Jump to content

Millions of Images irrelevant tags from single contributor


Recommended Posts

Hi All

 

Was just checking kewords were correct for some of my images when I noticed the page populated with some fresh images because of the 20 on the search page 8 were mine.

 

The new images were part of a portfolio of 2,220,414 individual images making up 222205 pages (100 per page) 

 

It says its an historic image but its not .many of the 2 million are but not all and the tags bear no relation to the image and the vast majority of the others have inappropriate tags and captions.

 

Is this just an agency dumping images into Alamy ??? should they be allowed to get away with so many inappropriately tagged images .

 

Should Alamy do something about it what do you think or any with larger portfolios i.e. Keith Doc or Jeff.

 

KJ0R4X will give you a clue to find them 

 

Regards 

Jon

 

edit: looks like many/all have same tags just to get then on sale 

Edited by Jon Lewis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly sure this topic cropped up some months back, possibly discussing the same contributor.  I'm taking the view that Alamy have, presumably, satisfied themselves that the contributor has met their copyright requirements for uploading. At the same time I note that the contributor is relying solely on the caption for the subject of  images to be found (all the keywords seem to be generic). If that be the case,  these images will presumably sink to the back of the search results, behind contributors who have troubled themselves to keyword properly.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Oh I see, you mean he has pushed that small pic of the church through the Alamy archive route even though it is a modern picture because otherwise it would fail QC? 

 

He has certainly been busy!

Oh, yes. I didn't notice. That's practically a thumbnail.

Awful quality too, noticeable in the popup.

If anyone bought that and put it up full-screen they'd reckon they'd been fleeced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that Alamy are aware that they are getting many false negatives, but maybe they think that they will get a few sales out of the 2 milion plus which have been dumped on them, even if it upsets a few picture editors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, losdemas said:

I wonder if the occasional changes to the search engine algorithm help or hinder such contributors...  :ph34r:

 

It's a pity we don't have PM anymore.

Now I can only echo RedSnapper: do your market research.

Alamy provides ample resources.

This forum is full of information also.

And then there's gut feeling...

 

wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, mickfly said:

I'm sure that Alamy are aware that they are getting many false negatives, but maybe they think that they will get a few sales out of the 2 milion plus which have been dumped on them, even if it upsets a few picture editors.

 

I would have thought that Alamy's reputation as a supplier of well key worded quality images amongst buyers would be more important than the odd sale.....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wiskerke said:

 

It's a pity we don't have PM anymore.

Now I can only echo RedSnapper: do your market research.

Alamy provides ample resources.

This forum is full of information also.

And then there's gut feeling...

 

wim

 

You're the research meister/guru, Wim ;), I went with instinct (gut feeling, as you say) and am quite happy to stick with that.  I honestly don't think that I have to do any research in this case...or maybe I should? You tell me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two points come to mind having looked at the collection in a little more detail.

 

Firstly, is the uploader relying on Google indexing rather than the Alamy search function to drive buyers to the images

 

Secondly, given the large numbers of Creative commons and other internet sourced images in the collection, is the, sometimes dubious, copyright status of those images going to come back and bite both the uploader and Alamy themselves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Richmond said:

Two points come to mind having looked at the collection in a little more detail.

 

Firstly, is the uploader relying on Google indexing rather than the Alamy search function to drive buyers to the images

 

Secondly, given the large numbers of Creative commons and other internet sourced images in the collection, is the, sometimes dubious, copyright status of those images going to come back and bite both the uploader and Alamy themselves

 

Google indexing shows the images among the free ones, so that would rule that one out.

 

My guess is that the uploader is quite good at it and knows pretty well what the caveats are.

 

Btw he used to be a valued regular contributor here, until the blue numbers came about. After that he was one of the few 0 blue number members. Until Alamy shut off that route. (At least in some cases.)

He may well be a regular guest here.

 

wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Martyn said:

 

I would have thought that Alamy's reputation as a supplier of well key worded quality images amongst buyers would be more important than the odd sale.....

 

I was being sarcastic Martyn, I think they are being rather silly allowing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fotoDogue said:

What a waste of hard drive space. Some of them have captions like "No nb bldsa 2c034" Is there a place on this planet where "No nb bldsa 2c034" actually means something?

 

Sivks lbu vgfdgh go 8f*52? :P :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

... I note that the contributor is relying solely on the caption for the subject of  images to be found (all the keywords seem to be generic). If that be the case,  these images will presumably sink to the back of the search results, behind contributors who have troubled themselves to keyword properly.

In another thread, I noted I'd found three of the top ten files on a particular search ('relevant'), including the top file, had no keywords whatsover, but the words I'd searched on were in the caption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.