Rick Lewis Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 This thread has just confirmed that I need to go back through all my images and re-evaluate my captions and tags. I'm about half way through now. I have fewer than 300 images currently but try to submit daily. I don't have much experience with Alamy yet so threads like this are invaluable. I fell for that mass email about "discoverability" a few weeks ago and started blitzing my images with all manner of tags. It has taken a bit of reading on this forum but I have since learned I probably have miss captioned many images, some by omission of key info. I've also learned that marginal keywords are probably not in my best interest. I'm making corrections as I've said. Thanks to all who post here. You all are helping more people than you probably realize, with your discussion on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellonearth Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 43 minutes ago, Rick Lewis said: This thread has just confirmed that I need to go back through all my images and re-evaluate my captions and tags. I'm about half way through now. I have fewer than 300 images currently but try to submit daily. I don't have much experience with Alamy yet so threads like this are invaluable. I fell for that mass email about "discoverability" a few weeks ago and started blitzing my images with all manner of tags. It has taken a bit of reading on this forum but I have since learned I probably have miss captioned many images, some by omission of key info. I've also learned that marginal keywords are probably not in my best interest. I'm making corrections as I've said. Thanks to all who post here. You all are helping more people than you probably realize, with your discussion on this topic. Seconded Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizBrown Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 I've had searches pick up on terms in captions and have changed them to not have the photos come up irrelevantly on searches. When I was considering what to photograph locally, I noticed that "Nicaraguan Sign Language" wasn't represented by anyone using sign, but searches were coming up with Nicaraguan signs. Called an NGO that works with deaf kids and got enough photos to cover the topic. None sold yet. As for people deliberately using incorrect keyboards, I suspect they think that their photos qua photos will be appealing enough to override that the searcher is looking for something more precise. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Carlsson Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 6 minutes ago, arterra said: Just give us - as already frequently asked - an option to report deliberate abuse or totally incapable contributors. Block those from further uploading till they got their stuff sorted. If they don't react, kick them out. Honestly, what's the added value of such ports? Isn't it already bad enough customers have to wade through all those inferior holiday snapshots? It just works on customers' nerves (and mine) to be presented with a lot of TOTALLY irrelevant images. It only hurts Alamy's reputation and when I look at the ports in the "Introductions" forum, I can only state it gets worse and worse since Alamy attracted all those microstockers who haven't got the faintest idea how to caption nor tag (edit to add: nor what to shoot) Cheers, Philippe (and now I need my cappuccino) Harsh, but not entirely wrong. Hopefully AR will punish the worst offenders so to not pester buyers with spammy stuff - that's the idea at least. Perhaps more frequent AR re-ranks? Perhaps at least a keyword reporting function could be implemented - for suggesting removal/addition of keywords, but on the other hand I'm busy enough with my own stuff, but perhaps Alamy could give you some love if you had the ability and energy to do a bit of tidying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 Has Alamy ever punished or demanded and achieved action on such complaints. I don't know, just asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreign Export Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 i think it is deliberate and I've written on the forum previously of examples I've found in australia for example deliberately giving a location as Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane - when obviously a place can't be in all three cities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 I totally agree with the sentiments regarding spamming, but I'm not sure Alamy cares. The whole 'discoverability' thing just encourages people to spam. Then there is still the issue that a file correctly tagged e.g. Joe Bloggs, Jane Doe, London, ... will show up on searches for Joe Doe, Jane Bloggs, Jane London, Joe London, Joe Jane. I thought that had improved considerably around 18 months ago, but it seems to change quite regularly. The AR system is counter to clean searches. That is why a search on Joe Bloggs, if a celeb, will throw up pics of the others, if the person is a celeb shooter and has a high AR. Example: I happened to be somewhere I wasn't expecting to be and had my camera on me, so took pics. When I got home, I decided to search Alamy to see what the competition was like before processing the images. There were hundreds of files, but in the first page of 'relevant' were at least 50 files of a movie which happened to have been shot in that location. There were two large subsets of that with near identical images which could have been photographed in a bare studio, though I don't doubt they were shot in that location, even though it's not remotely obvious. I hardly think that a person searching on that location wanted to see all these tenuous files, or they might have written film, location, or actor, location. Even more concerning, switching to 'new' put these files near the top, though they were shot in 2013, and there have been many added even this year. Looking at the port of the person who had added that large number (and lots more on page 2) seems to specialise in stills from movie shoots, so has loads of celeb shots and presumably a high AR. As I posted in another thread last week, it's hard to believe that Alamy is concerned about any of this. I said I'd forwarded an email from the owners of a particular building saying under no condition would they allow pics of the interior to be used as stock, even editorial, and asking me to contact Alamy to tell them this. Not only are the pics which were up there still up after five years, but more have been added since. I don't believe they had somehow obtained permission, as each contributor only has a very few pics, whereas as I had permission to shoot for a course I was doing, I have over 200 images, all different, and some areas I didn't have time to shoot on the allocated afternoon. If anyone had permission, they'd surely have taken and submitted many more. This is irrelevant to tagging, but it shows how little Alamy is concerned about serious issues brought to their attention by a submitter. Just see that Alamy chooses to have AR trumping 'New' in a search for new. If I were searching for 'new', I'd be expecting to see files recently uploaded, not files which were uploaded in 2013 (assuming newer files were available). Maybe that's just me? For sure, if an agency started up with a focus on clean keywording, I'd be in there like a shot. However, though it would annoy me intensely to have to wade through all the irrelevant stuff, maybe buyers don't actually mind as much as I'd imagine they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colblimp Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 The worst example I've ever seen on Alamy is a picture of the Irish Army captioned and keyworded as the IRA. Scandalous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imageplotter Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 On 27/08/2017 at 18:43, John Mitchell said: I keyword beforehand but always think of additional keywords to add in AIM. In fact, fine-tuning never seems to stop for me. Sometimes I go back to images years later and add new stuff. Yes, same here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreign Export Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 I continue to bring this poor practice to Alamy's attention and they do advise me that they will raise with the contributor I have found a couple of classics this week DYN4JN It is indeed a photograph of Bondi Beach in Sydney However the following keywords are clearly not accurate Kangaroo Manly beach Melbourne - that city is a 1000 kilometres away I do hope that contributors will stop this practice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Try Salt Lake City Skyline. Must be a very successful outfit btw. Maybe this sort of keywording just works? wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreign Export Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 yes that outfit takes the same approach to images taken in Australia heres a recent one - bet you didnt know this was an image of Sydney - JB485G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreign Export Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Here is one of my favourites - obviously the Sydney Opera House has changed shape in 2017 KDF3B9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 The worst keywording and especially captioning I've seen is by said outfit. When you think of a hangover, is this what you imagine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreign Export Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 10 minutes ago, MariaJ said: The worst keywording and especially captioning I've seen is by said outfit. When you think of a hangover, is this what you imagine? not in my wildest dreams nor does it look like a big cat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 It looks a bit like my cat (see photo to the left), which is what got my attention. By the way, does "twit giggle" or "laughing twit" mean something across the pond? I noticed a lot of images, especially with the former term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, MariaJ said: It looks a bit like my cat (see photo to the left), which is what got my attention. By the way, does "twit giggle" or "laughing twit" mean something across the pond? I noticed a lot of images, especially with the former term. I also noticed that every image I looked at including the cat and the twit giggle image plus tons more are all uploaded at historical or reportage. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MircoV Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Just to jump to the discoverability topic. I think it is a good thing. Like that I can check which images I took care of and which not. To have green 40 keywords are enough when other points are filled. Spamming has nothing to do with the discoverability bar option but only with your cultural mind. Who wants to spamm does it also without this new tool. It is really not difficult to get 40 keywords. No spamming needed. There are lots of phrases possible that are still relevant to image. Mirco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreign Export Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 look at this image of wild kangaroos it manages to be in Brisbane and Canberra at the same time JAAT75 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Cooper Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 21 minutes ago, Foreign Export said: look at this image of wild kangaroos it manages to be in Brisbane and Canberra at the same time JAAT75 Those kangaroos are defying the laws of physics (by being invisible as well.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvallee Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 23 minutes ago, Foreign Export said: look at this image of wild kangaroos it manages to be in Brisbane and Canberra at the same time JAAT75 I reported this contributor twice to Alamy. It's endless spamming, in particular locations. He's keyworded several images as being Kiama, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, you name it. Alamy said he hasn't responded, so there is little they can do. A search for my little town of Kiama is now flooded with totally irrelevant pictures. Sooooo frustrating! Gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 On 8/27/2017 at 19:43, John Mitchell said: I keyword beforehand but always think of additional keywords to add in AIM. In fact, fine-tuning never seems to stop for me. Sometimes I go back to images years later and add new stuff. I am a bit lazy going through all my pictures and have adopted a process to review only pictures that came up in searches. (Nearly) Every morning I go through my pseudonym summary and review all pictures shown the previous day (weekend). There was a time when I could do that weekly, but this is not feasible anymore, hence now a daily task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, gvallee said: I reported this contributor twice to Alamy. It's endless spamming, in particular locations. He's keyworded several images as being Kiama, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, you name it. Alamy said he hasn't responded, so there is little they can do. A search for my little town of Kiama is now flooded with totally irrelevant pictures. Sooooo frustrating! Gen There's plenty they can do, they just choose not to. Rescind his archive upload privileges until he does respond, for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 10 minutes ago, Patrick Cooper said: Those kangaroos are defying the laws of physics (by being invisible as well.) I believe the kangaroos were just diving at the moment he took the picture. He also missed out the keywords that this photo is actually a tsunami covering Brisbane and Canberra at the same time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvallee Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Just now, losdemas said: There's plenty they can do, they just choose not to. Rescind his archive upload privileges until he does respond, for one. I'm sure they could if they wanted to. Alamy is soooo weak chasing infringements and spammers. We put a lot of effort in our tagging, at least I do. Alamy could at least support us. Gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.