Re - think keyword (tags) approach

[Trevor Chriss]

My last few uploads I have added my tags via Bridge, as so may of you seem to do. I previously did all my keywording after QC but it seemed with the new IM this might be a quicker, more streamlined approach.

 

I was so wrong the system seems to be screwing up the process and it is taking me longer to sort out than my previous way of working.

Words are being truncated and/or duplicated. I sent Alamy an e-mail and as yet no reply.

 

My last batch contained pairs of images with the same tags. When I shuffle between both images different numbers of tags are shown. Simple, tick both and find the greyed out ones. That does not seem to work on all the duplicated ones. So I have had to select each image separately, deleting each tag as required. So I have to still spend time on each image individually checking through each tag making sure the ones I wanted are there and not duplicated.  I hope this makes sense

 

As this way of working is new to me I am wondering if anybody else is having these difficulties. I do like the fact that the images are tagged, although as I mostly only use Alamy it is not too much of a problem if they are not. I have some images elsewhere and I have just copy and pasted from Alamy, having the tags embedded would make it easier, obviously.

 

 

 

 

[Phil Robinson]

I've never had these problems, though other people have reported similar. I do my keywording in Nikon ViewNX and they transfer fine for me.

[Jill Morgan]

I use Bridge and haven't had any problems.

 

Jill

[vpics]

I only get occasional problems. 

 

Do you use commas or semis?

[Trevor Chriss]

I use commas.

[Trevor Chriss]

Since many others have mentioned using Bridge, I plan to try that myself. I've got it installed ready but haven't taken the plunge yet. I was waiting for things to settle down regarding the order of tags, as I know some had issues with that when using Bridge. I'm getting more problems with tag order now though than I used to when tagging using the new IM, so I may as well try Bridge and see how well it works.

 

Geoff.

 

I must say that the tag order seems to be fine, it is just this annoying habit of duplicating some words.

 

Despite pairs of images with the same tags there are a different number in each in some cases.

I guess it must be me, although the keywords in Bridge look good. Something weird must occur during upload I suppose.

[ReeRay]

 

Since many others have mentioned using Bridge, I plan to try that myself. I've got it installed ready but haven't taken the plunge yet. I was waiting for things to settle down regarding the order of tags, as I know some had issues with that when using Bridge. I'm getting more problems with tag order now though than I used to when tagging using the new IM, so I may as well try Bridge and see how well it works.

 

Geoff.

 

 

I must say that the tag order seems to be fine, it is just this annoying habit of duplicating some words.

 

Despite pairs of images with the same tags there are a different number in each in some cases.

I guess it must be me, although the keywords in Bridge look good. Something weird must occur during upload I suppose.

It's not just you as it happens to me also. As you state, it's not all the time, seemingly only when a lot of tags are applied. I too experience a difference in tag count across files. Bit of a PITA but easy enough to correct.

[Trevor Chriss]

I am a newbie myself, received a lot of help here. though.

Happy to help if I can.

[Trevor Chriss]

Bit of a PITA but easy enough to correct.

 

I agree but   

[Ollie]

I keyword in Lightroom and have noticed no problem.  It took me awhile to realize that if I'm selecting supertags for a batch of images the counter will show ten supertags if any one of the batch has reached that number, even if others have not.  So you could be looking at an image that highlights seven supertags but shows the number 10/10.  This prevents you from adding more supertags until you have identified the image which already has ten, and then remove it from the batch. 

[Trevor Chriss]

I keyword in Lightroom and have noticed no problem.  It took me awhile to realize that if I'm selecting supertags for a batch of images the counter will show ten supertags if any one of the batch has reached that number, even if others have not.  So you could be looking at an image that highlights seven supertags but shows the number 10/10.  This prevents you from adding more supertags until you have identified the image which already has ten, and then remove it from the batch. 

Thanks,

 

Yes I appreciate that, same as if there are more than 50 tags it shows 50/50. You just have to keep deleting until you reach the right number and not get rid of useful tags.

 

The trouble with LR, I understand is that they are added alphabetically. Which if we assume sort order is important means tags might not be in the right order for the system. But this is all conjecture as none of use are certain how the system is working, or if it is working correctly yet. I continue to work on the assumption that it will work as stated, eventually.

 

Glass half full!!!

[Bill Brooks]

Bridge will force the following (Keyword1; Keyword2; Keyword3).

 

If you paste the following string into Bridge keywords space (Keyword1,Keyword2,Keyword3) in a split second it will become (Keyword1; Keyword2; Keyword3) There is nothing you can do about it.

 

If you want to control the word order, keyword in Bridge getting (Keyword1; Keyword2; Keyword3). Then cut and paste the string from Bridge into a word processor and change the order to (Keyword2; Keyword1; Keyword3). Paste back into Bridge and it will retain the word order (Keyword2; Keyword1; Keyword3).

 

The big mistake is that in all the cutting and pasting and order changing you drop a space or a ; resulting in corrupted tags in Alamy image manager.

 

If you keyword a file (Keyword1; Keyword2; Keyword3) in Bridge the Apple OS search will see the keywords in the file as (Keyword1, Keyword2, Keyword3). The Apple search still works fine. The ; and , seem to be interchangeable.

[Trevor Chriss]

Hi Bill

 

I do not have a problem with the way Bridge is handling things. So far I have been creating keywords mostly in Word, rearranging them in the order I require with commas. I then copy and paste into Bridge. All good.

 

The problem is what is happening during upload, it appears to be another IM teething problem, as words are being duplicated and cut short. As ReeRay says fairly simple to sort out but a pain in the butt.

It is worse if the same tags are applied to more than one image, as it seems to affect images differently, so impossible to batch amend each one has to be looked at separately slowing the whole process down.

 

OK enough of me whingeing thank you all for your replies. Looks like it is just ReeRay who has experienced similar problems, let's watch and wait.

[ReeRay]

@Trevor.

 

What you'll find is if you select all the images as a batch (assuming all have the same tags) and then apply the supertags, after saving, all the duplicates are removed and only the relevant tags are left.

[Trevor Chriss]

Ahhh, I will try that, thanks.

[tarsierspectral]

@Trevor.

 

What you'll find is if you select all the images as a batch (assuming all have the same tags) and then apply the supertags, after saving, all the duplicates are removed and only the relevant tags are left.

 

I thought Alamy said that that's not true

[chrumu]

 

Order isn't important, but proximity is.

 

So for a search of "mallard duck", tags in this order...

 

mallard, duck

 

...give higher images placement than tags in this order...

 

duck, mallard

 

 

 

Geoff.

 

 

 

If only proximity is important, but not order, then your example doesn't make sense. 

 

mallard, duck and duck, mallard have the same proximity, just the order is different. They should both result in the same search results (unless order matters after all, or the higher listed search results have a multi word tag mallard duck).

 

 

Christoph

[chrumu]

 

 

If only proximity is important, but not order, then your example doesn't make sense. 

 

mallard, duck and duck, mallard have the same proximity, just the order is different. They should both result in the same search results (unless order matters after all, or the higher listed search results have a multi word tag mallard duck).

 

 

Christoph

 

 

 

Proximity and the order of just those 2 words matters. What I mean is that you could have 20 tags first, then the last 2 could be mallard, then duck. That would give the same results as having mallard, duck as the first 2 tags, than 20 more.

 

However, duck then mallard would not give the same results whether those words were the first or last tags in the list.

 

Geoff.

 

 

 

Is there any statement of Alamy backing what you're saying?

 

 

I only remember "order doesn't matter".

[chrumu]

 

Is there any statement of Alamy backing what you're saying?

 

 

I only remember "order doesn't matter".

 

 

Experience and a lot of time testing is how I know. I wouldn't write these things if I didn't know them to be factual.

 

However, if you need it backed up, take a look through the last page of this thread with quotes from Alamy. Do a page search on the word "order"...

 

http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/7101-new-image-manager-quotes-direct-from-alamy-only/

 

 

 

 

I reread the thread you were pointing at but still can't find any Alamy statement on this.

[chrumu]

Just one of the quotes that answers this from that thread...

 

-----------------

The order isn’t as important as the proximity; for example if you had an image of New York City, and tagging it with Beautiful, Streets, People, Metropolitan, however you ordered your tags, you would want New, York, and City to be next to each other within the tags, to make sure the image is optimally searchable;

NOT New, Beautiful, City, Streets, People, York, Metropolian

BUT Beautiful, Streets, New, York, City, Metropolitan, People

 

Ideally you would make New York City a Supertag Phrase.

----------------

 

 

 

Obviously we're interpreting this differently. All I see is the recommendation to place the words "next to each other within the tags", i.e., proximity, not order (to my understanding)

 

Of course I wouldn't tag York, New on purpose, but if order doesn't matter, then there's no necessity to change this if it happens when adding tags, since you can't reorder them except by removing and re-adding them. Quite annoying, so if it is not necessary, I prefer to skip it. This is why it is important to me if the order is relevant or not.

[Betty LaRue]

Sometimes if the words are supertags, you can deselect them, then select them again in proper order. Just today I was working on legacy images. Many of the tags were scrambled from the way I entered them in Bridge, then they were still in order in the old MI.

 

Now they are out of order.

So I had U.S. Virgin Islands as a phrase, then a bunch of other keywords, then St. Croix. Once upon a time, they were together, led by St. Croix.

 

I made St. Croix a supertag, then made U.S. Virgin Islands the next super tag. They fell together in the right order after saving.

It hasn't worked every single time. Just usually.

What I haven't tried is this.

Sky, blue, = out of order. You normally would not make these minor tags supertags. But go ahead and do it, choosing "blue" first, then "sky". Save. See if they are in the correct order blue,sky. If so, deselect them as supertags, and see if the order remains. Save.

 

I just thought of this experiment, so have not tested it. Mainly because if two tags are related, I enter them as "blue sky". Every single tag that needs order, I add as a phrase. Just not City/state. Those are like, Oklahoma City,Oklahoma,US,USA, etc. I enter them in order, but my legacy images did not retain that order with the changeover.

All the new ones since the change retain my Bridge order perfectly.

 

Once I get the legacy images fixed, when I'm in the nursing home using a walker, I hope I remember it enough to enjoy it.

 

Betty

[NYCat]

Isn't it a shame that you have to go through all that, Betty, to get them in the correct order? I'm feeling rather impatient. They should fix this aspect, among others.

 

Paulette

[Betty LaRue]

Isn't it a shame that you have to go through all that, Betty, to get them in the correct order? I'm feeling rather impatient. They should fix this aspect, among others.

 

Paulette

WAAAAA! Someone understands!

[Betty LaRue]

3 of my posts in this thread have received red arrows. Yes they're not showing right now as a kind person has cancelled them (thank you). Also no response from who I was helping by providing facts.

 

It's frustrating to spend a long time answering questions, looking stuff up for someone else, proving myself when I shouldn't need to, then getting red arrows for it. 

 

Geoff.

Not me, Geoff. I don't give out reds. I would never do that considering your hard work and sharing.

[chrumu]

3 of my posts in this thread have received red arrows. Yes they're not showing right now as a kind person has cancelled them (thank you). Also no response from who I was helping by providing facts.

 

It's frustrating to spend a long time answering questions, looking stuff up for someone else, proving myself when I shouldn't need to, then getting red arrows for it. 

 

Geoff.

 

 

I assume you meant me when complaining about no response for your "help" and "providing facts". I'm sorry, but you were not helping, and in my opinion you were not providing facts, just general claims like "Experience and a lot of time testing". When I explained how I understand the quote from Alamy differently than you, you ignored it and started talking about multi-word tags, which made absolutely no sense to me, since neither Alamy nor me was mentioning multi-word tags. At this point I decided that continuing that discussion was pointless and stopped replying. But since you apparently longed for a reply, here it is.

 

 

This will most likely be my last statement in this thread.