Ace Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 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 More sharing options...
gvallee Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 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 More sharing options...
Ace Posted February 23, 2017 Author Share Posted February 23, 2017 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 More sharing options...
gvallee Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 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 More sharing options...
ReeRay Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Are you sure you didn't search "ON" Avon ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted February 23, 2017 Author Share Posted February 23, 2017 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 More sharing options...
Jon Lewis Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Hi Ace Stratford on Avon = Tesco Stratford upon Avon = no Tesco. Could change as the elves push buttons . Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvallee Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 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 More sharing options...
Ace Posted February 23, 2017 Author Share Posted February 23, 2017 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. Geoff. This is my point Geoff, it doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Chriss Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 I was tagging an image yesterday and the last thing I did was add the caption. The bar turned from orange to green. Leading me to conclusion that the caption is extremely important. Will it stay that way or change that is the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 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? wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvallee Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 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? wim 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 More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 Well they all have the exact same set of keywords, no matter what the subject or when it was taken. The caption is the only relevant set of words. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 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. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.