Kent Johnson said:

Where have you guys found this important secret information? I'm trying to work this stuff out and it is driving me a little crazy - though, to be fair I was a bit crazy to start with!

Search for Alamy's (James West's?) patents. Here are some of them;

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=alamy james west

This one seems quite relevant;

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/038823131/publication/US2007288462A1?q=pn%3DUS2007288462A1

 

NB. Just because it's in a patent doesn't mean that's the algorithm they actually use...

 

Mark

Edited September 9 by M.Chapman

[Harry Harrison]

Hmm, my 3 pictures of the Post Box Topper had no water in of course, but the Topper was protesting about 'Thames Water' so my random search for *Henley-on-Thames Water* was presumably deemed to be near the top of the charts for relevancy out of 4,239 others because it contained the two words 'Thames Water' in the caption as well as a separate keyword string. 'Water' wasn't a keyword and neither was 'Thames'. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

 

 ...though they're still there if I change the search to "water Henley-on-Thames" so that theory falls apart. Maybe there's a deliberate effort to choose some recent ones along with some that appear to be quite ancient.

Edited September 9 by Harry Harrison

[Kent Johnson]

9 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Search for Alamy's (James West's?) patents. Here are some of them;

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=alamy james west

This one seems quite relevant;

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/038823131/publication/US2007288462A1?q=pn%3DUS2007288462A1

 

NB. Just because it's in a patent doesn't mean that's the algorithm they actually use...

 

Mark

"assigning an initial handicap value" this is very important. I think my pictures are ranking quite well but getting to the first page for a 2 word general search is my goal. Regardless of popularity of the subject matter. Most searches are for one page (100)  and only occasionally 200 or more. If you are not on page one, game over. I don't see much evidence of revised searching in Measures either . Moving up and not down in the rankings is obviously essential.  As the shampoo advert in the 1980s claimed "it won't happen overnight but it will happen"  - got to hope so, and work towards that goal. I go though my measure every day at the moment, removing wrong keywording, adding fresh ones to no-show images that should have appeared.

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

1 hour ago, Kent Johnson said:

Most searches are for one page (100)  and only occasionally 200 or more. If you are not on page one, game over.

Most, as in, 50.1%?

Without evidence, I question "game over" if often on pg2...

 

Don’t forget single word searches vs. multi-word searches;
one may be rarely seen pg1 in former but often seen pg1 in latter;
in multi-word searches, total # pages returned may only be 1 or 2…

 

Aside: some of your p1 images are, IMO, way dark, lightening them
will make them more salable…?
A sunlit strip of ivy surmounted by untrimmed box hedge backe with blue sky and wispy white cloud at Redleaf on Sydney Harbour Stock Photo - Alamy

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

18 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

Don’t forget single word searches vs. multi-word searches;
one may be rarely seen pg1 in former but often seen pg1 in latter;
in multi-word searches, total # pages returned may only be 1 or 2…

Supporting evidence:
"Barcelona" & "Barcelona Spain" nothing pg1 or 2 is mine, hundreds of pages returned;

"Barcelona Spain couple shopping"** mine pg 1 position 1 & 4 & many others***
amongst (336) total images returned;

** don't know if any such searches this specific city, but for some worldwide cities every year...?
*** none have supertags IIRC

Edited September 10 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg

[Kent Johnson]

On 10/09/2024 at 11:36, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

Most, as in, 50.1%?

Without evidence, I question "game over" if often on pg2...

 

Don’t forget single word searches vs. multi-word searches;
one may be rarely seen pg1 in former but often seen pg1 in latter;
in multi-word searches, total # pages returned may only be 1 or 2…

 

Aside: some of your p1 images are, IMO, way dark, lightening them
will make them more salable…?
A sunlit strip of ivy surmounted by untrimmed box hedge backe with blue sky and wispy white cloud at Redleaf on Sydney Harbour Stock Photo - Alamy

 

If you look at your Alamy 'Measures' page, well, when I look at mine, I would say 90+ % of searches were for 100 views (everyones) only- That is One Page (maybe not page 1 maybe they jumped in at page #? somehow - also All or Editorial etc). I've been looking at these numbers for some years now - So for any search, single word, two words or a search string of many words, 100 is the most common number - that is one page of pictures. If there is say, 1200 it will usually be simple search like Rome, Italy where there are multiple people searching, this is also detailed in the numbers and probably returns a viewing number close to 100 pictures, or one page per search!

[Kent Johnson]

9 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

Supporting evidence:
"Barcelona" & "Barcelona Spain" nothing pg1 or 2 is mine, hundreds of pages returned;

"Barcelona Spain couple shopping"** mine pg 1 position 1 & 4 & many others***
amongst (336) total images returned;

** don't know if any such searches this specific city, but for some worldwide cities every year...?
*** none have supertags IIRC

If you go to Measures, All of Alamy you can do a 12 month search. I checked for Barcelona Spain couple shopping and there were no searches for that 'string' in the past 12 months.  And yes, I tend toward dark over light when editing. I'm calibrated by the way so I am seeing my pictures correctly but I too, when seeing them in a grouping with other shots wonder if I should lighten them up. Thanks for the feedback. PS I like that one dark... but what about buyers?