Jump to content

Open Alamy Database to Google searches


Go to solution Solved by Ray,

Recommended Posts

I am so frustrated with the bizarre search results I have been seeing on Alamy with my images that I am driven to post here.

 

For example: Someone searched for Warren Buffet and got my pics of cutlery and crockery on a restaurant buffet. My last name is Warren. A keyword is obviously 'buffet'. That is just unbelievable. Supposedly contributor names are no longer an issue in basic searches.

Furthermore why doesn't Alamy's search engine stem keywords? It is a basic function of a good search engine. Try it on Google. Why are we told to place emphasis on syntax or sequence when the results don't seem to matter? Shutterstock and iStockphoto 's searches are way better, more intuitive and don't turn up results like this and the keywording on both those sites is very loose by comparison. Extremely loose. 

Why not just switch off Alamy's very poor search engine and open the image database to Google searches? We would get more exposure, better sales and not have our CTR/rankings torpedoed by bizarre results. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so frustrated with the bizarre search results I have been seeing on Alamy with my images that I am driven to post here.

 

For example: Someone searched for Warren Buffet and got my pics of cutlery and crockery on a restaurant buffet. My last name is Warren. A keyword is obviously 'buffet'. That is just unbelievable. Supposedly contributor names are no longer an issue in basic searches.

The pseudonym field is no longer searchable in the standard search so this shouldn't happen now. There was a very recent blog post about this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am so frustrated with the bizarre search results I have been seeing on Alamy with my images that I am driven to post here.

 

For example: Someone searched for Warren Buffet and got my pics of cutlery and crockery on a restaurant buffet. My last name is Warren. A keyword is obviously 'buffet'. That is just unbelievable. Supposedly contributor names are no longer an issue in basic searches.

The pseudonym field is no longer searchable in the standard search so this shouldn't happen now. There was a very recent blog post about this.

Yes I read that blog post too and that's why I am posting this!  It shouldn't happen but it has. It was searched between the 9th and 16th of June. It's just the most glaring example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy's database used to stem - if I remember rightly people complained that it gave false results.

Hi John   if that is the case I would love to know how Google, Shutterstock etc  manages to do it and get good results. I find both of those a dream to use whereas this one is way more problematic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Solution

With the help of Jon I was able to find out that although the blog post announcing the removal of the pseudonym field was dated 12 June the change didn't happen until around the 18th. That explains why I got the Warren Buffet result. I still think we would get a lot more sales if Alamy's database was searchable by Google.

Thanks for your interest and your posts.  :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another aspect of making Alamy Googlable is that many of their distributors already are, notably those in India, Canada, Israel and Japan. Alamy images DO show up via those sites, which means any Google-generated sales will come through distributors, meaning less money for the photographer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind Google search now posts a large thumbnail (600x900) that is easy to copy/paste. Hopefully the Alamy watermark is adequate, but if not, your images could begin popping up on other sites free of charge.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind Google search now posts a large thumbnail (600x900) that is easy to copy/paste. Hopefully the Alamy watermark is adequate, but if not, your images could begin popping up on other sites free of charge.

I find that extremely doubtful. Most sites I know don't accept anything below 6mp and I don't like anyone's chances of convincingly removing an Alamy watermark on anything but the simplest of photographs.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another aspect of making Alamy Googlable is that many of their distributors already are, notably those in India, Canada, Israel and Japan. Alamy images DO show up via those sites, which means any Google-generated sales will come through distributors, meaning less money for the photographer. 

That's a good point that I hadn't considered. Perhaps contributors should be given the opportunity to opt out of those sales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another aspect of making Alamy Googlable is that many of their distributors already are, notably those in India, Canada, Israel and Japan. Alamy images DO show up via those sites, which means any Google-generated sales will come through distributors, meaning less money for the photographer. 

That's a good point that I hadn't considered. Perhaps contributors should be given the opportunity to opt out of those sales.

 

We are given that opportunity.

 

Annually during the month of April (1-30th) we can deselect any or all distributors. So if this bothers anyone, that's the answer:

 

http://www.alamy.com/distribution-terms.asp

 

J

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.