Jump to content
Doc

Alamy – what has happened to the Search Engine ??

Recommended Posts

There's the clue then. Add or remove duplicates at your peril!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My plan is more or less the same as Betty's except that I'm not sold on RF Editorial Only. I'm sticking with either RM or "regular" RF until it becomes clearer which way the wind is blowing.

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Changing many to RF. But only a handful that have something in it, person or property, barely there, RF editorial.

I'm still leaving quite a large count RM.

The RF is an experiment to see if sales pick up.

Or see if nothing much changes.

 

Right, I'm in experimentation mode as well.

 

It would be helpful if fellow experimenters could announce any sales that come along of images that they have changed to RF, especially to RF editorial only.

Yes, that information would be useful. If I sell anything recently changed, I'll report it. Right now, I'm waiting for my first sale of the month of anything. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's not a good idea to repeat phrases (or single words) in supertags -- e.g. the repetition of “Cape Town” in “Cape Town Waterfront”, “Cape Town South Africa”,  “Cape Town sunset” etc. might be driving images to the bottom of the pile. Didn't Alamy suggest as much in its recent "best practices" blog post? Or perhaps I misunderstood something. Admittedly, this stuff is a mystery to me.

 

FWIW I redid all my Montreal images using the new MI last week, and I tried to repeat "Montreal" as little as possible in supertags (for any one image). These images are now doing very well in search results. Mind you, they weren't doing badly before I made the changes. Plus they aren't new images...

 

I emailed Alamy asking wether repeating a word within a tag/supertag phrase demotes the image. I have a few images of Manchester Airport and used tags "Manchester Airport"

"Manchester Airport Terminal"... and a couple of other tags containing Manchester.

 

This was Alamy`s ( speedy) reply:

 

"Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched for e.g. “Manchester Airport” will still show up for “Manchester” and “Airport” searches so there is no need keep including “Manchester Airport” in all your supertags but it won’t harm the position of your images if you do."

 

 

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have certainly found that removing duplicate tags from legacy images sends them further back in the search results.

 

Pearl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe it's not a good idea to repeat phrases (or single words) in supertags -- e.g. the repetition of “Cape Town” in “Cape Town Waterfront”, “Cape Town South Africa”,  “Cape Town sunset” etc. might be driving images to the bottom of the pile. Didn't Alamy suggest as much in its recent "best practices" blog post? Or perhaps I misunderstood something. Admittedly, this stuff is a mystery to me.

 

FWIW I redid all my Montreal images using the new MI last week, and I tried to repeat "Montreal" as little as possible in supertags (for any one image). These images are now doing very well in search results. Mind you, they weren't doing badly before I made the changes. Plus they aren't new images...

 

I emailed Alamy asking wether repeating a word within a tag/supertag phrase demotes the image. I have a few images of Manchester Airport and used tags "Manchester Airport"

"Manchester Airport Terminal"... and a couple of other tags containing Manchester.

 

This was Alamy`s ( speedy) reply:

 

"Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched for e.g. “Manchester Airport” will still show up for “Manchester” and “Airport” searches so there is no need keep including “Manchester Airport” in all your supertags but it won’t harm the position of your images if you do."

 

 

Joe

 

 

That's interesting. In their blog on tagging, Alamy say:

 

Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched for e.g. “Banff National Park” will still show up for “banff”,”national park” and “park” searches. This also means that “Rhinoceros Beetle” will show up in “Rhinoceros” searches, but the search engine tries to make sure that the beetle image does not appear too high up.

 

So if you just have the tag "Manchester Airport" and someone searches for "Manchester", then your image would be returned amongst the results. However if the "Rhinoceros" example in Alamy's blog is correct, your image would be seen lower down in the results than other images which simply had the tag "Manchester". Equally if someone searched for "Airport" then going by the "Rhinoceros" example, your image would be seen behind images which just had the tag "Airport". But if some one searches for "Manchester Airport", I would expect your image to be near the top... this is how I read Alamy's blog anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Maybe it's not a good idea to repeat phrases (or single words) in supertags -- e.g. the repetition of “Cape Town” in “Cape Town Waterfront”, “Cape Town South Africa”,  “Cape Town sunset” etc. might be driving images to the bottom of the pile. Didn't Alamy suggest as much in its recent "best practices" blog post? Or perhaps I misunderstood something. Admittedly, this stuff is a mystery to me.

 

FWIW I redid all my Montreal images using the new MI last week, and I tried to repeat "Montreal" as little as possible in supertags (for any one image). These images are now doing very well in search results. Mind you, they weren't doing badly before I made the changes. Plus they aren't new images...

 

I emailed Alamy asking wether repeating a word within a tag/supertag phrase demotes the image. I have a few images of Manchester Airport and used tags "Manchester Airport"

"Manchester Airport Terminal"... and a couple of other tags containing Manchester.

 

This was Alamy`s ( speedy) reply:

 

"Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched for e.g. “Manchester Airport” will still show up for “Manchester” and “Airport” searches so there is no need keep including “Manchester Airport” in all your supertags but it won’t harm the position of your images if you do."

 

 

Joe

 

 

That's interesting. In their blog on tagging, Alamy say:

 

Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched for e.g. “Banff National Park” will still show up for “banff”,”national park” and “park” searches. This also means that “Rhinoceros Beetle” will show up in “Rhinoceros” searches, but the search engine tries to make sure that the beetle image does not appear too high up.

 

So if you just have the tag "Manchester Airport" and someone searches for "Manchester", then your image would be returned amongst the results. However if the "Rhinoceros" example in Alamy's blog is correct, your image would be seen lower down in the results than other images which simply had the tag "Manchester". Equally if someone searched for "Airport" then going by the "Rhinoceros" example, your image would be seen behind images which just had the tag "Airport". But if some one searches for "Manchester Airport", I would expect your image to be near the top... this is how I read Alamy's blog anyway

 

 

The problem, in addition to the inconsistencies in Alamy's guidance, is that neither of this is true!  Neither having a supertag "Manchester Airport" bring the image higher up than the one that has "Manchester" and "Airport" as two separate tags nor repeating a word in a supertag not having an affect on position in searches.  The sad part is that rather than getting a helpful response from Alamy when sending them an e-mail about this, you get "we can't reveal the search engine algorithm".

Edited by tarsierspectral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Maybe it's not a good idea to repeat phrases (or single words) in supertags -- e.g. the repetition of “Cape Town” in “Cape Town Waterfront”, “Cape Town South Africa”,  “Cape Town sunset” etc. might be driving images to the bottom of the pile. Didn't Alamy suggest as much in its recent "best practices" blog post? Or perhaps I misunderstood something. Admittedly, this stuff is a mystery to me.

 

FWIW I redid all my Montreal images using the new MI last week, and I tried to repeat "Montreal" as little as possible in supertags (for any one image). These images are now doing very well in search results. Mind you, they weren't doing badly before I made the changes. Plus they aren't new images...

 

I emailed Alamy asking wether repeating a word within a tag/supertag phrase demotes the image. I have a few images of Manchester Airport and used tags "Manchester Airport"

"Manchester Airport Terminal"... and a couple of other tags containing Manchester.

 

This was Alamy`s ( speedy) reply:

 

"Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched for e.g. “Manchester Airport” will still show up for “Manchester” and “Airport” searches so there is no need keep including “Manchester Airport” in all your supertags but it won’t harm the position of your images if you do."

 

 

Joe

 

 

That's interesting. In their blog on tagging, Alamy say:

 

Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched for e.g. “Banff National Park” will still show up for “banff”,”national park” and “park” searches. This also means that “Rhinoceros Beetle” will show up in “Rhinoceros” searches, but the search engine tries to make sure that the beetle image does not appear too high up.

 

So if you just have the tag "Manchester Airport" and someone searches for "Manchester", then your image would be returned amongst the results. However if the "Rhinoceros" example in Alamy's blog is correct, your image would be seen lower down in the results than other images which simply had the tag "Manchester". Equally if someone searched for "Airport" then going by the "Rhinoceros" example, your image would be seen behind images which just had the tag "Airport". But if some one searches for "Manchester Airport", I would expect your image to be near the top... this is how I read Alamy's blog anyway

 

 

The problem, in addition to the inconsistencies in Alamy's guidance, is that neither of this is true!  Neither having a supertag "Manchester Airport" bring the image higher up than the one that has "Manchester" and "Airport" as two separate tags nor repeating a word in a supertag not having an affect on position in searches.  The sad part is that rather than getting a helpful response from Alamy when sending them an e-mail about this, you get "we can't reveal the search engine algorithm".

 

 

If you have both words, "Manchester" and "airport" as supertags, that is the same as having one supertag "manchester airport" as all supertags have equal weight. But, if "manchester" was a supertag but "airport" was not, then it would make a difference, as those with both words as supertags would get a higher ranking generally, not taking into account a photographers personal rank.  As well, if you had "manchester airport" as a supertag but didn't have "manchester" or "airport" as single tags then if someone just searched "manchster" then your double word supertag would get a lower ranking than someone who had "manchester" as a single supertag. This going by Alamy's example of "Rhinoceros Beetle".

 

Jill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense to me. The only reason for having a two-word supertag is to conserve tag space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Maybe it's not a good idea to repeat phrases (or single words) in supertags -- e.g. the repetition of “Cape Town” in “Cape Town Waterfront”, “Cape Town South Africa”,  “Cape Town sunset” etc. might be driving images to the bottom of the pile. Didn't Alamy suggest as much in its recent "best practices" blog post? Or perhaps I misunderstood something. Admittedly, this stuff is a mystery to me.

 

FWIW I redid all my Montreal images using the new MI last week, and I tried to repeat "Montreal" as little as possible in supertags (for any one image). These images are now doing very well in search results. Mind you, they weren't doing badly before I made the changes. Plus they aren't new images...

 

I emailed Alamy asking wether repeating a word within a tag/supertag phrase demotes the image. I have a few images of Manchester Airport and used tags "Manchester Airport"

"Manchester Airport Terminal"... and a couple of other tags containing Manchester.

 

This was Alamy`s ( speedy) reply:

 

"Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched for e.g. “Manchester Airport” will still show up for “Manchester” and “Airport” searches so there is no need keep including “Manchester Airport” in all your supertags but it won’t harm the position of your images if you do."

 

 

Joe

 

 

That's interesting. In their blog on tagging, Alamy say:

 

Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched for e.g. “Banff National Park” will still show up for “banff”,”national park” and “park” searches. This also means that “Rhinoceros Beetle” will show up in “Rhinoceros” searches, but the search engine tries to make sure that the beetle image does not appear too high up.

 

So if you just have the tag "Manchester Airport" and someone searches for "Manchester", then your image would be returned amongst the results. However if the "Rhinoceros" example in Alamy's blog is correct, your image would be seen lower down in the results than other images which simply had the tag "Manchester". Equally if someone searched for "Airport" then going by the "Rhinoceros" example, your image would be seen behind images which just had the tag "Airport". But if some one searches for "Manchester Airport", I would expect your image to be near the top... this is how I read Alamy's blog anyway

 

 

The problem, in addition to the inconsistencies in Alamy's guidance, is that neither of this is true!  Neither having a supertag "Manchester Airport" bring the image higher up than the one that has "Manchester" and "Airport" as two separate tags nor repeating a word in a supertag not having an affect on position in searches.  The sad part is that rather than getting a helpful response from Alamy when sending them an e-mail about this, you get "we can't reveal the search engine algorithm".

 

 

If you have both words, "Manchester" and "airport" as supertags, that is the same as having one supertag "manchester airport" as all supertags have equal weight. But, if "manchester" was a supertag but "airport" was not, then it would make a difference, as those with both words as supertags would get a higher ranking generally, not taking into account a photographers personal rank.  As well, if you had "manchester airport" as a supertag but didn't have "manchester" or "airport" as single tags then if someone just searched "manchster" then your double word supertag would get a lower ranking than someone who had "manchester" as a single supertag. This going by Alamy's example of "Rhinoceros Beetle".

 

Jill

 

 

Yes.. I think we understand the logic the same and argue the same point... as described in the blog. But this does seem inconsistent with the response that Joe got from Alamy when they said, "but it won’t harm the position of your images if you do".

Personally I have always tended to cover my bases (always done this) and would put "Manchester", "Airport" and "Manchester Airport" all as supertags (unless I needed to free up a supertag for a different word.phrase)... but that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Maybe it's not a good idea to repeat phrases (or single words) in supertags -- e.g. the repetition of “Cape Town” in “Cape Town Waterfront”, “Cape Town South Africa”,  “Cape Town sunset” etc. might be driving images to the bottom of the pile. Didn't Alamy suggest as much in its recent "best practices" blog post? Or perhaps I misunderstood something. Admittedly, this stuff is a mystery to me.

 

FWIW I redid all my Montreal images using the new MI last week, and I tried to repeat "Montreal" as little as possible in supertags (for any one image). These images are now doing very well in search results. Mind you, they weren't doing badly before I made the changes. Plus they aren't new images...

 

I emailed Alamy asking wether repeating a word within a tag/supertag phrase demotes the image. I have a few images of Manchester Airport and used tags "Manchester Airport"

"Manchester Airport Terminal"... and a couple of other tags containing Manchester.

 

This was Alamy`s ( speedy) reply:

 

"Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched for e.g. “Manchester Airport” will still show up for “Manchester” and “Airport” searches so there is no need keep including “Manchester Airport” in all your supertags but it won’t harm the position of your images if you do."

 

 

Joe

 

 

That's interesting. In their blog on tagging, Alamy say:

 

Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched for e.g. “Banff National Park” will still show up for “banff”,”national park” and “park” searches. This also means that “Rhinoceros Beetle” will show up in “Rhinoceros” searches, but the search engine tries to make sure that the beetle image does not appear too high up.

 

So if you just have the tag "Manchester Airport" and someone searches for "Manchester", then your image would be returned amongst the results. However if the "Rhinoceros" example in Alamy's blog is correct, your image would be seen lower down in the results than other images which simply had the tag "Manchester". Equally if someone searched for "Airport" then going by the "Rhinoceros" example, your image would be seen behind images which just had the tag "Airport". But if some one searches for "Manchester Airport", I would expect your image to be near the top... this is how I read Alamy's blog anyway

 

 

The problem, in addition to the inconsistencies in Alamy's guidance, is that neither of this is true!  Neither having a supertag "Manchester Airport" bring the image higher up than the one that has "Manchester" and "Airport" as two separate tags nor repeating a word in a supertag not having an affect on position in searches.  The sad part is that rather than getting a helpful response from Alamy when sending them an e-mail about this, you get "we can't reveal the search engine algorithm".

 

 

If you have both words, "Manchester" and "airport" as supertags, that is the same as having one supertag "manchester airport" as all supertags have equal weight. But, if "manchester" was a supertag but "airport" was not, then it would make a difference, as those with both words as supertags would get a higher ranking generally, not taking into account a photographers personal rank.  As well, if you had "manchester airport" as a supertag but didn't have "manchester" or "airport" as single tags then if someone just searched "manchster" then your double word supertag would get a lower ranking than someone who had "manchester" as a single supertag. This going by Alamy's example of "Rhinoceros Beetle".

 

Jill

 

 

So it's necessary to repeat tags.  If I have a supertag "Manchester street", I still want my image of Manchester street to be placed as high as possible for searches for "Manchester", no?  Then I might as well not have a supertag "Manchester street" but separate the words into two separate tags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Maybe it's not a good idea to repeat phrases (or single words) in supertags -- e.g. the repetition of “Cape Town” in “Cape Town Waterfront”, “Cape Town South Africa”,  “Cape Town sunset” etc. might be driving images to the bottom of the pile. Didn't Alamy suggest as much in its recent "best practices" blog post? Or perhaps I misunderstood something. Admittedly, this stuff is a mystery to me.

 

FWIW I redid all my Montreal images using the new MI last week, and I tried to repeat "Montreal" as little as possible in supertags (for any one image). These images are now doing very well in search results. Mind you, they weren't doing badly before I made the changes. Plus they aren't new images...

 

I emailed Alamy asking wether repeating a word within a tag/supertag phrase demotes the image. I have a few images of Manchester Airport and used tags "Manchester Airport"

"Manchester Airport Terminal"... and a couple of other tags containing Manchester.

 

This was Alamy`s ( speedy) reply:

 

"Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched for e.g. “Manchester Airport” will still show up for “Manchester” and “Airport” searches so there is no need keep including “Manchester Airport” in all your supertags but it won’t harm the position of your images if you do."

 

 

Joe

 

 

That's interesting. In their blog on tagging, Alamy say:

 

Our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag from being searched for e.g. “Banff National Park” will still show up for “banff”,”national park” and “park” searches. This also means that “Rhinoceros Beetle” will show up in “Rhinoceros” searches, but the search engine tries to make sure that the beetle image does not appear too high up.

 

So if you just have the tag "Manchester Airport" and someone searches for "Manchester", then your image would be returned amongst the results. However if the "Rhinoceros" example in Alamy's blog is correct, your image would be seen lower down in the results than other images which simply had the tag "Manchester". Equally if someone searched for "Airport" then going by the "Rhinoceros" example, your image would be seen behind images which just had the tag "Airport". But if some one searches for "Manchester Airport", I would expect your image to be near the top... this is how I read Alamy's blog anyway

 

 

The problem, in addition to the inconsistencies in Alamy's guidance, is that neither of this is true!  Neither having a supertag "Manchester Airport" bring the image higher up than the one that has "Manchester" and "Airport" as two separate tags nor repeating a word in a supertag not having an affect on position in searches.  The sad part is that rather than getting a helpful response from Alamy when sending them an e-mail about this, you get "we can't reveal the search engine algorithm".

 

 

If you have both words, "Manchester" and "airport" as supertags, that is the same as having one supertag "manchester airport" as all supertags have equal weight. 

 

Not sure I agree with that interpretation. If the user searches for manchester airport, images with a supertag of "manchester airport" should appear before images with separate supertags of manchester and airport. That's assuming all other factors rank, etc. are the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They all have equal weight whether one tag or two tags, but generally if I need a lot of supertags for an image, I'm probably not going to waste one on such a generic search as "manchester" unless it is a cityscape type image and doesn't have a specific subject. I would rank my tags as the most likely searches an editor would use to find my images.  You can't cover all bases in your supertags. You'll go nuts trying.

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received an initial answer from CR after my e-mail to them which is as follows:

 

 

"Where images appear in a search result is down to a number of different things and we will not be able to go into specific details about the ins and outs of how each element works.

 

The only thing we can recommend you do is simply to keyword and caption accurately. We cannot give contributors the search algorithm and our aim is to ensure that photographers who take good relevant pictures, who use the correct metadata, and whose images sell well see their pictures get to the top of the results.

 

Regarding your 3rd point, our tagging system does not exclude constituent words of a tag or supertag from being searched for e.g. “Cape town airport” will still show up for “Cape town” and “airport” but the search engine tries to make sure that the most relevant images show higher up. You can read more about how tagging works in our recent blog post"

 

It does not answer the point I made in my original post/e-mail so I have replied to their e-mail re-iterating my questions as follows:

 

Thank you for your answer – I am not asking for the search algorithm –

 

But your answer does not explain the points I made ie:

 

1. In a search for “Cape Town” my images which are NOT supertagged with “Cape Town” come more highly placed than all my images which are supertagged with “Cape Town”, so the search engine is specifically NOT ensuring that “the most relevant images show higher up”

2. More recently keyworded images are appearing lower in the search than previously keyworded images

3. Images keyworded under the old MI appear consistently higher up in searches than more recent images keyworded with the new MI

 

I sell about 70-80 images per month through Alamy – I don’t sell my images anywhere else, and I do know how to keyword and caption accurately

 

Please read the blog thread and you will see this is a widespread problem.

 

Please could you answer these specific points?

 

 

Kumar

 

My answer that I got from my second e mail is as follows:

 

""Hi Kumar

 

My answer didn’t explain the points you made as this would require giving you specific information about the search engine.

 

It is not just your tags and supertags that decide where your images are placed in a search result and the system doesn’t favour images that were keyworded in the old system over ones in the new system""

 

 

So no nearer an explanation or admission that there are any problems

 

Kumar

Edited by Doc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder whether the search engine is simply not picking up super tags properly - ie just treating them as ordinary tags? It might explain why many of us are finding that newly key worded submissions are appearing rather lower down in searches than older images?

 

I am aware that there have been some contributors who have felt that a super tagged image has been highly placed in searches - would someone be willing to (temporarily) make that tag an ordinary tag rather than a super tag and then see after a day or do if it's made any difference to it's search position?

(And let us know!!)

 

Kumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder whether the search engine is simply not picking up super tags properly - ie just treating them as ordinary tags? It might explain why many of us are finding that newly key worded submissions are appearing rather lower down in searches than older images?

 

I am aware that there have been some contributors who have felt that a super tagged image has been highly placed in searches - would someone be willing to (temporarily) make that tag an ordinary tag rather than a super tag and then see after a day or do if it's made any difference to it's search position?

(And let us know!!)

 

Kumar

 

Hi Doc,

 

I have edited my image HF9KRT and given it an an ordinary tag for the search term santa face. I will give it a couple of days for the system to update and compare the previous result.

 

 

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you decide to do with legacy images, work on them or leave them alone, I suggest you try to at least take a look at what you consider your best images.

On quite a few of mine, I found as many as 5 or 6 unrelated tags mushed into one box. Last evening, the bulk of tags in one image had two of these multiple-tag boxes. We can't enter that many keywords in a phrase ourselves! The s sometimes had been removed from plurals and in its own box. Some tags with commas showing, some with one quote at the backend along with a single bracket in others.

 

I feel I must fix these images, at least my best ones, sooner rather than later.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tags, keywords, this and that. I mean seriously! does anybody really think it matters as far as sales here? I dont! I think we are given the run around, getting us at it so to speak. Think about it not even the psychomatical egotistical big-G makes such a palava, paraphernailia about this BUT! by the look of it, keeps many people here on their toes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does anybody really think it matters as far as sales here?

 Yes, definitely.  My sales are way down.

With tanking views and zooms, what did you think would happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder whether the search engine is simply not picking up super tags properly - ie just treating them as ordinary tags? It might explain why many of us are finding that newly key worded submissions are appearing rather lower down in searches than older images?

 

I am aware that there have been some contributors who have felt that a super tagged image has been highly placed in searches - would someone be willing to (temporarily) make that tag an ordinary tag rather than a super tag and then see after a day or do if it's made any difference to it's search position?

(And let us know!!)

 

Kumar

 

Hi Kumar

 

First may i thank you for all your research secondly I had 2 images go on sale today and they appeared higher up in a collection of 52 of a particular subject so is it different folks different strokes . 

I think its to early to tell but the new AIM and search algorithm don't seem to be working in a consistent way.

 

Regards

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just wonder whether the search engine is simply not picking up super tags properly - ie just treating them as ordinary tags? It might explain why many of us are finding that newly key worded submissions are appearing rather lower down in searches than older images?

I am aware that there have been some contributors who have felt that a super tagged image has been highly placed in searches - would someone be willing to (temporarily) make that tag an ordinary tag rather than a super tag and then see after a day or do if it's made any difference to it's search position?

(And let us know!!)

Kumar

 

 

Hi Kumar

 

First may i thank you for all your research secondly I had 2 images go on sale today and they appeared higher up in a collection of 52 of a particular subject so is it different folks different strokes . 

I think its to early to tell but the new AIM and search algorithm don't seem to be working in a consistent way.

 

Regards

 

Jon

Hi Jon! Thanks for that - at present I am in India trying to see tigers in the wild (and photograph them) so I am taking funkyworm's excellent advice and taking photos rather than messing around with the new IM and search engine!

Wi Fi and Internet very irregular and unreliable here :)

 

Kumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget Kumar if a Tiger chases you you don't need to out run the Tiger only the person next to you.

 

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I just wonder whether the search engine is simply not picking up super tags properly - ie just treating them as ordinary tags? It might explain why many of us are finding that newly key worded submissions are appearing rather lower down in searches than older images?

I am aware that there have been some contributors who have felt that a super tagged image has been highly placed in searches - would someone be willing to (temporarily) make that tag an ordinary tag rather than a super tag and then see after a day or do if it's made any difference to it's search position?

(And let us know!!)

Kumar

 

Hi Kumar

 

First may i thank you for all your research secondly I had 2 images go on sale today and they appeared higher up in a collection of 52 of a particular subject so is it different folks different strokes . 

I think its to early to tell but the new AIM and search algorithm don't seem to be working in a consistent way.

 

Regards

 

Jon

Hi Jon! Thanks for that - at present I am in India trying to see tigers in the wild (and photograph them) so I am taking funkyworm's excellent advice and taking photos rather than messing around with the new IM and search engine!

Wi Fi and Internet very irregular and unreliable here :)

 

Kumar

 

 

Oh, Kumar, how exciting. In April I will be in Bandhavgarh National Park doing the same thing. I hope you have good fortune with the beautiful beasts. Don't run. It triggers the chase instinct. Of course, you know that. And if you run, run with a slow person, as Jon said.

 

Paulette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I just wonder whether the search engine is simply not picking up super tags properly - ie just treating them as ordinary tags? It might explain why many of us are finding that newly key worded submissions are appearing rather lower down in searches than older images?

I am aware that there have been some contributors who have felt that a super tagged image has been highly placed in searches - would someone be willing to (temporarily) make that tag an ordinary tag rather than a super tag and then see after a day or do if it's made any difference to it's search position?

(And let us know!!)

Kumar

 

Hi Kumar

 

First may i thank you for all your research secondly I had 2 images go on sale today and they appeared higher up in a collection of 52 of a particular subject so is it different folks different strokes . 

I think its to early to tell but the new AIM and search algorithm don't seem to be working in a consistent way.

 

Regards

 

Jon

Hi Jon! Thanks for that - at present I am in India trying to see tigers in the wild (and photograph them) so I am taking funkyworm's excellent advice and taking photos rather than messing around with the new IM and search engine!

Wi Fi and Internet very irregular and unreliable here :)

 

Kumar

 

 

Oh, Kumar, how exciting. In April I will be in Bandhavgarh National Park doing the same thing. I hope you have good fortune with the beautiful beasts. Don't run. It triggers the chase instinct. Of course, you know that. And if you run, run with a slow person, as Jon said.

 

Paulette

 

 

Or run really, really fast so you can reach the fence and jump over it.  The tiger won't jump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread will probably resurrect an old repeated nightmare that I had most nights with my last pregnancy years ago. Lion, tiger, panther, puma, any of these, would chase me through a crowd, or be jumping on me from a high place. Right before impact, I'd wake up with an enormous jump, with my heart pounding.

I told my husband once that if I ever died in my sleep, it would be from a nightmare-induced heart attack.

Or...the cat finally ripped my throat open in the dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just wonder whether the search engine is simply not picking up super tags properly - ie just treating them as ordinary tags? It might explain why many of us are finding that newly key worded submissions are appearing rather lower down in searches than older images?

 

I am aware that there have been some contributors who have felt that a super tagged image has been highly placed in searches - would someone be willing to (temporarily) make that tag an ordinary tag rather than a super tag and then see after a day or do if it's made any difference to it's search position?

(And let us know!!)

 

Kumar

Hi Doc,

 

I have edited my image HF9KRT and given it an an ordinary tag for the search term santa face. I will give it a couple of days for the system to update and compare the previous result.

 

 

Craig

Hi Craig - what did you find when you did this?

 

Cheers

Kumar

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.