Why do people use incorrect and/or non-realted keywords?

[Jill Morgan]

I put up some images this week from a winter festival and thought I would see how  many other "wigwam" images there were.

 

In doing my search, almost all the images are of teepees, (tipis, tepees), not of wigwams. I know some people actually thing they are the same, but I know many others include this as a "related keyword". This type of incorrect keywording must frustrate a lot of buyers when they are bombarded with a lot of unnecessary images not to mention misleading buyers who may not know exactly what a wigwam is. And many of the images of wigwams also include the keyword "teepee".

 

Do people not realize this will only hurt their CTR? If someone wants a pic of a wigwam, he isn't going to select the photo of a teepee.

 

This is my main pet peeve of the images on Alamy.

 

Jill

 

Okay, how do I edit the title?

[Inchiquin]

Because lots of customers don't know the difference either, and they're likely to use the two words interchangeably?

 

Alan

[losdemas]

Because lots of customers don't know the difference either, and they're likely to use the two words interchangeably?

 

Alan

 

+1

[Jill Morgan]

Because lots of customers don't know the difference either, and they're likely to use the two words interchangeably?

 

Alan

 

But is that not the problem? One is not the same as the other. So a customer seeking wigwam would look foolish if he printed a picture of a teepee. Didn't Tesco's have a whole kafuffle because they had the wrong cattle on a poster? Wasn't it a picture of beef cattle when they were selling milk? Could that be from some photographer using both keywords in an image?

 

And if the customers don't know the difference, isn't our job to be sure it isn't our error that they have published an incorrect image?

 

Jill

[TokyoM1ke]

But, until I read your post I had no idea that they were different... The problem with learning American history from early cowboy films!  

 

I won't even begin referring to the human beings in these films for fear of saying something politically incorrect - "acceptable terminology" changes more quickly than I can keep up with.

[losdemas]

 

Jill

 

Okay, how do I edit the title?

 

I don't believe you can!

 

 

Because lots of customers don't know the difference either, and they're likely to use the two words interchangeably?

 

Alan

 

But is that not the problem? One is not the same as the other. So a customer seeking wigwam would look foolish if he printed a picture of a teepee. Didn't Tesco's have a whole kafuffle because they had the wrong cattle on a poster? Wasn't it a picture of beef cattle when they were selling milk? Could that be from some photographer using both keywords in an image?

 

And if the customers don't know the difference, isn't our job to be sure it isn't our error that they have published an incorrect image?

 

Jill

 

 

Personally, I try to carefully research (or already know) the details of the image subject.  I make sure that those details are clearly noted in (either/and/or) the EssKeys/Caption/Description.  I will then add 'incorrect' keywords (and misspellings) in CompKeys and occasionally MainKeys, and at times note, for example, something like "...image of a wigwam, sometimes mistakenly called a teepee..." in the Description.

 

My personal experience has been that:

1. I have definitely licensed one image owing at least in part to a deliberately misspelt word on my part.
2. I have licensed another image - very clearly labelled with no misspellings or ambiguous keywords at all - which was deliberately used with false information by an Eastern European magazine with a large circulation to describe something which it very clearly was not!
3. The customer is always right - even when they are obviously wrong!

[Jill Morgan]

As you can see, they are nothing alike:

 

Wigwam

 

Teepee

 

 

Jill

[Inchiquin]

 

isn't our job to be sure it isn't our error that they have published an incorrect image?

 

 

Well... some would say it's our job to sell our photos.

 

This is what I do in such situations:

 

1. I make sure the caption gives the correct name and does not mention the incorrect name.

 

2. I include the correct name in Essential keywords.

 

3. I include the incorrect name elsewhere in the keywords.

 

This ensures that any customers who don't know their tepee from their wigwam can find it by searching for either word; the wrong one will always appear lower down the search; and the caption makes it crystal clear what they're looking at. As far as I'm concerned, this maximises my potential for a sale while at the same time putting the responsibility for accuracy firmly on the customer.

 

Alan

[Niels Quist]

 

Wigwam

 

 

 

Shouldn't you include the keywords iglu, igloo for this one? 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/igloo

 

http://qi.com/infocloud/ice

[Jill Morgan]

 

 

Wigwam

 

 

 

Shouldn't you include the keywords iglu, igloo for this one? 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/igloo

 

http://qi.com/infocloud/ice

 

 

 

This is not an igloo. Igloos are made of blocks of ice. Wigwams have a structure of branches and wood poles and are usually covered in animal hide or cloth, but also grass, etc.

 

Does the pic look like its covered in ice? I know it has snow on it, but it is made of cloth. And igloos are used by the Inuit (Eskimos) not First Nations or Metis.

 

Jill

[Niels Quist]

 

 

 

Shouldn't you include the keywords iglu, igloo for this one? 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/igloo

 

http://qi.com/infocloud/ice

 

 

 

This is not an igloo. Igloos are made of blocks of ice. Wigwams have a structure of branches and wood poles and are usually covered in animal hide or cloth, but also grass, etc.

 

Does the pic look like its covered in ice? I know it has snow on it, but it is made of cloth. And igloos are used by the Inuit (Eskimos) not First Nations or Metis.

 

Jill

 

 

No, the material doesn't look like ice. But the material doesn't necessarily have to be ice. 

 

From the latter link:

"The word igloo (or iglu) just means ‘house’ in Inuit. While it's not technically incorrect to describe a normal house as such, the Inuit wouldn't generally use it to mean a western home (in which they practically all live today). They tend to save the word for their temporary dwellings that are built when hunting; these shelters are usually made with caribou hide or stone, and ice would be a last resort. The word for what we would recognise as an igloo is igluvijaq, which means something like 'cold house out on its own'."

 

But you are right. Most people would say that an igloo, iglu should be made of ice.... And it would vary from one area to another probably.

 

Niels

[vpics]

Cringe alert from Germany: 

 

Anyway, I think in many countries wigwam will be a description for a tent use by native indians rather than teepee.

[Jill Morgan]

 

 

 

 

Shouldn't you include the keywords iglu, igloo for this one? 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/igloo

 

http://qi.com/infocloud/ice

 

 

 

This is not an igloo. Igloos are made of blocks of ice. Wigwams have a structure of branches and wood poles and are usually covered in animal hide or cloth, but also grass, etc.

 

Does the pic look like its covered in ice? I know it has snow on it, but it is made of cloth. And igloos are used by the Inuit (Eskimos) not First Nations or Metis.

 

Jill

 

 

No, the material doesn't look like ice. But the material doesn't necessarily have to be ice. 

 

From the latter link:

"The word igloo (or iglu) just means ‘house’ in Inuit. While it's not technically incorrect to describe a normal house as such, the Inuit wouldn't generally use it to mean a western home (in which they practically all live today). They tend to save the word for their temporary dwellings that are built when hunting; these shelters are usually made with caribou hide or stone, and ice would be a last resort. The word for what we would recognise as an igloo is igluvijaq, which means something like 'cold house out on its own'."

 

But you are right. Most people would say that an igloo, iglu should be made of ice.... And it would vary from one area to another probably.

 

Niels

 

 

I see your point.  But the Inuit are not the First Nations or Metis, who use the wigwams, as to Native Americans is the US.   I do try to keep my keywords relating to the subject as best as possible.

 

Jill

[Kathy deWitt]

Thanks Jill.

 

I love this discussion.  Even though I lived in and went to school in Canada and watched an awful lot of

cowgirl movies I didn't know there was a difference "teepee" and "wigwam".

 

I agree with both you and Alan! Keywords: frustrating so cover yourself.

 

Kathy

[spacecadet]

 

 

 

 First Nations or Metis.

 

Jill

 

Do bear in mind that we Europeans don't know what these words mean. In those circumstances it's not offensive to refer to Canadian Indians. I would use the term indians in the cowboy context, although I'd probably use 'native American' as well if I didn't know the tribe.

That's for day-to-day speech of course. Alamy keywording is different. Having been to a certain place you'd be on notice to look things up.

Incidentally the Google picture search for 'wigwam' does return a clear majority of wigwams on the first page. although the first 20 are 50:50.

[mickfly]

Which of these would be correct usage for an image taken in London, Great Britain, Britain, GB, UK, United Kingdom, England or all of the above?

When I was younger, Indians were from India, Red Indians were the bad guys in cowboy films, now we have so many different options and so many people wanting to be offended on behalf of others that it makes it harder work!

The 'N' word would never be considered as a keyword, but I hear it being used constantly by black, coloured, African American, Afro Caribbeans, people of colour etc (not sure which term is in vogue at the moment) and apparently it empowers them, so should I put it in (just joking, I see the offence it can cause, and have never used , nor wanted to use such a term).

Words are very powerful, and dangerous.

I am guilty of being sloppy with keywording, but I now add one keyword to get the picture on sale, then return to pad out with more words. I have realised that many of my pictures have to many irellevant keywords and I'm in the process of reducing the mistakes.

[Jill Morgan]

I look through my views every day and will look at images that have come up that don't seem to relate at all to the search term that was used. Sometimes its just that that search term might be in the image relating to a larger or different thing if included with other keywords. Eg: someone searches for "white pine". I have pictures of the "White Pine Dancers". Now I know they aren't looking for my image, but my keywording is still relevant. This is where we get back to the brackets argument.

 

But if I see that an image has come up in my views that really has no place in that search terms wording, I will go in and remove the keyword. 

 

I want to keep my CTR as high as possible. It always runs in the high eighties to low nineties and I want to keep it there.

 

I just don't see the point in including keywords that really don't have anything to do with the subject of the image. All it can do is hurt your rating.

 

Jill

[spacecadet]

Which of these would be correct usage for an image taken in London, Great Britain, Britain, GB, UK, United Kingdom, England or all of the above?

 

 

Usually just England and UK for me. If the location isn't relevant, not even London.

Maybe Britain,  and GB in the mains if there's room.

The adjectives if they're relevant (english pub).

[Phil Robinson]

In general I agree. There is too much bad captioning / keywording here, and that is why Alamyrank is such a good thing. In this example, however, SO MANY people say wigwam when they are thinking of a teepee that I would also add it to the keywords. I would NOT add igloo. It simply isn't.

 

I am often amazed by what I find in the keywords of some people. I suspect they also submit to other agencies where keyword spamming is not penalized and just the images to Alamy without further editing. Some agencies distributed by Alamy are the worst culprits. 

 

(And Alamy, can you PLEASE add 'Alamy' to the spellcheck dictionary so Alamy doesn't get redsquiggled every time we type Alamy?)

[Ed Rooney]

I would totally agree with Alan's approach:

 

"This is what I do in such situations:

 

1. I make sure the caption gives the correct name and does not mention the incorrect name.

 

2. I include the correct name in Essential keywords.

 

3. I include the incorrect name elsewhere in the keywords."

 

This is about clients' searches and keywording, not an academic text on North American cultures. I'm sure you know, Jill, that "wigwam" is based on an Algonquian word mixed with a few other influences and that "tepee" is a corruption of a Sioux (Dakota) word. Going that deep is a researcher's job. If buyers are doing a somewhat wrong search, wouldn't it still be good if they could view your image? No one is saying we should put every term on Earth in every search. 

 

I have a similar problem with the names of the neighborhoods in Lower Manhattan. Most New Yorkers and no one outside the NYC area know the boundary streets that separate each. Is that in Soho or Noho or Nolita or Little Italy? Is The Bowery an area or a street?

[Jill Morgan]

If buyers are doing a somewhat wrong search, wouldn't it still be good if they could view your image? No one is saying we should put every term on Earth in every search. 

 

 

I have a similar problem with the names of the neighborhoods in Lower Manhattan. Most New Yorkers and no one outside the NYC area know the boundary streets that separate each. Is that in Soho or Noho or Nolita or Little Italy? Is The Bowery an area or a street?

 

 

I may being too exacting here, but this was simply an example. If a picture editor is told to go find a picture of a wigwam, and he has to go through 2,000 unrelated images that are teepees, that may put my real wigwam image on page 6 or something, and the buyer may never see my image because of all the poorly keyworded images.

 

Again, as to the neighbourhoods of New York. If a picture editor is told they need an image of Soho as they are doing an article, how does that help the searcher who doesn't know New York know which images are really of Soho? Doesn't that mean it is even more important to label properly so as the buyer can be sure they are looking at the correct image. It mean he has to read all the captions just to be sure. Scanning images doesn't help and adds to his time searching, frustrating him more.

 

Jill

[Niels Quist]

 

If buyers are doing a somewhat wrong search, wouldn't it still be good if they could view your image? No one is saying we should put every term on Earth in every search. 

 

 

I have a similar problem with the names of the neighborhoods in Lower Manhattan. Most New Yorkers and no one outside the NYC area know the boundary streets that separate each. Is that in Soho or Noho or Nolita or Little Italy? Is The Bowery an area or a street?

 

 

I may being too exacting here, but this was simply an example. If a picture editor is told to go find a picture of a wigwam, and he has to go through 2,000 unrelated images that are teepees, that may put my real wigwam image on page 6 or something, and the buyer may never see my image because of all the poorly keyworded images.

 

Again, as to the neighbourhoods of New York. If a picture editor is told they need an image of Soho as they are doing an article, how does that help the searcher who doesn't know New York know which images are really of Soho? Doesn't that mean it is even more important to label properly so as the buyer can be sure they are looking at the correct image. It mean he has to read all the captions just to be sure. Scanning images doesn't help and adds to his time searching, frustrating him more.

 

Jill

 

 

You can write the most important keywords in the essential and main - and the less correct ones, however, necessary for the image to be found mostly in the comprehensive - and explain how things are in the description.

[Jill Morgan]

 

 

If buyers are doing a somewhat wrong search, wouldn't it still be good if they could view your image? No one is saying we should put every term on Earth in every search. 

 

 

I have a similar problem with the names of the neighborhoods in Lower Manhattan. Most New Yorkers and no one outside the NYC area know the boundary streets that separate each. Is that in Soho or Noho or Nolita or Little Italy? Is The Bowery an area or a street?

 

 

I may being too exacting here, but this was simply an example. If a picture editor is told to go find a picture of a wigwam, and he has to go through 2,000 unrelated images that are teepees, that may put my real wigwam image on page 6 or something, and the buyer may never see my image because of all the poorly keyworded images.

 

Again, as to the neighbourhoods of New York. If a picture editor is told they need an image of Soho as they are doing an article, how does that help the searcher who doesn't know New York know which images are really of Soho? Doesn't that mean it is even more important to label properly so as the buyer can be sure they are looking at the correct image. It mean he has to read all the captions just to be sure. Scanning images doesn't help and adds to his time searching, frustrating him more.

 

Jill

 

 

You can write the most important keywords in the essential and main - and the less correct ones, however, necessary for the image to be found mostly in the comprehensive - and explain how things are in the description.

 

 

I see your point. But that makes a lot of work for the searcher, especially if he has a few thousand results to wade through. And although the unrelated keywords may be in comprehensive, they may still show up ahead of ones with the keywords in essential if the first photog has a better rank than the second photog.

 

I just think we should make it easier on the searchers to find what they are looking for. Think of the time to sit and read descriptions (and that is only if they zoom the image). 

 

Jill

[wiskerke]

Have a look in AoA how both wigwam and teepee/tepee/tipi are being used by clients. It's clear that some (most) tipi/teepee users know what to look for. The wigwam users don't. Or have not been educated yet to use the politically correct teepee/tipi.

 

wim

[fotoDogue]

Have a look in AoA how both wigwam and teepee/tepee/tipi are being used by clients. It's clear that some (most) tipi/teepee users know what to look for. The wigwam users don't. Or have not been educated yet to use the politically correct teepee/tipi.

 

wim

 

The only AoA search I see for "Wigwam" or "Tipi" is 'Wigwam Hotel Arizona,' which ironically, has Tipis