Discoverability

[Keith Fenton]

Hello, newbie here and I seem to have a problem with discoverability. All my photos are titled, tagged and up for sale but they are appearing poor discoverability. On search I can only find another photographer with the same name. Help anybody and thanks.

 

[Sultanpepa]

Don't worry too much about "Discoverability". Just make sure they are tagged accurately with relevant key words..

[Colin Woods]

There's another thread "in the green" at the moment which discusses this. Ignore discoverability, just keyword accurately. I have 15200 images with 300 with green discoverability, and this is because they are overkeyworded. 

Colin

[Joseph Clemson]

2 hours ago, Keith Fenton said:

Hello, newbie here and I seem to have a problem with discoverability. All my photos are titled, tagged and up for sale but they are appearing poor discoverability. On search I can only find another photographer with the same name. Help anybody and thanks.

 

 

Hello Keith, Do you mean your photos are showing as 'poor discoverability' in the Alamy Image Manager, OR that you can't actually find them in the Alamy collection when you search for them? The former is not a problem, as others have indicated above. The latter might be.

[Keith Fenton]

Thee are two issues 1) the images are coming up with 'poor discoverability' and 2) I can't find them if I type my name in. Another Keith Fenton appears!

 

 

[Joseph Clemson]

1 hour ago, Keith Fenton said:

Thee are two issues 1) the images are coming up with 'poor discoverability' and 2) I can't find them if I type my name in. Another Keith Fenton appears!

 

 

 

OK. On the 'poor discoverability' issue, have a browse through the recent forum threads and you will see much discussion on this. Basically, if you are keywording correctly you are unlikely to get an image to show as 'good discoverability'. This is a problem of Alamy's own making and not a problem with your image or keywording.

 

Edited to add: Have a look at  Alamy blog for their update on Image Manager issues

Have a look at In the green thread for some recent discussion

 

On the second issue, you cannot find your own images by typing your name in the normal search box (unless you have put your name in the keywords, a practice Alamy discourages). What you can do is do to Advanced search (click on the magnifying glass in an empty search box to find this page) . In the Advanced search tab you will find 'search by contributor name'. Enter your name here and it will show your three images.

 

[Bill Allsopp]

On 19/10/2017 at 14:12, Colin Woods said:

There's another thread "in the green" at the moment which discusses this. Ignore discoverability, just keyword accurately. I have 15200 images with 300 with green discoverability, and this is because they are overkeyworded. 

Colin

 

On 19/10/2017 at 15:27, Joseph Clemson said:

 

OK. On the 'poor discoverability' issue, have a browse through the recent forum threads and you will see much discussion on this. Basically, if you are keywording correctly you are unlikely to get an image to show as 'good discoverability'. This is a problem of Alamy's own making and not a problem with your image or keywording.

 

Edited to add: Have a look at  Alamy blog for their update on Image Manager issues

Have a look at In the green thread for some recent discussion

 

On the second issue, you cannot find your own images by typing your name in the normal search box (unless you have put your name in the keywords, a practice Alamy discourages). What you can do is do to Advanced search (click on the magnifying glass in an empty search box to find this page) . In the Advanced search tab you will find 'search by contributor name'. Enter your name here and it will show your three images.

 

Thanks Guys. My problem solved. :-)

[Bill Allsopp]

I asked Alamy about this and got the following answer;

 

Hi Bill,

 

There is nothing wrong with the information on this image. The discoverability bar is not in any way 'reading' or 'scoring' the quality of your metadata, it simply increases with the volume of searchable information you enter.

 

It is not just tags and supertags which will make the discoverability of images improve. You could have the maximum number of tags and supertags possible but if you have not filled in the optional information then the images will not be ‘good discoverability’.

 

If you have completed the optional information (number of people, property, date taken, and location, primary and secondary categories) then when you get to around 42 tags and a few super tags your images will move to ‘green’.

 

We say ‘around 42 tags and a few super tags’ as the numbers of each will vary so we cannot give you a specific number to get to. For example, images with 40 tags and 10 supertags will be green (providing all optional information is completed), but an image with 44 tags will only need 6 supertags to become green (again providing all the optional information is completed).

 

If two images with exactly the same tags but only one has the ‘optional’ information completed then one will be green and one will be orange. Sometimes you may have an image that doesn't require the 'full quota' of tags and information, its fine to leave these without boosting discoverability further.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Thanks

Corin

 

Alamy Contributor Relations

 

I hope that adds something to the thread.

---

[spacecadet]

OP, Alamy would like it to be used. But it really doesn't have any bearing on sales at the moment, I can assure you. More than 2/3 of mine are orange and I doubt I've had 50 go green this year.

[wiskerke]

7 hours ago, Bill Allsopp said:

I asked Alamy about this and got the following answer;

 

Hi Bill,

 

There is nothing wrong with the information on this image. The discoverability bar is not in any way 'reading' or 'scoring' the quality of your metadata, it simply increases with the volume of searchable information you enter.

 

It is not just tags and supertags which will make the discoverability of images improve. You could have the maximum number of tags and supertags possible but if you have not filled in the optional information then the images will not be ‘good discoverability’.

 

If you have completed the optional information (number of people, property, date taken, and location, primary and secondary categories) then when you get to around 42 tags and a few super tags your images will move to ‘green’.

 

We say ‘around 42 tags and a few super tags’ as the numbers of each will vary so we cannot give you a specific number to get to. For example, images with 40 tags and 10 supertags will be green (providing all optional information is completed), but an image with 44 tags will only need 6 supertags to become green (again providing all the optional information is completed).

 

If two images with exactly the same tags but only one has the ‘optional’ information completed then one will be green and one will be orange. Sometimes you may have an image that doesn't require the 'full quota' of tags and information, its fine to leave these without boosting discoverability further.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Thanks

Corin

 

Alamy Contributor Relations

 

I hope that adds something to the thread.

---

 

Thank you, really useful.

 

wim

[Jill Morgan]

Just wish they wouldn't use the words "Poor Discoverability" for images that aren't in the green.  Makes it sound like your images will be hard to find, when that isn't the case.

 

Jill

[spacecadet]

I suggest "meh" instead of "poor".

[Marb]

I am finding the search hit and miss. I have 3 new images of a brandy by the fireside. I type in "spirit" and "fireside" (all keywords I have) and they don't show. Type any other of my keywords and it comes up. No rhyme or reason. Mind you, makes no odds really as my images just don't sell here either way round 

[wiskerke]

8 minutes ago, Marb said:

I am finding the search hit and miss. I have 3 new images of a brandy by the fireside. I type in "spirit" and "fireside" (all keywords I have) and they don't show. Type any other of my keywords and it comes up. No rhyme or reason. Mind you, makes no odds really as my images just don't sell here either way round 

 

Have you waited for the database to update?

If you have been too late for today's update you may have to wait until Monday.

 

wim

[Marb]

I haven't updated anything today so it's the same as when I first submitted.

[wiskerke]

10 minutes ago, Marb said:

I haven't updated anything today so it's the same as when I first submitted.

 

Your tag is spirt not spirit.

 

wim

[Marb]

Just now, wiskerke said:

 

Your tag is spirt not spirit.

 

wim

Well there you go, I stand corrected. Thanks for spotting it. I think my eyes are going ;-) Cheers.

[george]

Wim beat me to it  and there are only 6 for The tags Brandy fireside, if I drank brandy and had a fireside I know what images I would be taking this evening  

[wiskerke]

Maybe a pair of reading glasses next to the glass in the next shot. ;-)

I have computer glasses for reading stuff at arm's length. I ordered them at the same time as my regular bifocals. Same size etc. However when they were delivered they had made a mistake: the bifocals were as ordered, but the computer glasses had a square format. After a short hey that's not what I ordered, we decided I should give it a try for a week. I kept them. All I now have to do is to feel the corners of the glasses. Round: bifocals and square: computer. Brilliant.

 

wim

[Betty LaRue]

51 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

Maybe a pair of reading glasses next to the glass in the next shot. ;-)

I have computer glasses for reading stuff at arm's length. I ordered them at the same time as my regular bifocals. Same size etc. However when they were delivered they had made a mistake: the bifocals were as ordered, but the computer glasses had a square format. After a short hey that's not what I ordered, we decided I should give it a try for a week. I kept them. All I now have to do is to feel the corners of the glasses. Round: bifocals and square: computer. Brilliant.

 

wim

 Your eyesight that bad that you need to feel the shape? Bless you.

I do know that in this business it’s imperative to update glasses, otherwise you are in the guessing game.

I have the tee shirt.

[wiskerke]

9 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

 Your eyesight that bad that you need to feel the shape? Bless you.

I do know that in this business it’s imperative to update glasses, otherwise you are in the guessing game.

I have the tee shirt.

 

You should take a picture of that shirt. It will sell like hotcakes. ;-)

 

Yeah the round vs square shape is brilliant. Why don't they make cameras like that? ;-)

OK no jokes about blind photographers.  While I do have some issues with my eyes,  I'm probably still in the near-normal vision category.

 

wim

[losdemas]

2 hours ago, wiskerke said:

Maybe a pair of reading glasses next to the glass in the next shot. ;-)

I have computer glasses for reading stuff at arm's length. I ordered them at the same time as my regular bifocals. Same size etc. However when they were delivered they had made a mistake: the bifocals were as ordered, but the computer glasses had a square format. After a short hey that's not what I ordered, we decided I should give it a try for a week. I kept them. All I now have to do is to feel the corners of the glasses. Round: bifocals and square: computer. Brilliant.

 

wim

 

8 - )

[Betty LaRue]

3 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

You should take a picture of that shirt. It will sell like hotcakes. ;-)

 

Yeah the round vs square shape is brilliant. Why don't they make cameras like that? ;-)

OK no jokes about blind photographers.  While I do have some issues with my eyes,  I'm probably still in the near-normal vision category.

 

wim

Love your sense of humor!