Keywords...

[Kevin Miller]

What is the best way to caption?

 

For example Ho Chi Minh City. I would normally only caption this as such, but I have noticed many contributors use Ho Chi Minh City, Ho, Chi, Minh, City, Ho Chi Minh,

 

This seems odd to me as Ho Chi Minh City is just that, it's not Ho, it's not Chi, and it's not Minh.

 

By using the Ho, Chi, Minh seems rather desperate to hopefully have your file found as those keywords are not accurate.

 

I am fairly new to Alamy, but also have a very good grasp of keywords in general and this concept of using partial keywords to hopefully get a view seems odd to me, or is this how things are done on Alamy?

 

Also using plurals, I have notice many people use plurals, which does turn up two very different searches. ie: cat, cats, dog, dogs etc. is it advisable to always use plurals?

 

Any insight to clear and concise keywords would be much appreciated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bryan]

Plurals are probably a good idea,. A buyer may search for shots of dogs, when actually they only want one dog. As always there is a trade off, some people will only search for dogs when looking for several dogs in which case an incorrect plural would damage your CTR (Alamy rating). I normally provide plurals as I regard a potential sale as being more important that a slight reduction in CTR.

 

Ho Chi Minh City looks fine to me.

[dustydingo]

What is the best way to caption?

 

For example Ho Chi Minh City. I would normally only caption this as such, but I have noticed many contributors use Ho Chi Minh City, Ho, Chi, Minh, City, Ho Chi Minh,

 

This seems odd to me as Ho Chi Minh City is just that, it's not Ho, it's not Chi, and it's not Minh.

 

By using the Ho, Chi, Minh seems rather desperate to hopefully have your file found as those keywords are not accurate.

 

I am fairly new to Alamy, but also have a very good grasp of keywords in general and this concept of using partial keywords to hopefully get a view seems odd to me, or is this how things are done on Alamy?

 

Also using plurals, I have notice many people use plurals, which does turn up two very different searches. ie: cat, cats, dog, dogs etc. is it advisable to always use plurals?

 

Any insight to clear and concise keywords would be much appreciated.

 

If someone's keywords are just a string of words with no separating commas or quotation marks to identify phrases, Alamy's system will insert a comma between each and every single word. I think that's more likely the cause of Minh, Chi and Ho appearing as single keywords.

 

As Bryan says above, I agree plurals are probably a good idea.

 

And don't forget to add "Saigon" to any images of Ho Chi Minh city :-)

 

dd

[chrumu]

Hi Kevin

 

I sugest you formulate real sentences for the caption. After all, it's the caption, not just another keyword field. The caption is the first thing customers see (beside the image itself), even before clicking on it, thus it's important to describe (to a human) what's in the picture. Looking at your pictures, I think in most cases you could just copy your description to the caption field.

 

Caption and description are (mainly)** for humans, keywords for the search engines.

 

 

And don't forget HCMC as well for Ho Chi Minh City.

 

Christoph

 

 

** Edit: inserted "mainly" because the caption field is also searchable.

[Armstrong]

Yes, use plurals.

 

I would suggest that a good way to approach key-wording is to ask yourself 'What would a buyer type in if they were searching for this image?'

 

I agree with your comment about not splitting the words up in Ho Chi Minh City.

 

In theory the Alamy algorithm should, over time, push badly key-worded images down the rankings.

[Ed Rooney]

Putting aside algorithms (above my pay grade) for the moment, this is what I would have in my keywords: "Ho Chi Minh City" Ho Chi Minh City and Saigon (Dusty beat me to it with that point. ) 

 

Down in the Main keywords, I would also translate Ho Chi Minh, because it was not the man's name, it was his title, and means "bringer of light." 

[Kevin Miller]

Thank you all for your insight. I will certainly start applying this advice. 

[Gurcharan]

I find Description and Key-wording process a little cumbersome here. I have been contributing in Dreamstime for number of years. You have just to type the description, the keywords get picked up automatically and listed alphabetically in the lower window. Here there are 4 windows to fill up on keyword page, separate page for description, and then in the final keywords which appear when our images are online, words seem to get duplicated.  

[Ed Rooney]

I find Description and Key-wording process a little cumbersome here. I have been contributing in Dreamstime for number of years. You have just to type the description, the keywords get picked up automatically and listed alphabetically in the lower window. Here there are 4 windows to fill up on keyword page, separate page for description, and then in the final keywords which appear when our images are online, words seem to get duplicated.  

 

 

Yes, good keywording is not easy, but let me correct one or two of your misunderstandings about what you should do in Alamy: you do NOT have to fill up all 4 boxes--one word in the Essentials box will let an image go live. The Description box is not even searchable by clients. Please read everything Alamy tells us about keywording and everything else, and do a search in the forum for what has already been discussed on these points. http://www.alamy.com/contributor/

 

Good luck. 

[DHill]

Gurcharan - Edo has given you some excellent advice (as is his habit). 

 

All I'll add is that keywording is a constant process of learning - I think many of us here, including me, are still refining our approach after being here for several years. 

[Alexandre Fagundes]

Just a question

Does capital letters have any influence in the search

Does the search engine umderstands special carachters like ã ç, etc?

Thank you

[dustydingo]

Just a question

Does capital letters have any influence in the search

Does the search engine umderstands special carachters like ã ç, etc?

Thank you

 

You could easily test this yourself . . .

 

dd

[Betty LaRue]

Alamy says no commas are necessary, just spaces. And that words placed next to each other mean more in the search than scattered about.

So say you are keywording an American Beauty rose. Many using spaces only would do it like this:

American Beauty rose flower flowers flora red rose

The important words are next to each other...American Beauty rose and then red rose

When you search your image, you will see the words listed like this. In alphabetical order.

American,Beauty,flora,flower,flowers,red,rose,rose.

Maybe one of the rose words would be removed, not sure about that.

BUT: the search engine sees them in the order you wrote them, American Beauty rose are next to each other for the search.

This is enough to blow the minds of new contributors.

 

I do this. I use commas.

American Beauty rose,American Beauty roses,American Beauty,rose,roses,red rose,red roses,flora,flower,flowers,

 

I take out the spaces if I need to cram a lot of words in, but if it is an image that everything I want to put in fits without removing the spaces, then I leave the spaces.

More trouble this way but all my phrases stay together as a phrase, not as individual keywords. I believe an exact phrase in a search "possibly" might weigh more than the individual words placed next to each other.

But again, that idea might be wrong. As said before, about the time we think we know the answers, somebody changes the questions.

And please don't take the way I do it as gospel. There are many gospels on this forum, lol!

Betty

[M.Chapman]

Alamy says no commas are necessary, just spaces. And that words placed next to each other mean more in the search than scattered about.

So say you are keywording an American Beauty rose. Many using spaces only would do it like this:

American Beauty rose flower flowers flora red rose

The important words are next to each other...American Beauty rose and then red rose

When you search your image, you will see the words listed like this. In alphabetical order.

American,Beauty,flora,flower,flowers,red,rose,rose.

Maybe one of the rose words would be removed, not sure about that.

BUT: the search engine sees them in the order you wrote them, American Beauty rose are next to each other for the search.

This is enough to blow the minds of new contributors.

 

I do this. I use commas.

American Beauty rose,American Beauty roses,American Beauty,rose,roses,red rose,red roses,flora,flower,flowers,

 

I take out the spaces if I need to cram a lot of words in, but if it is an image that everything I want to put in fits without removing the spaces, then I leave the spaces.

More trouble this way but all my phrases stay together as a phrase, not as individual keywords. I believe an exact phrase in a search "possibly" might weigh more than the individual words placed next to each other.

But again, that idea might be wrong. As said before, about the time we think we know the answers, somebody changes the questions.

And please don't take the way I do it as gospel. There are many gospels on this forum, lol!

Betty

Very well put. I use commas just like you. It's the only way I've found to get the Google search keywords reliably generated and it also matches the format required by other libraries. Commas also seem to be OK with the Alamy search engine, but it's difficult to know exactly how that works internally (although some of the earlier problems reported in November now seem to be fixed).

 

I suspect in reality it's a bit of a moving target as Alamy refines and debugs their search engine and keyword processing algorithms.

[dustydingo]

Oops, upset somebody by me suggesting one could do a 10 second check themselves on whether or not capitals have any influence in searches.

 

At the risk of getting another cowards's arrow , I'll repeat the basic principle of my earlier comment:

 

some things can be checked easily, in just a few seconds, instead of just asking for the answer in the forum. Sort of akin to not RTFM in a way . . .

 

dd

[NYCat]

Oops, upset somebody by me suggesting one could do a 10 second check themselves on whether or not capitals have any influence in searches.

 

At the risk of getting another cowards's arrow , I'll repeat the basic principle of my earlier comment:

 

some things can be checked easily, in just a few seconds, instead of just asking for the answer in the forum. Sort of akin to not RTFM in a way . . .

 

dd

 

 

Fixed it.

 

Paulette

[dustydingo]

 

Oops, upset somebody by me suggesting one could do a 10 second check themselves on whether or not capitals have any influence in searches.

 

At the risk of getting another cowards's arrow , I'll repeat the basic principle of my earlier comment:

 

some things can be checked easily, in just a few seconds, instead of just asking for the answer in the forum. Sort of akin to not RTFM in a way . . .

 

dd

 

 

Fixed it.

 

Paulette

 

 

Thanks, Paulette, although how much nicer would it be if we all (well, almost all . . . ) didn't have to go around cancelling coward arrows. You know, if folk would step up to be counted and argue an alternative view, instead of just lazily hitting the cowards' button? :-) . . . I guess in this anonymous-online world I guess if you're not convinced you have a valid argument you can't very well try to argue it eh?

 

dd

[spacecadet]

Oops, upset somebody by me suggesting one could do a 10 second check themselves on whether or not capitals have any influence in searches.

 

At the risk of getting another cowards's arrow , I'll repeat the basic principle of my earlier comment:

 

some things can be checked easily, in just a few seconds, instead of just asking for the answer in the forum. Sort of akin to not RTFM in a way . . .

 

dd

I'm told a red arrow can be awarded by accident on a touch pad.

[dustydingo]

 

Oops, upset somebody by me suggesting one could do a 10 second check themselves on whether or not capitals have any influence in searches.

 

At the risk of getting another cowards's arrow , I'll repeat the basic principle of my earlier comment:

 

some things can be checked easily, in just a few seconds, instead of just asking for the answer in the forum. Sort of akin to not RTFM in a way . . .

 

dd

I'm told a red arrow can be awarded by accident on a touch pad.

 

 

Indeed. I've seen many a post here where folk have said oops after accidently doing just as you say.

 

However, I reckon pretty well every one I've "corrected", including a few thrown at some of your posts, were more than likely deliberately posted.

 

But. . . that's not really what i'm posting here about, as tempting as it is to rail on against the coward arrows

 

dd

[Alexandre Fagundes]

Oops, upset somebody by me suggesting one could do a 10 second check themselves on whether or not capitals have any influence in searches.

 

At the risk of getting another cowards's arrow , I'll repeat the basic principle of my earlier comment:

 

some things can be checked easily, in just a few seconds, instead of just asking for the answer in the forum. Sort of akin to not RTFM in a way . . .

 

dd

Some questions might be the same for me and orhers

Antway I did a search for apple and Apple and had the exact same results

[Matt]

I am one who likes it when people post questions that can easily be looked up, because often, it forces other questions and dialog and during that process, people learn things they never thought about before.

[Steve Tucker]

I am one who likes it when people post questions that can easily be looked up, because often, it forces other questions and dialog and during that process, people learn things they never thought about before.

I agree and replies like the one you are referring to are unnecesary and unhelpful really, most things can be answered by 'googling' but if that was the only correct way to do it then forums like this would be fairly sterile places.

[dustydingo]

 

I am one who likes it when people post questions that can easily be looked up, because often, it forces other questions and dialog and during that process, people learn things they never thought about before.

I agree and replies like the one you are referring to are unnecesary and unhelpful really, most things can be answered by 'googling' but if that was the only correct way to do it then forums like this would be fairly sterile places.

 

 

Disagree . . . and as I steadfastly refuse to dole out cowards' arrows, I'll explain why.

 

First up, and I'm assuming it's my post that's pushed your button, I never once suggested using Google, so we can dismiss that argument.

 

However, my response ultimately did prove to be most necessary and helpful .  . . I suggested testing the use of capitals as, I believe, it would be quicker to do a test than ask here and wait for a reply . . . and guess what? The person I suggested that to did exactly that and got his answer . . . luckily too, as the forum still hasn't answered.

 

You know, when it's obvious someone is truly misunderstanding something despite trying to do otherwise, and/or trying to educate themselves with their own effort (as against feeding off the efforts of others), then I at least will (and so very often have) assist . . . as I did to the OP of this thread. 

 

It's a bit like the folk who post the most basic questions here without bothering to RTFM . . . they usually get, and I hope will continue to get, short shrift.

 

dd

[Steve Tucker]

 

 

I am one who likes it when people post questions that can easily be looked up, because often, it forces other questions and dialog and during that process, people learn things they never thought about before.

I agree and replies like the one you are referring to are unnecesary and unhelpful really, most things can be answered by 'googling' but if that was the only correct way to do it then forums like this would be fairly sterile places.

 

 

Disagree . . . and as I steadfastly refuse to dole out cowards' arrows, I'll explain why.

 

First up, and I'm assuming it's my post that's pushed your button, I never once suggested using Google, so we can dismiss that argument.

 

However, my response ultimately did prove to be most necessary and helpful .  . . I suggested testing the use of capitals as, I believe, it would be quicker to do a test than ask here and wait for a reply . . . and guess what? The person I suggested that to did exactly that and got his answer . . . luckily too, as the forum still hasn't answered.

 

You know, when it's obvious someone is truly misunderstanding something despite trying to do otherwise, and/or trying to educate themselves with their own effort (as against feeding off the efforts of others), then I at least will (and so very often have) assist . . . as I did to the OP of this thread. 

 

It's a bit like the folk who post the most basic questions here without bothering to RTFM . . . they usually get, and I hope will continue to get, short shrift.

 

dd

 

Yes but you see I wouldn't personally know how to search for capitals and in fact I was wondering the importance of using capitals in keywords just the other day. If your reply had stated how to test this yourself it would have been more helpful even if this is very basic. Regarding the use of red arrows though, I never have hit that button.

[M.Chapman]

Yes but you see I wouldn't personally know how to search for capitals

 

Goodness....

 

In the Alamy image search box, type a keyword (e.g. a major city name like "london") without using any capitals. Check how many images are returned. Now try the same search with appropriate capitalisation (e.g. "London"). You will find the same number or images returned. Try all in capitals if you like, or even with incorrect capitalisation. You will always find the same number of images returned, and I believe they appear in the same order. i.e. capitalisation makes no difference to the results from Alamy's search engine. Not sure if the same applies to the results from Bing, Google etc.