Jump to content

New search engine issues ?

Recommended Posts

Working from a tablet so cannot post a picture.


Just searched for Stratford upon Avon

Obviously search turned up 1,000's.

No problem there.

But on page 1 there is a photograph of a Tesco store frontage.

Stratford upon Avon mentioned in caption and location.

But no mention of Stratford upon Avon in field description


Something can't be right here ?


Also searched for 'Terminal 21 bangkok Thailand'

End up with photographs of airport runways, aeroplane wings etc

(Due to the word TERMINAL I know)

However that was not what was searched for by me !


I have found 20/30 other situations +++++


Somethings gone wrong somewhere ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very strange. Unless I have gone blind, which is quite possible with the new AIM, I do not see any Tesco store on the first page for Stratford upon Avon. That's 120 images per page, either relevant or creative.


Also for 'Terminal 21 shopping centre bangkok Thailand', I get 59 relevant pictures. No planes or runway.


What gives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I searched for terminal 21 bangkok (not shopping )

Wings , planes etc still there.


Also have searched for Stratford upon Avon again.

now on 2nd page along with currys, tescos, and staples.

no mention in any keywords of Stratford upon Avon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I searched for terminal 21 bangkok


Sorry, my bad.


The Bangkok results cannot be avoided as the caption is "Aircraft prepare to take off at Don Mueang international airport on January 21, 2016 in Bangkok, Thailand." 'Terminal' is in the keywords. Hence Terminal, 21, Bangkok are all there.


I'm puzzled by the Stratford upon Avon results though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Reeray. No full title.

I guess my point is when I used to type in these two sets of descriptions,

I could usually find my photos on page one.

Now they are heavily relagated behind airport terminals and Staples.

Not to worry !

Cant just be me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see Homebase and Staples on page 2 for Stratford upon Avon.


"Stratford upon Avon" is in the caption, which is rumoured to have the heaviest weight in the new search engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Stratford upon Avon is in the caption, those images will have greater priority than those with the same words as tags or supertags. It's crazy and wrong, but that's the way it is at the moment.



This is my point Geoff, it doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just searched Tomtom Amsterdam.

Among 130 images were these 109 and these 3 without tomtom in caption or the (many different) keywords.


Any thoughts?




The only thing I can think of is that not all keywords/tags are displayed. It has been mentioned and I have seen it for myself. No idea why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the common idea is that we are not seeing all keywords on the client's side?


In my images Tomtom or TomTom appears as tom.

But in those 112 even tom is missing.


We have seen all these keywords before, so it's not a wide-spread problem I think as this single case pops up again and again.

I am not for a public place to report problems.

However a simple complaint button with a form that gets send to the contributor and to member services would be nice. Maybe even generating a sort of CTR for complaints.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem peculiar to have a stringent QC system which checks image quality, whereas keywording appears unregulated (in fact the latest discoverability rating actively encourages bad keywording). It must give a very mixed experience to customers. Come to Alamy where you can be sure that images comply with high technical standards, but you may have to wade through lots of irrelevant images to find the ones you want...


Previously CTR/contributor rank was providing some control by penalising those who keyword spammed. But, at the moment, that mechanism seems to be broken.


I like the idea of a report keyword spamming/inaccuracy button, and the idea that very guilty contributors (i.e. bulk offenders) are penalised in some way - e.g. images temporarily excluded from search results until it's fixed, or maybe offending images are deleted (there are way too many images on Alamy anyway).   

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.