Hey Guys,
I have been working around the clock on the database for the last week, cleaning out the keywords and titles of uploaded files and I am VERY concerned about how big an issue the spam keywording is. I am trying to build the best licensing marketplace out there, and when people input keywords that are totally irrelevant to the corresponding image, it threatens both the integrity and functionality of Cutcaster for anyone looking to purchase your images. If there are a lot of irrelevant search results returned to a buyer they are going to be put off and not want to license content from our marketplace. To re-keyword 100 images, it takes approximately 1.5 hours. Cutcaster is currently averaging 1000 image uploads per day so it is impossible for me to re-keyword everyones' images on top of everything else. I want to be spending all my time getting buyers so this is a money maker for everyone. So I am asking (begging) for your advice and help. I welcome any and all suggestions:
What are ways I can incentivize users who upload content to Cutcaster to make their keywords only relevant to what is in the image? I appreciate all advice!!
Saturday, September 27, 2008
HELP!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cutcaster
Do you remember your first sale? We do!!!
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, you're going to have to get TOUGH. As much as you'd like an ideal, happy community based on the honor system, there will always be people trying to take advantage of the keyword system or push the boundaries. (I just got done reading a thread about this very subject on MSG.)
When photos are uploaded to your site, whoever is reviewing them will have to review the photo as well as the keywords. Keywords will have to be edited by the reviewer as they come in, not later on as you're trying to do now (and finding it overwhelming.)
I remember that Photoshelter implemented a "zero tolerance policy" on keyword spamming on their site that I was impressed with. Unfortunately I can't remember the details now, but basically if the reviewers kept seeing keyword spamming from a contributor, they were given a warning and then banned from the site if it continued (account closed, no chance for reinstatement.)
There will be people who blatantly and habitually do this, and it's time to get tough. Flag them, warn them, and then kick them out if they continue to break the rules. It's not fair to everyone else who wants this site to be successful.
-Treeoflife
Interesting. If you can remember any details about what PS did I would love to know.
ReplyDeleteI want to make sure I have a system in place going forward to check the keywords bc this is one area where we can compete at a very young age. If our search results are super targeted and focused we can save buyers time when they are search for content. its really a great way to make our market better which means that more buyers come and pay the prices that you guys want to charge them. If we can save them time they will pay more for that and Cutcaster will be a success even against a shutterstock or the like.
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteI just sent you an e-mail with PSC's policy. Fortunately, they still had this "up" on their website.
Another idea: Have a small link included on every photo page to "report improperly keyworded image." This "report" link would go directly to you or a reviewer with the image number in question so that you could have another look and edit as necessary.
-Treeoflife
I replied in the forum.
ReplyDeleteDear John, The quality of keywording is an issue everywhere, as far I can see. I see a lot of all kinds of mistakes and probably miss-use and I suppose a perfect system is not possible.
ReplyDeleteThere is lot to say for reviewing the keywords when reviewing the image. But keywording is also something you have to learn as a contributer and the possebility to correct and improve your keywords online after publishing is good.
I try to do my keywording proper. But I make mistakes. For example because of not being native English speaking and educated. For me, a reviewer correcting my mistakes would perhaps increase the quality because I want to do it right. I'm not sure a system of rejecting me as a contributor after several mistakes would be fair, because I do the best I can.
One example: At Shutterstock I make the keywords in English. I view the site in Dutch and I more than once can't imagine how it was possible that the keywords in Dutch become that strange;-) They are automatically translated from English. I wonder if the keywording really works at SS when a Dutch, German, French...costumer is searching in his own language. No, it isn't perfect anywhere!
All toghether I think it's good you invest some in becoming the keywords as accurate as possible..but also you/we have to live with "not perfect at all"..."reasonable good" is a high level when I look at most sites where it is not even "reasonable".
Perhaps you must not overlook every image, take some samples from every contributor and give us some feed back and ask us to correct the clearly bad tags. Only if it's really bad and they/we don't want to take any care and responsebility, only than be "hard". So: maybe this way you could save time for all the other things you have to take care of! For me and I suppose many serieus contributers, the friendly way you explain your concerns and appealing to everyones shared responsebility, that we do our best and want to learn and improve, works the best.
regards!
I'm not talking about people whose native language is not English. Of course those people are doing the best they can. What I'm talking about is people who submit a photo of the Sahara Desert and put "boat" in the keywords (assuming of course there's no boat anywhere in sight!)
ReplyDelete-Treeoflife
I'm working on mine now, John. One thing that would be very helpful is if there could be a way we could see the keywords without having to open the image for editing. If the process for checking our keywords was more efficient, I think more people might do it.
ReplyDeleteWhy do photographers have to keyword their image?
ReplyDeleteThat's like asking the author of the book to catalog their book for the library. It's the library's responsibility to catalog and organize their inventory.
If you leave it up to the 'author' or the photographer, they'll try to get any edge they can in selling their image. Also, if it's your system and your library, why do you let other people dictate where their photo should go in your library?
I've never understood this with stock agencies. All this money invested in the website, and no money or thought invested in one of the most important aspects of their business - the library itself.
If you're going to take a 60% share of the profit, perhaps you can also take care of the cataloging, archiving, and indexing of your stock inventory.
Or just continue to blame the photographer.
Why not set your business apart by offering to catalog(keyword) and categorize all content. That way, you're standards will never be compromised, and the photographers can do what they do best, take photographs.
That is a really good point Zach and I am glad you raised it.
ReplyDeleteWhat do others think about not letting photographers keyword their own photos? We have thought about this and are going through photos now re-keywording them but I am interested in what people would say if we just took out all titles, descriptions and keywords and did it for you. What are the pros and cons?
Great questions Zach and interesting analogies. Why I agree and disagree with you, I am by no means the guy with all the answers. I'd love to hear what other thoughts you have and what others think. This is a community for everyone and its success will be dependent on the collective wisdom.
To Zach:
ReplyDeleteYou sure do expect a lot for the 60% share of what Cutcaster takes! I know other agencies that take 80% and yes, you still have to keyword. Preparing your image for sale is the photographers job.
Advertising, maintaining the site, paying reviewers to go over the photos, contacting buyers, contacting photographers, going to conventions and other places to meet with buyers, maintaining the database, paying for bandwidth, paying for storage for all the photos and so on is NOT FREE.
A photographer who spams their keywords should be blamed - they're the ones spamming! They're the ones who drive away buyers who don't want to look through hundreds of irrelevent photo's to find ones that are relevent to their search.
So to put that 'no money or thought in one of the most important aspects of their business - the library itself" on a blog asking the photographers for help is absolutely ridiculous. Clearly Cutcaster is putting money and thought into their library.
But this is just my two cents
60% has little to do with the operating costs and much more to do with the market, but that's beside the point. There are many suppliers of stock products and not many distributers, so for now, the stock product distributors dictate the percentage.
ReplyDeleteBut there's costs on both sides.
However, to get to the main point, the main reasons why it's not a good idea to have photographers keyword their photos is this: they're self-interested and uneducated.
Also, many stock sites have their own vocabulary and cataloging system. Just go and compare the different categories that exist on many stock sites and you'll find them to be different for each site.
Cutcaster has their own system, with their own inventory and their own search vocabulary.
As long as Cutcaster, or any other stock site, continue to outsource the management of their inventory to the suppliers, you can expect to see problems with incorrect product categorization.
If this is a small problem, it can be remedied. However, if buyers come and try to find a product by specific keyword and all kinds of different products show up that are not relevant to the search, the buyer probably won't be here for very long - the inventory is not useable.
It's about useablity, standards, and creating a correct and searchable inventory. That's the whole business - the website is just decor, which is important, but it's not the business.
It's a system problem. And you need to change the system to manage it.
Or, you can continue to accept incorrect keywords, flag the photo, tell the photographer to rekeyword, and rinse and repeat.
Or take the bull by horns and do it yourself because it's your library.