Re-Keywording....is it worth the effort. Will it pay off?

[John Richmond]

 

 

I've never quite understood why Alamy allows so many keywords -- up to 300 "main" keywords and a whopping 856 "comprehensive" keywords. It's a bit late to change things now, though.

That's characters John, not keywords, but still a lot. very few images require that many but I do use a lot sometimes to create phrases that may incorporate the same words. This way they may get a higher find if the keywords a buyer is using are in the same order.

 

But I rarely ever use Comprehensive, and usually only part of Main.

 

Jill

 

 

My bad. It is indeed characters. Thanks for correcting me. I too seldom use the "comprehensive" box.

 

Perhaps there should be a non-searchable "irrelevant" box as well.

 

There is.  It's called Description.

[Paul Thompson]

What a shame, you have some great photos that will never see the light of day as they are in obscurity behind inferior photos due to the ranking system.

If I was you I would cancel my next few weeks away and start the arduous task of redoing all your keywords from the start

Rather you than me though!

[ArthurGebuysPhotography]

Anyone only keywords the 'Essential KWs'?? And nothing else!

Thinking of redoing mine this way... as it is cr@p at this point...

Cheers, A

[Matt Ashmore]

Anyone only keywords the 'Essential KWs'?? And nothing else!

 

Thinking of redoing mine this way... as it is cr@p at this point...

 

Cheers, A

 

I just had a quick look and it doesn't seem like your keywords are the disaster that the OP's keywords are but you do have a few keywords here and there which don't make sense (e.g. FB0N6G - a picture of a motorcyclist includes the keywords 'bolt' and 'chick') and equally you have a few keywords missing which would help your sales (e.g  EKXGG7 is a picture of some trams but does not contain 'tram' or 'trams' in the keywords).

 

i think the moral of the story is that automated keywording tools are fine to a point.. but you do have to sanitize the keywords they give you.

[Allan Bell]

YES OP Keywording is a necessary and skilled part of stock photography. Taking the (so called) easy way out is not conducive to selling stock, nor is it good practice.

 

I looked at keyword generators some time ago to see if they would help with keywording my Alamy images. Found that more time would be spent cancelling the generators inappropriate words for the images than it would be to do the job myself from scratch.

 

As mentioned elsewhere minimal keywording is the way forward and this is what I have been doing for some time now. I look at the image and write what I see there, nothing more, nothing less. OK someone will say I have missed a keyword or two but they tend to be secondary and I do not worry about them.

 

I usually fill the Ess box, copy to the Main box and add others words as necessary but never fill the box. Then copy the Main box into the Comp box. Job done.

 

OK I know it may not be necessary to copy the Main box into the Comp box but I use that as backup after loosing the words out of the Main box during a rewrite and having to try and remember what was there originally.

 

Allan

[wiskerke]

Could it be that excessive keywording works at other agencies?

And that the OP has his/have their images at some more places than just Alamy?

 

I remember that Alamy in the first years used to tell us to include as many keywords as possible.

For some images I still think more is more.

Like others have said, it all depends on rank. If you have bad rank, you may very well profit from having lots of keywords, because for the most probable keywords your images are at the bottom.

 

wim

[Betty LaRue]

I use comprehensive for words like: outdoors,Caucasian, 2 people only, daytime, blue sky, Oklahoma, US, USA, United States, "Betty LaRue" or one of my other pseudos. The latter for my own benefit of searching.

I pretty much use up Main by including phrases along with singles.

Wrong? My zooms and CTR are good.

[Guest]

Could it be that excessive keywording works at other agencies?

And that the OP has his/have their images at some more places than just Alamy?

 

I remember that Alamy in the first years used to tell us to include as many keywords as possible.

For some images I still think more is more.

Like others have said, it all depends on rank. If you have bad rank, you may very well profit from having lots of keywords, because for the most probable keywords your images are at the bottom.

 

wim

I think you well know the OP has images at other places

 

His excessive keywording was what Alamy asked for originally and it worked very well, top five contrib? maybe top 10 at one point. It doesn't work these days but that's no reason for the slightly uncouth replies earlier in the thread from others.

[Ed Rooney]

Could it be that excessive keywording works at other agencies?

And that the OP has his/have their images at some more places than just Alamy?

 

I remember that Alamy in the first years used to tell us to include as many keywords as possible.

For some images I still think more is more.

Like others have said, it all depends on rank. If you have bad rank, you may very well profit from having lots of keywords, because for the most probable keywords your images are at the bottom.

 

wim

 

 

Yes, Wim, the OP has images on other agencies. But here in the Alamy forum, I'm not concerned about that--not my business, not my problem. With his collection on Alamy, he's trying to game the system. Not only is he spamming keywords, but he likes to enter 1000 as the date the picture was captured, and he disregards the rules regarding RF vs RM. 

 

I don't know if Philippe's theory about one contributor's spamming effects other contributors or Alamy negatively. If that were so, it's logical that Alamy would do something about it. 

 

Edo

[Bill Brooks]

I always use essential, main, and comprehensive keyword boxes. Raccoons are a nuisance in Toronto and are often in the newspapers etc. If I keyword a close up image of a Raccoon taken in Toronto. An image that could be anywhere.

 

essential: raccoon; Procyon lotor; racoon

 

Main: nuisance; pest; common raccoon; North American raccoon; northern raccoon; urban; wildlife

 

Comprehensive: Toronto; Ontario; Canada; North America; animal; mammal; mask; eating; climbing; tree

 

If a client is working on a story about Raccoons in Toronto, they may search “Raccoon Toronto”.

 

If you search Alamy for “Raccoon Toronto” you will see that there are only 11 images keyworded “raccoon Toronto”. One is mine and is on all New, Creative, and Relevant pages. Search for “Raccoon Toronto tree” and you see only 6 images of a Toronto Raccoon up a tree. One of them mine.

 

If you search Alamy for “raccoon” then you will see 6,476 images of raccoons from all over the world. Mine burried somewhere amongst them.

 

Often a client has to find a subject with certain particulars, so use the comprehensive box or main box for the particulars, and the essential box for the subject.

 

If you include the keyword “Toronto” in the comprehensive box for your raccoon image, on a search for “Toronto” the raccoon will show up many many pages down in the sort order of 179,802 “Toronto” images. The client searching only for “Toronto” scenics will not see your Toronto raccoon, so the client’s rejection should not count against you.

[focal point]

Thanks to all who invested valuable time to offer serious suggestions.  They are truly appreciated.

 

Because of what has been noted here and other boards and because of further serious research on other successful Alamy shooters I have come to the conclusion that minimal keywording more than any other single factor is the most important tool for our success.

 

I am reminded that Getty only allows 5 keywords in total when I submit to them.  I checked and I sell between 75- 100 images there on average each month on a collection of less than 3,500 images.  This helped served as a wake up call for me as Getty boasts of more than 90 million images.  I know Alamy is no Getty but the process of selling is much the same.  Someone has to search via keywords and who know what my ranking might be at Getty or why my images get in front of a buyer.

 

In my research at Alamy I am finding that a couple of successful shooters are using several pseudonyms and all appear on page one of my search.  Their keywording isn't anything spectacular but it is minimal to a great extent.  I am not sure what to make of this.  Others only use one name ......period.  I am scratching my head as to the course to take forward.

 

I do know that I will wait until the next Manage Images is due out "hopefully by the end of summer (according to MS)".  Until then I could start the deletion process and use a temporary pseudo to hold them until I figure out what to do.

 

**Wim** yes, the early days of keyword spamming was rewarded to the extent that it put me into the top 10 individual money makers at Alamy.  Recently though I am finding the fall every bit as fast as the rise.  I suspect it is totally do to inadequate keywording and a search system that punishes poor keywording.  It will take an enormous amount of time and effort to edit and re-keyword the entire collection.  In order to do it right it will take 6-12 months to do the necessary work.  It's work that both my wife and I see and absolutely necessary.  We will only shoot minimally new material for stock.

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

dennis 

[regen]

"Recently though I am finding the fall every bit as fast as the rise.  I suspect it is totally do to inadequate keywording and a search system that punishes poor keywording."

 

The fall in terms of number of files sold may well be put right by re keywording but the fall in revenue will probably be a different story. Only yourself can determine if the extra work will be worthwhile.

 

Regen

[M.Chapman]

This has been a useful thread! Thanks

 

Quite thought provoking. In future I'm going to try to reduce my keywords. I'll still include phrases and the individual words, were appropriate. But, if fewer keywords can improve my ranking, whilst reducing the time taken keywording, it's a win, win! I like taking the pictures and editing them, but I always find keywording a drag.

[focal point]

 

The fall in terms of number of files sold may well be put right by re keywording but the fall in revenue will probably be a different story. 

 

Regen

 

This statement is more profound than you may have intended.  Few full time stock shooters are able to recoup shoot costs for new material based on what the return per image is bringing.  About the only way forward those of us who already have more than a hand full of images is to do what I have been talking about.  Even then it is not probably worth my time.

[Bill Brooks]

You are revisiting your business plan, seeking advice, and not looking to impossible, do nothing, backward looking, simplistic solutions, like having the marketplace raise the price per use.

 

If you cut new production costs by only shooting locally, relaunch your best old images through new keywording, and find completely new non stock uses for your old images, it should be worth your time.

 

I hope the thread has been useful to everyone. Even to the angry. I find the level of anger on this forum incomprehensible.

[Brian Yarvin]

I for one think this is the best thread this board has ever had. I don't get the anger either, but it sure drew out some fantastic advice.

 

I'll point to this discussion as the reason I read these boards in the first place.

[John Mitchell]

Very useful thread indeed. I remember when licensing images on the Web was a new phenomenon, most photographers, myself included, used far too many keywords. We didn't think of it as "spamming," we just didn't know what we were doing. Back then, over-keywording didn't make much difference because there were far fewer (understatement) images being offered online. But that was then, and this is now, a much different story.

[Joseph Clemson]

I think I do understand some of the anger. When contributors have put in large amounts of time and effort to carefully describe and keyword their images, it grates immensely when other contributors through apparently lazy or even deliberately bad keywording, undermine the efforts to make the search experience for customers a fruitful one. I understand that in the case of the OP this has an explanation of sorts with historical roots, but I doubt that the too many others who do the same thing will have the same history or defence. The ranking system may eventually penalise those who do indulge in spammy keywording, but the ranking system takes time to take effect and in the meanwhile will prove detrimental to sales for those who stick to Alamy's guidelines. The anger is not just about one individual, but the general existence of the problem. 

 

What still concerns me though about the OP's portfolio is the large number of RF images which contain unreleased people and property. As far as I can see the only way to achieve that is to provide inaccurate answers when answering the questions  on the numbers of people in the image and  the presence of property regarding releases for commercial use. I really can't work out how so many such images have got through QQ without it being noticed.  It is a matter of concern not just in respect of this particular portfolio, but also with so many newer contributors who are increasingly coming from a microstock background, where unrecognisable people in images  are acceptable for RF commercial use. Such contributors often regard Alamy's interpretation of what is acceptable for commercial use  in this respect as being unduly strict. Seeing a large (and apparently successful) portfolio with many images which seem to disregard this rule will tend to encourage the attitude that if it's OK for him then it's OK for me too. The anticipated 'RF editorial' category may resolve this in the future, but that is not now.

[spacecadet]

"Anger" is putting it a bit high, Philippe is serious about his profession and expressing his opinion forthrightly in his second language. As to "baboons", well, there's the saying about monkeys, typewriters

and Shakespeare.

QC happens before annotation.

[John Mitchell]

Improper RF/RM designation is definitely a problem with a lot of collections, and it's getting worse. There's really no good excuse for this. It's currently not easy to fix either. Perhaps it should be.

[Joseph Clemson]

.....

QC happens before annotation.

Good point, I'd forgotten that. However, it just emphasis the greater responsibility of the contributor when doing the annotation.

[Paul Mayall]

I have not read all the replies perhaps this has already been said, now getting back to the original topic.

 

With Alamy's collection of images growing at such a fast rate it is only natural that sales will fall for the individual photographer, competition is more than ever, altering your keywords may not make any difference at all, spend your time on adding fresh material.

 

Paul.

[giphotostock]

I am reminded that Getty only allows 5 keywords in total when I submit to them. 

 

I thought those 5 keywords were keyword suggestions? Getty is doing keywording by themselves, not leaving such an important part to contributors? That is probably a very smart approach. For Alamy's secondary editorial market keywording is easy: who, where, when..., just describe what's in the photo. For commercial, concept keywords are probably an art in itself. Does that facial expression and body language, and the lighting, and styling represent thoughtfulness or loneliness or something totally different? Is that togetherness or it's a perfect example of freedom?

 

GI

[dustydingo]

 

I am reminded that Getty only allows 5 keywords in total when I submit to them. 

 

I thought those 5 keywords were keyword suggestions? Getty is doing keywording by themselves, not leaving such an important part to contributors? That is probably a very smart approach. For Alamy's secondary editorial market keywording is easy: who, where, when..., just describe what's in the photo. For commercial, concept keywords are probably an art in itself. Does that facial expression and body language, and the lighting, and styling represent thoughtfulness or loneliness or something totally different?

 

GI

 

 

Correct, they are suggestions only. G do the actual keywords themselves. And it's impossible to know all the keywords they eventually add as they do not all display when images are viewed.

 

dd

[regen]

"How stupid must Alamy look if a customer is searching for "geology" "erosion" "ecosysstem" and the OP's picture of a pile of colourful sombrerospops up    How many more examples do you want?

B.t.w. while browsing through the search results the picture below showed already halfway (page 26 of 46)"

 

But maybe Alamy don't mind looking stupid as they have done little or nothing to address this problem or that of RF with people and no release. Or maybe they don't feel it really matters in the greater scheme or that indeed the systems they have in place are adequate.

 

Now if droves of customers were complaining then----

 

With more than 10,000 files if i had pics with lots of keywords (which i don't) then I would not think it worthwhile to rekeyword unless there was a very easy way of doing it- it simply aint worth it-just let then settle at the bottom of the pile until Alamy show some interest in doing something.

 

Regen