Jump to content
Lorenz

Keywords sections: just one instead of three

Recommended Posts

Hi! I'd like to suggest this little big improvement in the keyword management section, though maybe I'm not new in asking this: it would be great if keywords where just one section, not split over three parts.

That would save A LOT of time, and the process of managing images would be less tedious.

Thanks Alamy staff for your care,

L.S.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but it would also "kill" the idea that you can give different weight to keywords i.e. emphasize the more important ones.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but it would also "kill" the idea that you can give different weight to keywords i.e. emphasize the more important ones.

Not necessarily, as they could effectively be ranked by their order in the one section. Surely all keywords should be important?

 

In any case most other, including the very successful, libraries and agencies use a single keyword section.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi! I'd like to suggest this little big improvement in the keyword management section, though maybe I'm not new in asking this: it would be great if keywords where just one section, not split over three parts.

That would save A LOT of time, and the process of managing images would be less tedious.

Thanks Alamy staff for your care,

L.S.

 

How would it save A LOT of time? Regardless of the number of sections into which keywords are placed, you're still going to have the same number of letters typed, the only extra time is tabbing or moving cursor to next section . . .

 

Plus Martin's point. EDIT: Martin from Sweden in this case :-)

 

dd

Edited by dustydingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other point I would make about importance of keywords: only the few important ones matter, with 65million images, keywords that are a marginal fit to the image must be a complete and utter waste of time. There will always be images that better fit those less relevant keywords so what the point of including them?

It is making me think about my keywords ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

but it would also "kill" the idea that you can give different weight to keywords i.e. emphasize the more important ones.

Not necessarily, as they could effectively be ranked by their order in the one section. Surely all keywords should be important?

 

In any case most other, including the very successful, libraries and agencies use a single keyword section.

 

 

Martin - isn't that just the same thing though? Instead of having it a bit clearer laid out (the three fields) what one deem more important, average importance and lesser importance, you will be stuck with one giant box and have to shuffle the keywords around (mine always upload in alphabetical order).

 

So my vote is that I still like the system of the three different importance levels of keywords.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other point I would make about importance of keywords: only the few important ones matter, with 65million images, keywords that are a marginal fit to the image must be a complete and utter waste of time. There will always be images that better fit those less relevant keywords so what the point of including them?

 

It is making me think about my keywords ...

 

The never ending dilemma isn't? One day that "marginal" keyword leads to a zoom (CTR up), another days it give you the view, but no zoom (CTR down). A fine line...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other point I would make about importance of keywords: only the few important ones matter, with 65million images, keywords that are a marginal fit to the image must be a complete and utter waste of time. There will always be images that better fit those less relevant keywords so what the point of including them?

 

It is making me think about my keywords ...

 

 

I have had sales by adding a keyword that not many other photographers have thought to add to a subject. I am careful to keep all the words appropriate. There are a bunch of appropriate ones for wildlife subjects. I also like the three sections to sort out the most important ones. 

 

Paulette

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Filling the three sections by hand gives individual contributors an advantage over agencies who fill the three fields automatically from their single field.

It also gives you the opportunity to correct the Photoshop/Lightroom habit of re-arranging keywords alphabetically.

Hint: Alamy does not like alphabetical order.

 

wim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi! I'd like to suggest this little big improvement in the keyword management section, though maybe I'm not new in asking this: it would be great if keywords where just one section, not split over three parts.

That would save A LOT of time, and the process of managing images would be less tedious.

Thanks Alamy staff for your care,

L.S.

 

How would it save A LOT of time? Regardless of the number of sections into which keywords are placed, you're still going to have the same number of letters typed, the only extra time is tabbing or moving cursor to next section . . .

 

Plus Martin's point. EDIT: Martin from Sweden in this case :-)

 

dd

Sure I'd spend the same time typing keywords before uploading. But it's easy to see why what I ask would save time...because now we have to chose the relevant keywords for each image, while all you need is a procedure as fast and simple as possible.

As pointed out by Martin Wilson, most agencies use one keyword section and it works fine.

All of you that are in favor of the three step system have good reasons and stress the point of a relevant keywording that matches the images as it should.

But my hypotesis is that it is not necessary to have a time consuming procedure split in three section of keywords to reach that result. Maybe an innovation in Alamy management of keywords and search engine could be considered.

Edited by Lorenz
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hi! I'd like to suggest this little big improvement in the keyword management section, though maybe I'm not new in asking this: it would be great if keywords where just one section, not split over three parts.

That would save A LOT of time, and the process of managing images would be less tedious.

Thanks Alamy staff for your care,

L.S.

How would it save A LOT of time? Regardless of the number of sections into which keywords are placed, you're still going to have the same number of letters typed, the only extra time is tabbing or moving cursor to next section . . .

 

Plus Martin's point. EDIT: Martin from Sweden in this case :-)

 

dd

Sure I'd spend the same time typing keywords before uploading. But it's easy to see why what I ask would save time...because now we have to chose the relevant keywords for each image, while all you need is a procedure as fast and simple as possible.

As pointed out by Martin Wilson, most agencies use one keyword section and it works fine.

All of you that are in favor of the three step system have good reasons and stress the point of a relevant keywording that matches the images as it should.

But my hypotesis is that it is not necessary to have a time consuming procedure split in three section of keywords to reach that result. Maybe an innovation in Alamy management of keywords and search engine could be considered.

 

 

Update of "Manage Images" is in the works (have been for a year or so). Hopefully it will entail enhanced productivity tools/functions somehow.

 

http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/3244-what-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-new-manage-images-upload-process/?hl=%2Bmanage+%2Bimages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful what you wish for.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful what you wish for.

 

wim

Are you a beta tester? Mmm ... I know, I know, if you are, you can't say ... ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can say I am. More would probably not be appropriate.

 

wim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is for sure a reason that it is split and doesn't just came to make it contributors more difficult. I really believe this split just makes it possible to search in more detail.

 

If there is a trash bin in the background the keyword "trash bin" would be totally not the priority. Putting it into one section between important keywords would just not fit and would end negatively to the search engine. But on the the other hand there could be a client that would like to have a trash bin in the background. Here the solution is the comprehensive section.

I see fully the sense of this spilt. Alamy please keep it like that. Good for costumers and good for us since we can take more specific photos like that.

 

Mirco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can say I am. More would probably not be appropriate.

 

wim

That's good news! We know that (a) progress is being made, b] it's being tested with real users before going live, and © they've chosen at least one tester well!! ;-) 

 

Back on the topic, personally I find that ranked keywords are useful - there are always kws that are appropriate for an image but you wouldn't want the image appearing in a search for only that word, so those go in comprehensive. 

 

I've just had the idea: that workflow would be a lot faster if a little drop-down menu appeared in MI next to each keyword from which a rank - 1, 2 or 3 - could be selected. The number of kws with each rank would be limited, similar to now. That would save an awful lot of copying and pasting. Now, why didn't I think of that earlier!! 

Edited by DHill
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes DHill!, why not make it an option to select relevant keywords? I guess you're depicting something like that. The two sistems may stay together and the single contributor could decide to put some keywords in the first 'relevant' box, or with a drop down menu. So basically a small change could be to make not mandatory to split the keywords in sections. Would it make everyone happy?

Edited by Lorenz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes DHill!, why not make it an option to select relevant keywords? I guess you're depicting something like that. The two sistems may stay together and the single contributor could decide to put some keywords in the first 'relevant' box, or with a drop down menu. So basically a small change could be to make not mandatory to split the keywords in sections. Would it make everyone happy?

What I'm envisaging is that key words would initially be at the lowest weighting (i.e. comprehensive), as now, but the user would have the ability to promote a limited number to a higher level - effectively the same as now but selecting a number to designate the level (essential or main) would be much faster than copying and pasting into different boxes. The devil in the detail would be how to deal with phrases rather than single words, though I can think of a few possibilities. 

 

Another option would be drag and drop functionality between the keyword boxes. I think that was suggested, IFRC, in the Manage Images suggestions thread from a year or so ago.  

 

David 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this is getting more and more technical . . . to me it's starting to take on the feel of a solution/s looking for a problem.

 

My vote: I'll keep typing what I choose where I choose.

 

Simple, technically unchallenging, and a lot faster than typing then dragging/dropping/ranking/cutting/pasting . . .

 

dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this is getting more and more technical . . . to me it's starting to take on the feel of a solution/s looking for a problem.

 

My vote: I'll keep typing what I choose where I choose.

 

Simple, technically unchallenging, and a lot faster than typing then dragging/dropping/ranking/cutting/pasting . . .

 

dd

 

Unless you are on a phone or a small tablet.

 

wim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow, this is getting more and more technical . . . to me it's starting to take on the feel of a solution/s looking for a problem.

 

My vote: I'll keep typing what I choose where I choose.

 

Simple, technically unchallenging, and a lot faster than typing then dragging/dropping/ranking/cutting/pasting . . .

 

dd

 

Unless you are on a phone or a small tablet.

 

wim

 

 

I'm usually not . . . which is why I said "My vote".

 

dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wow, this is getting more and more technical . . . to me it's starting to take on the feel of a solution/s looking for a problem.

 

My vote: I'll keep typing what I choose where I choose.

 

Simple, technically unchallenging, and a lot faster than typing then dragging/dropping/ranking/cutting/pasting . . .

 

dd

 

Unless you are on a phone or a small tablet.

 

wim

 

 

I'm usually not . . . which is why I said "My vote".

 

dd

 

 

Quite, but what about others: would you think that contributors in the foreseeable future will use their phones exclusively for keywording or that it should be a possible option?

Maybe in the form of a sort of Stockimo for the general collection?

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite, but what about others: would you think that contributors in the foreseeable future will use their phones exclusively for keywording or that it should be a possible option?

Maybe in the form of a sort of Stockimo for the general collection?

 

wim

 

Keywording on a phone sounds like an excellent idea ... it's the perfect activity to do while waiting for a train, standing in a queue, sitting on the toilet ;-) 

 

By the way, dragging/dropping/selecting etc may not be necessary for those who type directly into Manage Images, but those of us who keyword in, say, Lightroom have to do something about the fact that all their keywords end up in Comprehensive ... 

 

We're in business. It's all about enhancing productivity - or getting the maximum bang for your time ;-)

Edited by DHill
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quite, but what about others: would you think that contributors in the foreseeable future will use their phones exclusively for keywording or that it should be a possible option?

Maybe in the form of a sort of Stockimo for the general collection?

 

wim

 

Keywording on a phone sounds like an excellent idea ... it's the perfect activity to do while waiting for a train, standing in a queue, sitting on the toilet ;-) 

 

By the way, dragging/dropping/selecting etc may not be necessary for those who type directly into Manage Images, but those of us who keyword in, say, Lightroom have to do something about the fact that all their keywords end up in Comprehensive ... 

 

We're in business. It's all about enhancing productivity - or getting the maximum bang for your time ;-)

 

 

Fair points all . . . however, if my workflow was slowing me down (by placing all keywords in Comprehensive, by way of example only you understand :) ), I'd simply change my workflow to make it smoother and more efficient . . . aka enhancing productivity.

 

dd

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

×
×
  • 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.