The Image Manager thread

[M.Chapman]

 

 

I'm so sorry, Wim. I wrote and complained about my apple pie images having truncated tags, and the reply didn't help at all, but it was mentioned that I shouldn't have

apple pie slice

Slice apple pie

slice of apple pie

Apple pie piece

Piece apple pie

and so on because that might be considered spamming and hurt my rank. I should have apple pie once.

So Alamy would consider your tags spamming, too.

 

W H A T?

I clearly got different results from the differently ordered tags.

 

Betty

 

 

what????

 

I asked exactly that questions a couple of days ago not with apple pie as example  but other keywords and mailed examples. I ask if repetitions influence my rank. The answer was a clearly NO!

 

 

Your IMAGE PLACEMENT you mean? Be careful to use the correct terminology please. 

 

It is an absolute 100% fact WHEN I DID MY TESTS that duplicates DO help with PLACEMENT. I think many of us have seen this.

 

That doesn't mean that is still the case today, but it certainly was!

 

Geoff.

 

 

I agree, duplicated keywords used to help image placement in the old search engine, I tested it too. In the old MI I would often put the same keyword in essential and main.

 

But, goodness knows what the new search engine system does.

[Betty LaRue]

 

I'm so sorry, Wim. I wrote and complained about my apple pie images having truncated tags, and the reply didn't help at all, but it was mentioned that I shouldn't have

apple pie slice

Slice apple pie

slice of apple pie

Apple pie piece

Piece apple pie

and so on because that might be considered spamming and hurt my rank. I should have apple pie once.

So Alamy would consider your tags spamming, too.

W H A T?

I clearly got different results from the differently ordered tags.

Betty

 

 

HUH???

 

I'm shocked by this Betty. Do you think this is a subtle admission by Alamy that the search engine actually detects what it considers "spamming" (even though in your case it clearly isn't), and will automatically lower that image's placement? Or do they really mean your actual AlamyRank?

 

This is scary stuff and yet another slap in the face for those of us who KEYWORD WELL and think about what we enter to cater for all possible RELEVANT searches!!!

 

Geoff.

No, Geoff, I don't think the search engine detects this. I asked member services to look at the truncated tags in my submission, which only contained apple pie images.

They looked, took no blame for the truncated tags and suggested I try a different search engine.

Since they were looking at my tags, it was noticed how I had tagged the images and the remark was made that it could hurt my RANK.

Because it might be considered spamming.

Need I say I don't agree? The way they are tagged clearly shows different placement according to which phrase I search with.

Maybe Alamy doesn't want us to cover all our bases.

 

And to the poster...can't remember who, you know the memory is the first to go ) the reason I didn't do apple pie,slice,piece, is word order. Some might search slice of apple pie, others apple pie slice. The word order is different and it DOES make a distinction.

Betty

[Betty LaRue]

I don't know if that had covered before but I have just checked another thing which seemed strange to me.

 

I spot checked two images and obviously tags dissapeared after saving. Will say with the system update or whenever, in any case they had been saved and after saving I had copied them, so they had benn there at least. One image lacks 4 tags, the other 3 tags (entire complete tags), there are also truncated ones but I din't count these ones.. I wrote to CS and let you know...

Oh, but it can't possibly be AIM at fault. You are just using the wrong search engine! >>>tongue in cheek.

[wiskerke]

 

here is the answer of alamy

 

The duplicates will not affect the search engine results or your ranking so it is perfectly fine for you to leave them if you would like to.

 

Perhaps I misunderstand but in my understanding the sentence is clear, no?

Yes that's very clear, thanks for quoting that. So your ranking was never actually in question, just the placement of the image.

 

Their answer is absolutely wrong though when it comes to legacy images that were already keyworded and had duplicates converted into tags. Removing those duplicates from legacy images lowers their placement very significantly.

 

If you add duplicates to newly tagged images though, then it possibly affects things differently. I haven't tested for that yet.

 

Geoff.

 

 

It's probably not the repetition, but the word order or the proximity that lowers the placement.

However exactly the same keywords tags are now impossible, because the system won't let you add them. That is unless it adds those for you. Like in my case it has added Sydney Opera House twice. A little after I wrote my post, it added another Sydney Opera, making that one twice.

 

However, I just dried my eyes and started over and.....

IT WORKED!

-Forgive me this must be the first time I have ever shouted online ;-)

All keywords were kept in place and in the right order.

 

Thank you dear techs at Alamy!

We know software does not heal on it's own.

 

About keyword spamming: that's an entirely different thing. It's throwing in many only vaguely relating words or totally unrelated words just in the hope that views will turn into sales.

 

My list like

Sydney Opera House,

Sydney Opera,

Opera House Sydney,

Sydney Opera House night,

Sydney Opera House sunset,

 

Is the logical result of the changes in the system. Before I would keyword

Sydney Opera House Sydney with Harbour Bridge Harbor Bridge at night sunset.

However Sydney Opera House with Harbour Bridge is not allowed as tag.

It may well be that at one point I have to keyword the whole thing again because it will only find a complete tag and not a keyword within a tag. It's not like that now, but why else would one make tags?

There must be a function for that? So to be on the safe side I now keyword all those phrases I can think of as separate tags:

 

Sydney Opera House,

Sydney Opera,

Opera House Sydney,

Sydney Opera House night,

Sydney Opera House sunset,

Australia Sydney Opera House,

Sydney Opera House bridge,

Sidney Opera House,

Sydney harbour bridge Opera,

Sydney Opera House skyline,

 

And because the tags can be only 4 words, I must now keyword them:

 

Sydney Opera House at

Opera House at night

or something like that, because there is a difference when I search for

Sydney Opera House at night

or: Sydney Opera House night

 

Because clients do not only use the phrase Sydney Opera, but also: The Sydney Opera House on Bennelong Point with the Sydney Harbor Harbour Bridge at sunset. Actually this one even included the Alamy ref#, probably because he/she couldn't find it anymore. I know, because it was mine. Stroke my ego ;-)

 

wim

 

edit: some more italics

[Betty LaRue]

here is the answer of alamy

 

The duplicates will not affect the search engine results or your ranking so it is perfectly fine for you to leave them if you would like to.

 

Perhaps I misunderstand but in my understanding the sentence is clear, no?

Yes that's very clear, thanks for quoting that. So your ranking was never actually in question, just the placement of the image.

 

Their answer is absolutely wrong though when it comes to legacy images that were already keyworded and had duplicates converted into tags. Removing those duplicates from legacy images lowers their placement very significantly.

 

If you add duplicates to newly tagged images though, then it possibly affects things differently. I haven't tested for that yet.

 

Geoff.

 

That's a direct contradiction of what I was told today, wasn't it? Duplicates won't hurt, my duplicates will be considered spamming.

Ouch! I just got a brain cramp. Again.

[wiskerke]

Oh no it's broken again.

 

When I put in this:

 

supertag 01 12345678 123456789,

supertag 02 12345678 123456789,

supertag 03 12345678 123456789,

supertag 04 12345678 123456789,

supertag 05 12345678 123456789,

supertag 06 12345678 123456789,

supertag 07 12345678 123456789,

supertag 08 12345678 123456789,

supertag 09 12345678 123456789,

supertag 10 12345678 123456789,

 

I get this:

supertag 10 12345678
supertag 09 12345678
supertag 08 12345678
supertag 07 12345678
supertag 06 12345678
supertag 05 12345678
supertag 04 12345678
supertag 03 12345678
supertag 02 12345678
supertag 01 12345678 123456789

 

After saving I get this:

 

supertag 10 12345678
supertag 09 12345678
supertag 07 12345678
supertag 08 12345678
supertag 06 12345678
supertag 05 12345678
supertag 03 12345678
supertag 04 12345678
supertag 02 12345678
supertag 01 12345678 123456789

 

After refreshing it's now this:

 

supertag 10 12345678
supertag 09 12345678
supertag 07 12345678
supertag 08 12345678
supertag 06 12345678
supertag 05 12345678
supertag 03 12345

 

And that is without regular tags. It will not let me put in tag 50. First I have to save and then I can put in tag 50.

Regular tags do go in in the correct order when they're simple:

tag 01
tag 02
tag 03

 

However

tag 01 12345678 123456789,

tag 02 12345678 123456789,

tag 03 12345678 123456789,

tag 04 12345678 123456789,

 

gets me:

 

tag 01 12345678 123456789
tag 02 12345678
tag 03 12345678
tag 04 12345678

and so on until tag 39 or 49.

 

With my Sydney Opera House tags it makes a total jumble out of it, refusing to accept more than 8 or 10 or so; mixing them up and truncating them, just like before.

 

I give up.

Brexit for me folks.

At least for the time being.

 

wim

 

 

edit: replaced the supertag bit, because it has gone worse.

edit2: well worse differently

[NYCat]

I think I will spend my time setting up a proper Lightroom keyword hierarchy. I started out well years ago but got lazy (which has actually cost me time in the end) so now this looks like the time to clear things up with synonyms and hierarchies for the subjects and places I use most. Maybe I'll also submit another batch after a while but I'm in no hurry to enter the craziness.

 

Paulette

[spacecadet]

Am I missing something or has there been no database update since last Thursday?

[Calum Dickson]

I have been waiting on the database to update since last Thursday to do some testing too. I thought it was just me.

 

Anyway, what I think is this… there is no such things as Supertags and Tags…that is just Alamy marketing.

Why do I say this, well I use Jim Kiers Lightroom plugin to manage my Alamy images. I expected it to break with all the changes to Supertags and Tags. But to my amazement it hasn’t broken, it is still working perfectly (it’s the only software around here that isn’t broken at the moment). But here is the crucial bit the Essential keywords fields in Lightroom it lists all the Supertags for each image and in the Main Keywords it list all the Tags. The tool never did list all the comprehensive keywords in Lightroom. But if you switch to the IPTC metadata tab it shows the Comprehensive keyword count for all images to be zero (after you export the metadata from Alamy if you haven’t updated it in a while). So if any of the fields within the Alamy system had changed name from say Essential to Supertag then the Lightroom plugin would have fallen over, but that hasn’t happened.

So in Summary all Alamy have done is removed Comprehensive keywords and changed the quantity and restrictions on the Supertags (Essential) and Tags (Main). They mainly done this through the user interface. The fields etc in the underlying code remain the same. Now given that its plain to everbody that the user interface has not been executed to a high standard with all the documented basic features like cut, paste, delete missing and bugs like truncations etc I was wondering if the search engine code has really just been tinkered with a little as well.

I’m speculating but perhaps the search engine tinkering wasn’t done by the original author and so something has been missed. Something like the 50 character limit on the essential keywords. Perhaps the 50 character limit wasn’t just an error checking function on the user interface but also a restriction in the search engine which is still in place. That could be a reason for the inconsistencies in Supertags. Lots of Supertags and below 50 characters total = ok. More than 50 characters, multiple words = ignored. Then there is the added negative that because they are ignored as supertags they can also no longer exist as normal tags when tagging under the new system so it’s a double whammy.

I prepared a test for this theory last week, but as the database hasn’t updated well…..

[ReeRay]

Data base updated 01.00 GMT today. That's 08.00 my time. Just in time for morning coffee.

[ReeRay]

Aargh, measures correct. Apologies.

 

How does one check the database update?

[spacecadet]

..and what's more "yesterday" on measures has no data and the 21st shows 24 views for me, down 90%. Still no database.

[wiskerke]

I have been waiting on the database to update since last Thursday to do some testing too. I thought it was just me.

 

Anyway, what I think is this… there is no such things as Supertags and Tags…that is just Alamy marketing.

Why do I say this, well I use Jim Kiers Lightroom plugin to manage my Alamy images. I expected it to break with all the changes to Supertags and Tags. But to my amazement it hasn’t broken, it is still working perfectly (it’s the only software around here that isn’t broken at the moment). But here is the crucial bit the Essential keywords fields in Lightroom it lists all the Supertags for each image and in the Main Keywords it list all the Tags. The tool never did list all the comprehensive keywords in Lightroom. But if you switch to the IPTC metadata tab it shows the Comprehensive keyword count for all images to be zero (after you export the metadata from Alamy if you haven’t updated it in a while). So if any of the fields within the Alamy system had changed name from say Essential to Supertag then the Lightroom plugin would have fallen over, but that hasn’t happened.

So in Summary all Alamy have done is removed Comprehensive keywords and changed the quantity and restrictions on the Supertags (Essential) and Tags (Main). They mainly done this through the user interface. The fields etc in the underlying code remain the same. Now given that its plain to everbody that the user interface has not been executed to a high standard with all the documented basic features like cut, paste, delete missing and bugs like truncations etc I was wondering if the search engine code has really just been tinkered with a little as well.

I’m speculating but perhaps the search engine tinkering wasn’t done by the original author and so something has been missed. Something like the 50 character limit on the essential keywords. Perhaps the 50 character limit wasn’t just an error checking function on the user interface but also a restriction in the search engine which is still in place. That could be a reason for the inconsistencies in Supertags. Lots of Supertags and below 50 characters total = ok. More than 50 characters, multiple words = ignored. Then there is the added negative that because they are ignored as supertags they can also no longer exist as normal tags when tagging under the new system so it’s a double whammy.

I prepared a test for this theory last week, but as the database hasn’t updated well…..

 

As far as I can tell, most of your observations about the changes under the hood are correct.

<>

because they are ignored as supertags they can also no longer exist as normal tags when tagging

<>

I'm not seeing that.

 

wim

[Calum Dickson]

Hi Wim let me try to explain what I meant  by "because they are ignored as supertags they can also no longer exist as normal tags when tagging"

Say for instance you had the following Supertags:-

Sydney Opera House,
Sydney Opera,
Opera House Sydney,
Sydney Opera House night,
Sydney Opera House sunset,
Australia Sydney Opera House,
Sydney Opera House bridge,
Sidney Opera House,
Sydney harbour bridge Opera,
Sydney Opera House skyline,

With the new AIM you can’t have an identical Supertag and Tag (Unless it a legacy image and carried over or the system adds it for you).

My suspicion has to do with the old 50-character limit so in effect everything after the 3 Supertag would be ignored. So if my theory is right and you don’t have night, sunset, Australia, bridge, skyline, harbour as separate tags then a search using the phrase including them will do badly unless of course those words are in the Caption as well.

So what I was looking to test was if in the above example was if the first 3 Supertag searches outperformed the remaining ones. I set up several images with the same set of supertags and changed the order of the supertags to see if the position of the supertag would change the position in the search results for a search phrase.

Eg under my theory “Sydney Opera House” search should do quite well but “Australia Sydney Opera House” should not do well because it is being ignored. But by putting “Australia Sydney Opera House” as the first supertag on another image does that improve things?

[wiskerke]

Hi Wim let me try to explain what I meant  by "because they are ignored as supertags they can also no longer exist as normal tags when tagging"

Say for instance you had the following Supertags:-

Sydney Opera House,

Sydney Opera,

Opera House Sydney,

Sydney Opera House night,

Sydney Opera House sunset,

Australia Sydney Opera House,

Sydney Opera House bridge,

Sidney Opera House,

Sydney harbour bridge Opera,

Sydney Opera House skyline,

With the new AIM you can’t have an identical Supertag and Tag (Unless it a legacy image and carried over or the system adds it for you).

My suspicion has to do with the old 50-character limit so in effect everything after the 3 Supertag would be ignored. So if my theory is right and you don’t have night, sunset, Australia, bridge, skyline, harbour as separate tags then a search using the phrase including them will do badly unless of course those words are in the Caption as well.

So what I was looking to test was if in the above example was if the first 3 Supertag searches outperformed the remaining ones. I set up several images with the same set of supertags and changed the order of the supertags to see if the position of the supertag would change the position in the search results for a search phrase.

Eg under my theory “Sydney Opera House” search should do quite well but “Australia Sydney Opera House” should not do well because it is being ignored. But by putting “Australia Sydney Opera House” as the first supertag on another image does that improve things?

 

All good questions!

As you I will have to wait some more.

However you can have the same supertag as a regular tag.

 

wim

[Dave C]

So if my theory is right and you don’t have night, sunset, Australia, bridge, skyline, harbour as separate tags then a search using the phrase including them will do badly unless of course those words are in the Caption as well.

 

 

Unfortunately if memory serves me correctly  I'm pretty sure Alamy have said in the past that the caption carries very little weight in searches :-(

[Dave C]

Mucked that quote up somehow.  Was trying to say : Unfortunately if memory serves me correctly  I'm pretty sure Alamy have said in the past that the caption carries very little weight in searches :-(

[John Gaffen]

Certain data fields (for example additional information and caption are in light grey, which becomes very tiring on the eyes. Eye strain is one thing a photographer really does not want.  Alamy, please could you change the font colour to make it easier to use please!

[NYCat]

You can add your voice to the thread I started in the Suggestion section of the forum. A lot of us are not finding it easy to spend any time in this new image manager.

 

Paulette

[Reimar]

You can add your voice to the thread I started in the Suggestion section of the forum. A lot of us are not finding it easy to spend any time in this new image manager.

 

Paulette

There's a Suggestion section?  Where?

[PatrickB]

Hello,

 

Someone (Wim, I think?)  previously asked about a "New Search Engine" thread. Is there such a thread yet?

 

I believe many of us have concerns about how these new features affect how the images are ordered, etc. within search results, and not so much the nuts and bolts of how to use them in the new AIM. If someone started a new thread for this type of topic, I would be very interested.

 

Thanks.

Patrick

[Reimar]

I think Wim was referring to this one: http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/7054-another-search-engine-shake-up/

(correct me if I'm wrong)

[NYCat]

 

You can add your voice to the thread I started in the Suggestion section of the forum. A lot of us are not finding it easy to spend any time in this new image manager.

 

Paulette

There's a Suggestion section?  Where?

 

 

Under Let's Talk About Pics there is a blue bar with Suggestions and ideas .... In the Alamy section of that section I started a thread about making the image manager easier on the eyes. Please add any thoughts you have.

 

Paulette

[Matt Ashmore]

 

 

You can add your voice to the thread I started in the Suggestion section of the forum. A lot of us are not finding it easy to spend any time in this new image manager.

 

Paulette

There's a Suggestion section?  Where?

 

 

Under Let's Talk About Pics there is a blue bar with Suggestions and ideas .... In the Alamy section of that section I started a thread about making the image manager easier on the eyes. Please add any thoughts you have.

 

Paulette

 

 

 

Here's a link directly to the area of the forum:

 

http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/forum/11-alamy/

[Bill Brooks]

I have been waiting on the database to update since last Thursday to do some testing too. I thought it was just me.

 

Anyway, what I think is this… there is no such things as Supertags and Tags…that is just Alamy marketing.

Why do I say this, well I use Jim Kiers Lightroom plugin to manage my Alamy images. I expected it to break with all the changes to Supertags and Tags. But to my amazement it hasn’t broken, it is still working perfectly (it’s the only software around here that isn’t broken at the moment). But here is the crucial bit the Essential keywords fields in Lightroom it lists all the Supertags for each image and in the Main Keywords it list all the Tags. The tool never did list all the comprehensive keywords in Lightroom. But if you switch to the IPTC metadata tab it shows the Comprehensive keyword count for all images to be zero (after you export the metadata from Alamy if you haven’t updated it in a while). So if any of the fields within the Alamy system had changed name from say Essential to Supertag then the Lightroom plugin would have fallen over, but that hasn’t happened.

So in Summary all Alamy have done is removed Comprehensive keywords and changed the quantity and restrictions on the Supertags (Essential) and Tags (Main). They mainly done this through the user interface. The fields etc in the underlying code remain the same. Now given that its plain to everbody that the user interface has not been executed to a high standard with all the documented basic features like cut, paste, delete missing and bugs like truncations etc I was wondering if the search engine code has really just been tinkered with a little as well.

I’m speculating but perhaps the search engine tinkering wasn’t done by the original author and so something has been missed. Something like the 50 character limit on the essential keywords. Perhaps the 50 character limit wasn’t just an error checking function on the user interface but also a restriction in the search engine which is still in place. That could be a reason for the inconsistencies in Supertags. Lots of Supertags and below 50 characters total = ok. More than 50 characters, multiple words = ignored. Then there is the added negative that because they are ignored as supertags they can also no longer exist as normal tags when tagging under the new system so it’s a double whammy.

I prepared a test for this theory last week, but as the database hasn’t updated well…..

 

 

+1 Calum.

 

Your understanding of the underlying keyword string confirms what I have been seeing with joining of keywords in legacy images. Two of my legacy keywords sometimes seem to join into one keyword at the same place in the keyword string.

 

I agree the basic underlying Alamy keyword input format has always been, and probably still is, keyword1,keyword2,keyword3. This makes sense as it is standard computer database input format.

 

In the old Image Manager when I keyworded in Bridge the entire keyword string came into the bottom box as keyword1,keyword2,keyword3.

 

I then cut and pasted keywords from the third box into essentials etc. However in the cutting and pasting operation, I sometimes accidentally removed the comma. This occasionally resulted in the following. Keyword1 in essential box. Keyword2 with no terminating comma in the second order box. Keyword3 left where it was originally. The loss of the comma terminating Keyword2 was not apparent by looking at box 2.

 

Keyword3 was a marker keyword usually a not important geographic keyword like “Canada” positioned in Bridge to make my cutting and pasting easier.

 

The joining in legacy images has mostly happened at the boundary between second order keywords and third order keywords in the old image manager. This results in a join of 2 keywords in the new Image Manager like “dogCanada”. dog being the last keyword (without the separating comma) in the second box, and Canada being the first keyword in the third box.

 

This is probably why we get reports of real legacy keyword screwups if photographers tried to copy and paste the same long keyword string in all 3 boxes under the old image manager.

 

This keyword joining has probably been going on under the old image manager since I joined Alamy in 2004. Glad I can fix it now.

 

So the question is how does Alamy mark the underlying imported keyword string keyword1,keyword2,keyword3 in the new Image manager when photographers designate supertags from all of the imported tags regardless of import order? Does the Image Manager divide the original comma separated keyword string into a supertab string and a tab string. Are there character count limits for each string? If 10 supertab string is over a undocumented character limit does the Alamy Image Manager ignore the over the limit characters?

 

Overloading any software will often cause problems. Do maximum word phrases in all 50 tabs overload the new Image Manager? If power keyworders are running up against an undocumented system character limit, then there should be a pop up warning box, or at least Alamy should document the limit.