Home > Contributors > Blog

Blog

Improvements to searching

Permalink Comments (92)13 August 2008 at 09:31 by Alan Capel - Head of Content
Posted under News

Child searching a card index - Image A9BRPH © Pictorial Press Ltd
© Pictorial Press Ltd
We have been working on changes to our search engine to improve the search results for our customers. We have our own search engine with a dedicated team who work on it. This gives us greater flexibility and allows us to change things more quickly.

We have spent a lot of time analysing customer behaviour and looking at where our current search engine lets us down. Customers love the fact that we have such breadth of content so we are keen to ensure relevancy of search results is maintained and where possible, improved.

Recent changes include the following:-

Turning off ‘stemming’

Previously on Alamy the search engine would employ stemming, this involved looking at the main ‘stem’ of a word and also include words in the search calculation that included that ‘stem’. Sounds complicated?

Here's some examples:

  • A search where a customer typed in 'Dog' would also return images where the word ‘Dogs’ has been applied. Fine in the vast majority of cases (maybe except when the images were of the ‘Isle of Dogs’!). So for plurals it was usually ok.

However, it wasn’t just used on plurals:

  • A search for ‘ski’ would also return images of ‘skies’ so loads of clear blue skies without a skier in sight would appear, not good for the customer.
  • Also a search for ‘Communication’ would also return images of ‘communism’.
  • ‘Celebration’ would also return ‘celebrities’.

So, as you can see, many irrelevant images were appearing. A short while back we asked for further examples and received some very valuable feedback from our contributors. We appreciated this help and in fact it made us reach the decision to turn off the stemming completely. We could have tweaked and adjusted the search mechanisms to take account of these anomalies but this was not a cost effective, comprehensive or practical solution.

We have done a number of tests with no stemming and it vastly improves the results.

So now, whatever is searched for, will return only images where there is an exact match with the keywords or caption words attached to the images. Simply put, what you put in is what you will get out.

Our keywording advice has always been to include plurals where relevant and not rely on stemming so we hope you will see the benefit of this change.

We apologise if you have followed the additional syntax rule of adding a ^sign before any words you didn’t want stemming. We felt at the time this was the best solution. The good news now is that the problem you were trying to solve is no longer an issue. You do not need to remove the ^sign.

As with all changes, we will periodically review it over an extended period.

Single character ‘stop words’

We have ‘stop words’ that the search engine ignores, this helps the performance of the searches as it reduces unnecessary work. Examples are words like ‘a’ ‘of’ ‘if’.

This helps us, but by analysing customer searches we identified areas where it was counter productive. All single characters were treated as stop words which caused some problems:

  • A search for ‘T Shirt’ would treat the ‘T’ as a stop word so would ignore it and return results that match a search for ‘Shirt’, As a customer this was very frustrating as you would have to trawl through all the shirts to find the T shirts.
  • We identified that this was happening more than we would like, other examples include ‘L plates’ ‘X box’ and ‘Y fronts’.

So now single characters are included and are not treated as ‘stop words’. A search for ‘T shirt’ will only return images where ‘T’ and ‘shirt’ appear.

Apostrophes and special characters

Again we have looked at where customers are seeing irrelevance or not seeing images that are relevant. We have improved how some special characters are handled and how we work with words which contain apostrophes. The end result being more relevant results.

We are continuing to take the annotation you are applying and matching that with our search engine to ensure the customer gets what they want. Keep an eye on the blog for further developments including utilising the additional syntax and improving phrase searching.

Top

Add your own commentComments (92)

  1. 13 August 2008 at 10:11 Christine Strover

    'Our keywording advice has always been to include plurals where relevant and not rely on stemming so we hope you will see the benefit of this change.'

    I thought it only recommended including non standard plurals e.g. Child children, not those where an s is added.. Oh dear, will have to review that!

    Sounds like a good move overall though.

  2. 13 August 2008 at 10:13 Ian m butterfield

    So yet again as contributors we have to go through all our images and redo our keywording. Many of us have standardised on EITHER singular or plural form of words because of the stemming. This has been especially important recently because of the limited number of essential and main keywords we can have.

    Now we have to go through our entire collection AGAIN and add in all the plurals, add in the different verb variants. It is yet more work for contributors.

    Perhaps Alamy can tell us what most searchers use - singular or plural. When searching on actions do searchers tend to use past, present or passive tenses.

    A few keywords of my own for this: move, moving, moves, moved, goalpost, goalposts, goal post, goal posts.

  3. 13 August 2008 at 10:26 IanMurray

    Can we please have the long awaited and long promised tools to bulk edit our images?

  4. 13 August 2008 at 10:32 Rainer raffalski

    Dear Alan,

    I am with Alamy for two and a half years now, and within that limited time I have experienced numerous changes of rules regarding keywording, including exactly contradictional ones.

    The bottom line for me therefore can only be, it doesn't make any sense to follow Alamy's current rules because they may be completely different tomorrow.

    This was a really bad decision!

    Rainer Raffalski

  5. 13 August 2008 at 10:41 Nick

    This is insane. Last year we spent almost 4 weeks for adding main and essential keywords at your request. And now you want us to jump through hoops again by checking singulars and plurals for all our images?

    Sorry but it gets more and more difficult to take you seriously.

  6. 13 August 2008 at 10:43 flying dog

    Oh Bugger, right where is page 1 of my images..., just as well I only have 2000+ images to go!

  7. 13 August 2008 at 10:47 Christine strover

    D'oh,

    I really hadn't thought through the verb form thing...

  8. 13 August 2008 at 11:06 Kathy de witt

    It may be an idea to instruct researchers and clients to search the collection using both singular and plural words at this point. I'm glad I never got to grips with ^....only just working on " " and [ ].




  9. 13 August 2008 at 11:07 Jeff morgan

    So where do I start with 20K images having just spent all my spare time for the best part of a year rekeywording 6K images to the previous change? I can obviously see the need for it, but it should have been done long ago....like not making the "Description" field seachable and having an "Editorial Only" button etc etc..
    With the current reflexstock, UK distributor thing and now this it's not been a good week so far.....Oh and the weather doesn't help either.

    Time for a holiday I think!!!

    Jeff

  10. 13 August 2008 at 11:12 Tony Lilley

    I have the same problem as Christine Strover, so more lately have only entered a word without the "s". Now after several months of updating keywords and other data on my pictures, more than 2500, I have found the "Click Through Rating" is dropping instead of going up. Although it has been a very long task, I have found it very useful to go over past pictures and re-keyword them. Some keywords I had used now seem completely inappropriate, so it has been a very useful exercise. I can't understand though why the outcome should lower my CTR, although this is only slight. It does sound a better system, I have done trial searches in the past and come up with all sorts of irrelevant pictures. Lets hope in the long term it helps us all.

    Best wishes, Tony Lilley.

  11. 13 August 2008 at 11:17 Nick meers

    So presumably we'll now be given three times as much space to put all these extra keywords?
    How will the limit on letters and keywords work in each of the boxes now?

    So what exactly are Alamy doing to EARN their percentage of takings these days, apart from trying to wind up their loyal contributors?
    Bring on the long-awaited bulk-editing tools please...

  12. 13 August 2008 at 11:38 John Peter

    I think the change is for the better overall. I have mostly been putting in the plural as well as singular where appropriate. I have an ongoing problem as a mostly travel and landscape photographer. Often I like to put in locational information I would rather not have appearing in search results such as a description of a location or a road leading to a major destination not in the picture. The description is useful for the intended purchaser but should not appear as a searchable keyword. Where can I put this information now? Does anyon know how the search engine works now? I must admit I do not. Any help and advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

  13. 13 August 2008 at 11:40 RAbboud

    "We have our own search engine with a dedicated team who work on it."

    So does Google.

    Alamy indexes millions of images. Google indexes billions of pages.

    Google can tell a ski from a sky and care less whether one enters t shirt or t shirts. When one potentially mispells a word, it will offer results for similar terms (try skies).

    And Google does all this simple bit of technology without asking the World to rewrite all pages on the web.

    Remindingto your contributors that you have a dedicated team behind your search technology makes it even harder to understand why you'll be turning off just about every piece of technology in your search?

  14. 13 August 2008 at 12:22 flipside

    It's great that the search engine has a dedicated team.

    The page describing the additional syntax has been in place for over a year now. None of the features on it have been implemented. In fact the only movement regarding the new syntax in the last year has been the announcement above that one of the features will not be implemented.

    Does the dedicated team have any target date for implementing any of the other additional syntax features?

  15. 13 August 2008 at 12:29 Chris potter

    I'm sure the advice used to be that only the singular was needed, so don't waste space adding esses. So, essential keywords is effectivly 'shrunk' by having to add an ess on the end of words??? Better not shoot anything with a long discriptor

  16. 13 August 2008 at 13:07 Wim Wiskerke

    This means *Alamy* can not get the stemming right. Not we; not the researchers. This is a shame.

    Please turn around now!
    Ditching the international IPTC standard was really dumb; this tops it big time.

    If there is no escaping this ridiculous move then please do reinstate stemming for a certain grace time.
    And triple the amount of space for keywords. Better still: ten maybe twenty times more.

    > move, moving, moves, moved, goalpost, goalposts, goal post, goal posts?

    There's lots more:

    movable, movability, amovable, immovable, removable, remove, removes, removed, removing, removability, immovability, amovability, goalposting, goal-post, goal-posts, goal-posting, repost, reposting, the, a, or, of, if, and, from, in, an, one, on, 1, 2, 4,

    And these are just very simple easy words.

    I bet an American or non-English speaking researcher can come up with at least ten more keywords.

    Fire the consultant who could not solve the problem and decided to ignore it altogether. And sold it to you as a new and fresh idea.

    Please go back; do not go there.
    WRONG WAY! TURN BACK NOW!

  17. 13 August 2008 at 13:19 Doktorfootball

    No, your advice was always to only include plurals if it was an unusual or irregular one and not simply the addition of -s. It is blatantly misleading to turn round now and say that wasn't your advice all along and wash your hands of any responsibility for the fact that people who followed your advice before the goalposts were moved (again) will now need to re-keyword all their images. Your company is rapidly becoming a laughing stock.

  18. 13 August 2008 at 13:51 Paul cowan

    The "s" thing is going to be a real problem but it seems very unlikely to me that hunting out words of dubious validity, like "amovability" or "goalposting" is a useful exercise (particularly as "goalpost" and "goalposting" would not belong on the same photo). Most searches, judging by the results in my CTR list, involve one or two simple, obvious words which are usually nouns.

    Playing keyword scrabble by spamming with every possible computer/thesaurus generated derivative of a word will not help the search. Nor is it likely to boost your sales more than spending the time shooting and uploading another photo would, imho.

    But the "S" thing is still a real bummer.

  19. 13 August 2008 at 13:51 Gen Vallee

    Here are the current guidelines:

    "The search engine automatically finds derivations, including plurals and singulars of words...
    For example, a search for 'dog' also returns images keyworded 'dogs'."

    http://www.alamy.com/contributors/stock-photography-syntax.asp

    So please Alamy, don't pretend you said any differently.

    It took me 3 months to re-keyword and add syntax to 4,000+ images and splitting them into the new hierarchy. I thought it was worth a one-off exercice if the results were going to be more accurate hits. In fact, I was so quick off the mark that for one full week my amended images were no longer searchable. The search engine was still looking at the old keyword field. I never got an apology.

    Now you're telling me I have to go through it all over again because I believed what you said? This time on 5.5k images ? I assure you that this is the last time I listened. How naive of me!

  20. 13 August 2008 at 14:16 Barrie Harwood

    Alamy - I respect your right to run your business the way you see fit but you MUST have respect for the guys who make keep you in business. Your submitting photographers.

    By all means implement changes if you think you need to but:

    1. You MUST consult with us. Frankly, we probably have a lot more experience and knowledge than most of the people working for you.

    2. You MUST stop implementing changes that affect us so drastically without giving us due notice that the chnage is about to be made.

    This action is totally unprofessional and harms YOUR business as by your actions, you have overnight prevented many of the images from being seen by our customers (not just YOUR customers Alamy - OUR customers)

  21. 13 August 2008 at 14:16 Wim Wiskerke

    @Paul Cowan:

    You are right about the goalposting, but that is just because it is the wrong example. There are a lot of terms just like that, that researchers are using. You do not see these in your results, because you do not use them. I use them; I see them. Researchers use 1 2 3 4 etc; they use *and* (not the Boolean AND) they use in, on, from, out, etc. Because the stemming in place was seriously flawed, I identified about 100 stems that did not generate the keywords I wanted, but people were using. I am a non-english speaker who has lived in the US. I gather there will be loads more. (I think there will be a lot more like the ones on my list).

  22. 13 August 2008 at 14:22 Jaybee

    Dear Alamy,

    Just as thought.

    How about making "" and [] and ^ live first? At present these do nothing yet I've put many hours re-keying my collection of thousands.

    Better still how about bulk editing tools in place first.

    Why do you seem to prefer the whip to the carrot? Why do you seem to want to alienate your contributors so much?

  23. 13 August 2008 at 14:24 Charles stirling

    Some notification of the changes before implementing would have been useful. Making the change then notifying seems a disservice to both buyers and contributors. Some aspects seem very sensible, a photo of A dog is singular so should always have been such, a photo of more than one should have been the plural. This never seemed to be spelled out, but a searcher now needs advice, maybe on every search, to consider this if they could be interested in either one or more. What advice is being given? I don't see anything spelling out the need to change search tactics! This needs a big highlight not simply buried in a blog.

    As a contributor just need to be accurate when it comes to plurals verses singular for some aspects, but slightly more peripheral like building or buildings seems like we now need all the extra words.

    Really would be better having the stemming for simple plurals turned back on, or should we simply always have both singular and plural of everything?

  24. 13 August 2008 at 14:44 Ian m butterfield

    A couple more thoughts.

    Just posting this in a blog is a great disservice to those contributors who don't regularly read the blog or visit the Forum. When people in the forum complain the response from Alamy has been that those active in the forums are only a very small percentage of contributors. If that is true how are the silent majority going to find out about this. This is a major shift in how our images will or will not be found by contributors - it thus deserves an email out to all contributors warning them.

    As contributors we can't add all the required varients overnight So how are reasearchers going to know to search differently. This is going against the defacto standards of every other on-line image library. How is Alamy going to educate customers that they need to search for "dog" and then repeat the search for "dogs"? This move *increases* the work required by researchers.

  25. 13 August 2008 at 14:47 Paul cowan

    @wim
    Maybe that's why I don't sell many, then. Perhaps I should take the time to pile all these words in, but some people argue that the more keywords you have the worse your search position becomes because you turn up all the time as an irrelevant result on searches.

  26. 13 August 2008 at 14:58 Tony watson

    I can hardly believe you are doing this to us alamy. Like many others I have spent weeks re-keywording my collection, like you requested.

    And my prize for all my efforts: Lots & lots of false hits in searches due to annotations not going live.

    And now you expect us to go and re-keyword again the freshly re-keyworded images, in order to add plurals and take ^ out.

    This is very bad news for all those hardworking contributors.

    I used to believe in Alamy, now I'm completely disillusioned.

  27. 13 August 2008 at 15:49 Peter chigmaroff

    You can "more or less" or should that be "most or least", go jump in a lake. ALamy is simply not worth the trouble. Unfortunately my team is not as dedicated as yours.

  28. 13 August 2008 at 15:54 Jaybee

    @ #26

    "And my prize for all my efforts: Lots & lots of false hits in searches due to annotations not going live."

    Yes, yes and yes again. Enabling annotations would make such a big difference in search results for researchers and contributors alike.

    Why the wait Alamy? I really hope you'll tell us if this is never going to happen.

    Meanwhile those of us who spend many hours annotating and keywording as per instructions are rewarded with you turning off plurals.

    I just don't get it.

    Annotations on would make *far* more difference and better sales for those of us who spend many hours in your cumbersome non-IPTC standard online image area, trying to do our best for our collections and ultimately *your* cut of the sale.

    Changing the goalposts at every turn is becoming a nightmare here for those of us with large collections trying to run a business.

    Please just give us the **tools** (bulk changes; annotation on etc - editorial only restriction) and watch searches improve.

    Better still, how about involving some of the regulars in beta testing, surveys, feedback? We are your partners in this venture, don't we deserve a say in at least the mechanics of prepping imagery for sale?

    Until then, I think you are going to lose the faith of many of your loyal contributors; and given the history of Alamy that's a great shame.


  29. 13 August 2008 at 16:05 Doug

    Isn't it about time Alamy introduced an online batch keyword tool so we can update many image keywords at the same time?
    Flickr have a good batch keyword interface, Gekko Images have an OK batch keyword interface, so come on Alamy, make life easy for use to make the changes when you do.

  30. 13 August 2008 at 16:21 Martin Wilson

    This is the final straw: I have not added images for several months because of the stunts that have been pulled recently.

    I keyworded my images again as requested and then get told it is not going to be implemented in the foreseeable future.

    Now we are supposed to keyword again as a result of a unilateral action by Alamy without any consideration for the contributor. Alamy, get rid of the kids on your search/ development team and get some people who understand the full business implications; both upstream and down.

    No doubt when we have done that we will find that we have to reverse it because buyers don't like it. Are we going to get larger Essential and Main keyword fields for the 3 fold increase in keywords?

  31. 13 August 2008 at 16:25 EkA

    at this point, i think i'd rather take a traditional agency/contributor 50/50 split and let you re-keyword the image for me.

    instead, we get 65% to do all the work. what a frickin' bargain for you people.

  32. 13 August 2008 at 16:27 Jeff Greenberg

    A search for ‘ski’ would also return images of ‘skies’...
    Also a search for ‘Communication’ would also return images of ‘communism’.
    ‘Celebration’ would also return ‘celebrities’.
    =====
    Is it possible to have only reverse stemming? Dogs returns (dog, dogs) It might be a lot closer to perfect?

    How is it that other major agencies have not turned off stemming? What are they doing differently?

    What about loss of stemming vs. sales? Will some buyers continue to assume stemming, not see what they want -- that which they would have WITH stemming -- & move on without buying?

  33. 13 August 2008 at 16:38 Ryan mcginnis

    Are you KIDDING me? Your search coders and architects suck, so now you're asking all your thousands of contributors to re-re-keyword their 12 million images to work around the fact that you can't create a well-working search engine?

    How about NO

    (By the way; half the time I try to post things to this blog, I get a web error message that says "Application Error: Bad Data". This has been going on for almost a year. I suspect it'll still be going on a year from now.

  34. 13 August 2008 at 17:04 José elias

    This is just a freakin' madness!!!

    I've keyworded most of my 3000 images considering stemming and thus taking advantage of the Essential and Main fields, and now I'll have to go through all of them again?

    It's not only re-keywording or adding keywords, it's re-ranking all the keyworks which now may not fit those two fields!!!! It's a much greater task that it seems at first glance!

    I'm really confused now if it's worth the trouble, especially because after another ZIG, I'm sure that down the road alamy will do another ZAG.

    It's really important for a contributor that an agency is not only reliable but also STABLE.

    Regards,
    José Elias

  35. 13 August 2008 at 17:20 Michael griffin

    It seems a bit odd that Alamy has spent a fortune developing it's own search engine that DOESN'T WORK. When most sites buy in an off the peg search engine that DOES WORK for a few thousand.
    Take a look at the competition and you soon see that Alamy's search engine is the worst in the business.

    This change has obviously not been thought through as photographers will add all the plurals and tenses and miss spells to their images and a hole new set of erroneous images will be thrown up.

  36. 13 August 2008 at 17:23 José Elias

    And why not give the buyers the option to TURN OFF or ON the stemming in the search engine?

  37. 13 August 2008 at 17:34 Jeff Greenberg

    Attempting to update my Excel doc, am realizing there's an infinite number of situations where buyer could search with singular or plural:

    student, students
    teen, teens, teenager, teenagers
    boy, boys
    girl, girls
    Hispanic, Hispanics
    + so many more

    Most of my CompKeywords will easily reach 856 limit & I will have to delete many very appropriate keywords...?

  38. 13 August 2008 at 17:36 Fabian gonzales

    Maybe what Alamy needs is a better stemmer? Or a controlled vocabulary like other good stock agencies? Turning off stemming completely is a ridiculous decision. At least you should be able to stem plurals? That should be the absolute minimum.

    Asking me to re-keyword my entire collection again only a year after you asked me to re-keyword my collection is nothing but offensive.

    As your hardworking contributors can we please have a little more respect? I can honestly say that of the three stock libraries I am contributing to, Alamy is treating me the worst. How did this happen?

  39. 13 August 2008 at 17:52 Michelle

    Time is money guys. Aren't you aware that all contributors together have already donated hundreds of thousands of unpaid hours for solving your search problems? And now you want to start it all over again?

    Looking at the bottom line working with you has become a very expensive adventure. I am not sure if I can afford that anymore.

  40. 13 August 2008 at 17:57 Tony Watson

    Please tell me this is a bad joke, because I'm not finding it very funny.

    I don't suppose for one moment Alamy will reconsider this badly thought out move, although I implore you to do so.

    I can't spend the rest of my short life in front of my computer, I want to take photo's. As EKA says, 50/50 with no keywording looks very favourable.

    I shall concentrate my efforts with my other, 'photographer friendly' outlets.

  41. 13 August 2008 at 18:13 Well Done

    Initially I felt like the majority of respondents here, but on reflection, I want to say Well done, Alamy!

    The simple reason is that with over 12 million images, the priority must be relevancy of search results. A buyer looking for an image of one dog, shouldn't have to sift through pages of photos containing two dogs or more. Likewise, a buyer searching for "dogs" should expect to see no pictures of single dogs.

    Re-keywording in compliance with this approach won't be as painful as many think, only pictures containing multiples of an item will need changing.

    I think we as contributors just need to accept that the number of images in the library has an effect on how searching is performed.

  42. 13 August 2008 at 18:36 John La Gette

    40. "I can't spend the rest of my short life in front of my computer, I want to take photo's."

    I totally agree; all very depressing.

  43. 13 August 2008 at 19:16 Jaybee

    @ #41

    "A buyer looking for an image of one dog, shouldn't have to sift through pages of photos containing two dogs or more".

    True.

    "Likewise, a buyer searching for "dogs" should expect to see no pictures of single dogs. "

    True.

    But life isn't that simple.

    What if I'm looking for an image of 'Rottweiler dogs'. I don't know if I want an image of one dog or two. So I search on 'Rottweiler dogs' or 'Rottweillers' because I want shots of that breed. Again, one or many I don't know.

    If we rekey so that a single shot of a Rottweiler dog is only found under the singular then a researcher looking for breeds with a 'Rottweillers' search would *not* see our image.

    That's mad and will just lead to people double keying singular and plural.

    Why?

    Because we can't second guess researchers. Anyone who takes notice of their Measures screens will attest to that.


  44. 13 August 2008 at 19:32 Well Done

    @ Jaybee #43

    You're assuming the buyer doesn't know whether they want one dog in the picture of two. You're also assuming they would search with a plural, but expect to see singular.

    But I'm pretty sure that A) buyers mostly know what they want, B) they will quickly learn from the results they will be getting that they have to be specific with singular/plural alternatives, and C) failing all else, it won't be that much bother to perform two searches, a singular and a plural, just to cover all bases if needed.

    And yes, I do pay attention to search results in my Measures screens, and one thing that is obvious is buyers trying variations on searches.

    I've already gone through my images, admittedly not thousands like some have, but it wasn't that much work. I found the majority of my photos don't contain multiples, and even where they were, they were mostly incidental, not the focus of the image.

  45. 13 August 2008 at 19:42 Jaybee

    @ #44

    "I've already gone through my images, admittedly not thousands like some have, but it wasn't that much work."

    Yes, making repeated changes is easy-peasy when you have a handful of files to attend to. Just spare a thought for those with collections in 5 figures who do this alongside a busy assignment career!

  46. 13 August 2008 at 19:50 Fabian Gonzales

    I just did some more research on stemmers. The porter2 algorithm (and its "snowball" implementation) is able to differentiate between "skies" and "ski", and between "celebrity" and "celebration" as well. Furthermore, the stemmer definition is declarative and can easily be modified to add additional exception cases.

    See:

    http://snowball.tartarus.org/algorithms/english/stemmer.html">http://snowball.tartarus.org/algorithms/english/stemmer.html
    http://snowball.tartarus.org/

    I know Lucene, an open-source full-text indexer (also available in .NET - I know Alamy runs on Windows) supports Snowball stemmers. And it's extremely performant, scales well, and is easy to use (I've used it myself to index millions of records at my previous job).

    Clearly there are solutions out there that will allay buyers' concerns about search results without impacting thousands of contributors and millions of images.

  47. 13 August 2008 at 23:26 rich

    Seems to be a fair bit of knee-jerk reaction going on. I never knew togs where such an uptight bunch.

  48. 14 August 2008 at 01:40 Fabian gonzales

    One more comment:

    "We could have tweaked and adjusted the search mechanisms to take account of these anomalies but this was not a cost effective, comprehensive or practical solution."

    Cost effective for whom? If you count the countless hours your contributors will spend re-keywording TEN MILLION images, I am sure adjusting your search engine is a cost-effective solution - and a lot more practical.

    Maybe we can start a fund to donate money for the search-engine update effort? I'd rather pay money into that than re-keyword all my image again.

  49. 14 August 2008 at 03:23 Mark Amy

    "We could have tweaked and adjusted the search mechanisms to take account of these anomalies but this was not a cost effective, comprehensive or practical solution."

    i.e. why bother when we can just get the mug togs to do it themselves!

    Why does everyone jump when Alamy says jump? If they want to sell your images, let them make all the changes and do all the work.

  50. 14 August 2008 at 03:46 Done Well

    "A buyer looking for an image of one dog, shouldn't have to sift through pages of photos containing two dogs or more."

    ever heard of cropping mister? in every photo of dogs there is a photo of a dog.

  51. 14 August 2008 at 04:10 Jeannie

    The thing that I don't understand is why Alamy would implement this change without enabling the annotations first!!

    The "new" annotations were supposed to help improve the search results (specifically in the area of stemming). While this is something that has been promised, it hasn't even been enabled yet.

    How can Alamy disregard the efforts of so many contributors who have implemented these changes? How can Alamy know how bad the search results would be using the new annotations?

    This is an unbearable burden on contributors who have reworked images to incorporate the changes as Alamy defined. And now, just to find out that these changes will never be applied. So frustrating!!!

  52. 14 August 2008 at 09:03 Batch keyword tools are required

    I wonder if we can make a claim against Alamy under the H&S DSE legislation should anyone get RSI from re-keywording images every time they change their mind?

  53. 14 August 2008 at 09:10 Alamy should keywording for us

    It's about time Alamy started keywording for photographers, then they might appreciated how difficult their system is to use!

  54. 14 August 2008 at 10:21 Max

    That means we have to go throught our collection once again. I'm definetely disappointed.
    I would suggest leaving just regular plurals.

  55. 14 August 2008 at 10:42 James ORear

    Good grief, yet another change. Perhaps it's time to find someone outside the Alamy house to do this and get it done right the first time. The increasing burden of conforming to the ever-evolving Alamy standard is getting too much to bear.

  56. 14 August 2008 at 13:18 Alan Capel

    Post 56 deleted due to obscenity.

  57. 14 August 2008 at 14:52 JMG

    Why, oh why did we not get some notice that the stemming would be turned off?

    Having not added plural 's' - as Alamy said it wasn't necessary, I'm finding that a lot of my images are not appearing in searches where they should be and I'm quickly having to add them in.

    A sale appeared in my stats today that would have been missed had it been searched yesterday - because of a missing 's'.

    Surely a weeks notice would not have made that much difference to the buyers. After all, a lot of the really naff search results are because the searchers - who are after all regular clients, and should know better, appear to not know how to search - using really daft phrases and strange punctuation. And even the advanced search system or even basic quotes seems to be rarely use.

    Why not instruct / educate the searchers to refine their search by putting guidelines on the search page! Why is it always the contributors who have to jump through ever smaller hoops!


  58. 14 August 2008 at 14:59 Mark Scheuern

    "We have our own search engine with a dedicated team who work on it."

    So when will the new annotation features incorporating phrases and the ability to selectively turn off stemming--well, forget that last thing--be incorporated into the search engine?

  59. 14 August 2008 at 15:32 Mark scheuern

    And, on a more positive note, the better handling of apostrophes and not using single-characters as stop words is indeed helpful.

  60. 14 August 2008 at 15:51 David cameron

    #48 - Spot on.. .It really isn't a cost effective, comprehensive or practical solution for 12 million images to be keyworded individually!

  61. 14 August 2008 at 21:14 Paul collis

    I'm glad that Alamy exists and that you help me sell my photos, BUT...

    'We apologise if you have followed the additional syntax rule of adding a ^sign before any words you didn’t want stemming.'

    Apology NOT ACCEPTED. Why? I don't think it sounds remotely contrite enough. Why?

    You didn't keep your end of the deal; you didn't even try and implement this rule. With 2,000 images, I spent 40 hours re-keywording. Say I'm lousy at it, or too finicky, and it should have taken me only 10 hours. And say that only half your contributors did as you asked, and altogether spent 32,500 man-hours sorting out your problem with 6.5 million images. That's 812 weeks. That's over 16 years of a fact-checker/research assistant's salary you didn't have to pay for. Minimum.

    Your senior management seems to be unlike those of other companies; the idea of actually communicating with your major suppliers, asking their advice, perhaps arranging a focus group, is totally alien to you.
    And without contributors Alamy has nothing; you have no product to sell.

    So, is this latest announcement just another arbitrary requirement that will be rescinded next month? I don't know. Therefore I cannot see myself adding an 's' to every singular noun wherever it's relevant. Forget it. YOU do it.

  62. 14 August 2008 at 22:56 ann stevensa

    Oh dear...lots of heat on here tonight.
    Surely:
    1) Irrelevant views are in no-one's interest.
    2) Wouldn't the most relevant words whether plurals or derivations be keyworded anyway? Or is it just me...!
    ann

  63. 15 August 2008 at 01:46 Jeannie

    Ann (#62) said: 2) Wouldn't the most relevant words whether plurals or derivations be keyworded anyway? Or is it just me...!

    No, they wouldn't be when Alamy specifically told us to leave them out. That's the problem here. With the introduction of the new keywording & annotation scheme, contributors were told to only include plurals if they were unusual or irregular.

    Now all the rules have changed (again!!) after so many have put in hours to accommodate Alamy's guidelines. And for what? Alamy never even implemented the annotation scheme to see what kind of an impact it would have on improving searches.

  64. 15 August 2008 at 02:30 Wim Wiskerke

    Lets give some simple examples of what it means.

    It used to be:
    tourist, tour, guide, visit, ride, tram, tramway, tram-way, look, sightsee, sight, see, sight-see, US, USA, U.S.A.

    Now it is:
    a, an, the, one, 1, on, in, out,
    sightsee, sightseer, sightseers, sightseeing, sight-see, sight-seer, sight-seers, sight-seeing, sight, see, seer, seers, seeing,
    tourist, tourists, tour,
    guide, guides, guiding, , guided,
    visit, visiting, visitor, visitors,
    look, looks, looking,
    ride, rides, riding,
    tram, trams, tramway, tram-way, tram way,
    US, USA, U.S., U.S.A., U.S.of A.,

    I probably missed some.
    Could people give some more real examples?

  65. 15 August 2008 at 03:28 Mark amy

    "A short while back we asked for further examples and received some very valuable feedback from our contributors. We appreciated this help and in fact it made us reach the decision to turn off the stemming completely."

    In the last message on that blog entry for feedback someone wrote:
    "..there are loads of suggestions here - is anything being done with them?"

    Yeah, they turned it off!

    I guess contributors thought that they were helping Alamy to fix things. Little did they realize that it would backfire on them!

    Maybe next time you're asked for feedback, it'd be better to keep quiet!

  66. 15 August 2008 at 08:59 IanMurray

    This can't have been an easy decision and it doesn't look as though it's a popular one. However, it is the right one. Only a tiny fraction of images will have been annotated with all the ^ and " marks to make stemming work properly. Despite the frustration felt by many over wasted hours - and yes I've been there too with Alamy changing the rules - the priority here and now must be to improve the search results. Far better that searches return exactly what has been typed in the search box than being cluttered with false returns.

  67. 15 August 2008 at 09:43 Fabian gonzales

    Ian,

    A search for "rainforest bird" yields 2147 images. A search for "rainforest birds" yields 1107 images. How is omitting half the images from the search result an improvement?

    For the vast majority of queries, turning off the stemmer will remove a large percentage of perfectly valid results. All this in order to eliminate a handful of problem queries that return false positives!

    Furthermore, if the stemmer is inaccurate the best solution is to improve or replace the stemmer, not to turn it off!

  68. 15 August 2008 at 09:55 Chris Potter

    I've just read the Alamy Search info...this is on there...a future event for us to look forward to:

    'In 2007, the first version of a new search engine will be launched to allow better control over how the system behaves, particularly in terms of relevancy.'

    Also on there is info regarding the fact that the search engine will return 'dogs' when you search for 'dog'....and further references to events coming up in 2007.

    It's still 2006. I have been having odd dreams lately about having to re-keyword all my images. And then having to re-keyword all my images. Phew...thankfully it was all just a dream and not reality.....

  69. 15 August 2008 at 10:01 flying dog

    Ian and Fabian, you are both barking up the RIGHT tree. Agree with you both.

    Whatever, it is still a barking pain up the hind leg. As with many of you 2000+ images is a LOT to re check.

    We can only lay our faith with Alamy, or I will lay down or is it lying down or laid down and Lassie or the lassies can tickle my paw or paws.

    CHRIS, was it a dream or were you dreaming?

  70. 15 August 2008 at 12:10 Jaybee

    Ian,

    "Only a tiny fraction of images will have been annotated with all the ^ and "" marks to make stemming work properly."

    "Despite the frustration felt by many over wasted hours..."

    There's a huge sense of frustration about this for sure. Like many others treating this as part of my business I've been revising keywords via measures results adding ^ to stem only the problem words and waiting in vain for the day Alamy would actually switch them on.

    I've also been phrasing in "" and [] too waiting for the day this goes live so my search result relevancy would improve.

    It would be nice if Alamy could say for sure whether they've abandoned Annotations altogether - else I'm just racking up false positive hits in vain hoping one day they'll go live to protect my "proper names".

    As it stands, the people who can't be bothered to treat keying seriously have "won" on the stemming scenario to the detriment of the rest of us.

    It will be a sad day if they've won on Annotations too.

    Turning these on would help those partners who've put a huge amount of unpaid time into this exercise on Alamy's instruction.

    So **please**, Alamy come clean and tell us if plans for the "" and [] Annotations are abandoned? At least give us a definitive answer on that point.

  71. 15 August 2008 at 12:56 IanMurray

    Jaybee,

    I really do know what you mean. Alamy has been a rollercoaster ride. You just feel that you are getting on top and then they change things and you come crashing down.

    I too treat this very much as business and already spend far too much time just on Alamy stuff. At 1-3 million images it was possible worth doing all these changes. With 13 million, and I'm being perfectly calm and undramatic about this, I can't justify the time endlessly fiddling around. The returns are just not there so I do the minimum. I've still not re-keyworded 90% of mine for the Ess Keys stuff. Until the bulk tools arrive it is not worth thinking about.

    As others have said Alamy don't seem to think about it from the contributors' viewpoint. It's as though they know there will be someone else willing to do the work so you can 'take it or leave it'.

    I keep hoping for some fresh, exciting ideas to get Alamy moving up through the gears and really start motoring. Instead we seem to get a lot of this sort of tinkering around at the margins.

    Hey ho.

    ATB

    Ian Murray

  72. 15 August 2008 at 13:27 Tony Watson

    Come on Alamy.... we know you are reading these comments, some feedback would be nice.

    Penalizing those who have followed your instructions re stemming & adding ^ is madness. Can you please lets us know if we are wasting our precious time adding "" & []?

    When if ever will annotations go live?

    Please talk to us, or aren't you bothered, about those who have helped build up your business?

    Go on Alamy, give us some good news for a change, you can do it.

  73. 15 August 2008 at 15:38 Chris potter

    I've just read the blog again....here is a quote "As with all changes, we will periodically review it over an extended period."
    In view of the changes from one system to another and back again, does this mean that if I carefully put in all the plurals in my keywords, that sooner or later Alamy may change it back....or to a completley different system?

    Also, should Essential Keywords be extended to accomodate these changes? As this is the first field in a search, it's going to result in a loss of search returns if the plural(s) end up in other fields due to lack of space in Essential. I, for one, don't know what to do for the best...

  74. 16 August 2008 at 01:19 Gaspar Avila

    I think you're making a mistake with plurals. It's ridiculous to have to keyword images for all singulars and plurals of each word.
    "tree" should always return the same results as "trees". If buyers want an image with 1 tree they can always search for "tree one" or "one tree"...

  75. 16 August 2008 at 07:49 Ern Mainka

    I'm outraged at how weeks of my time have been wasted. I too think you're making a big mistake about 's' plurals. I followed the latter guideline advice of not bothering about adding 's' plurals but using discretion for other plural variants.

    The extra 'essential', 'main' and 'comprehensive' keywording work cost a lot of time and angst but this is ridiculous.

    Most of my work is landscape and nature so instead of singular words being enough (as instructed by Alamy) I would have to go back and add the plurals like: tree/s, flower/s, mountain/s, cloud/s, bird/s, sunray/s, sunbeam/s, plant/s, animal/s, rock/s, wave/s etc.

    In the beginning I was adding 's' plurals but deleted them in the new re-keywording work as Alamy said it wasn't needed.

    I'm reluctant to start redoing it over again (even if I had the time) as Alamy might at some time change it back again so it would be even more time, work and money down the drain. It's costing me more than I'm making. I feel like we're being treated like a bunch of monkeys working for well paid execs that have to come up with so called 'improvements' to justify they're worth.

    I just can't see the larger contributors and agencies wasting time and money on this - nor can I afford to. Please reinstate at least simple 's' plural stemming because I don't think I or the majority of contributors will bother or could afford to.




  76. 17 August 2008 at 08:47 Alex segre

    Customers have a choice - which is just a browser-tab away - so the most important thing is that Alamy produces the best possible search results for them. If turning off stemming has been found to do this then, despite the inconvenience, I support this change.

    About apostrophes: I think you could make it clearer that the search engine now recognises them. These were previously stripped out so it's important that we re-insert them.

  77. 18 August 2008 at 16:23 Trevor payne

    I am unhappy that this reversal of guidance means re-visiting all 4000+ images (again) to add plurals when you had previoulsy advised there was no need for this

  78. 18 August 2008 at 17:04 Lisa Valder

    I went to through most of my collection at the time of the new annotation tools taking irrelevant plurals out. A lot of wasted time, for what?

  79. 18 August 2008 at 18:20 Paul panayiotou

    Whoever dreamt up this latest idea ought to be made to re-keyword every single one of the 12 million odd images affected

    All my images have the plural noun as previously prescribed by Alamy

    Like many others, I have already spent several weeks re-keywording for Alamy Rank.

    Can we contributors really be expected to go through all this again?

    I am not amused

  80. 19 August 2008 at 11:20 Trevor payne

    Wouldn't it be better to leave stemming "on" and provide Clients more help and guidance on the best way to search? This would avoid the need for contributors to revisit all their keywording and help client become more "savvy" on effective search techniques.
    (My views seem to have plummeted since stemming was switched off - I wonder is this is the reason why)

  81. 19 August 2008 at 13:11 Jan csernoch

    I agree with most posters who find it utterly frustrating having to change all our keywording from time to time. How about leaving stemming ON and implementing a list of negatives that are denied, like ski won't return skies. That is called 'deny' (as 'allow' for opposit) lists in the technical word.

  82. 19 August 2008 at 14:42 Charles polidano

    I'm flabbergasted. I can't believe what Alamy has gone and done. It's ridiculously unprofessional to change the rules like this. It's also silly because many picture researchers will take stemming for granted and simply assume it's present. I've only got 500 images and I'm not sure it will be worth the effort to re-keyword them.

  83. 19 August 2008 at 15:06 Bill kuta

    My many years in IT projects tell me that this is a case of "we don't know what's wrong with our search engine, but we're pretty sure that turning off stemming will give us more of the results we want." This is not usually a good approach even as a temporary stopgap. This is no mystery, folks, and certainly not an occasion for blind faith. It's an instance of incompetence.

  84. 19 August 2008 at 15:28 Wim wiskerke

    Jan,
    normally a stemming routine WILL make the difference between ski and sky. It is a known exception.

    Stemming on will give cleaner search results.
    Stemming off will result in much more keyword spamming. Try this search: *asiatic black bear*. Remember this is with stemming off at the moment. The result: 105 Asian animals; 185 Asian bare feet.



  85. 19 August 2008 at 15:53 Maggie J

    The results are still going to be irrelevant as everyone is just going to add all variations of their keywords. A picture of a dog, will still be keyworded dog, dogs so how is that going to bring relevant search results?

  86. 21 August 2008 at 01:06 dave j

    I agree with most of the above, where

    Alamy's stemmer is rubbish and needs to be improved. They clearly don't know how to code one, or even use a search engine to find one of the open source solutions already out there for free!!! This would save the planet a lot more effort than asking contributors to rekeyword everything AGAIN.

    Hire someone who knows about working out priorities.

    Save the time you are spending mucking about with the bulk edit GUI and sort out the search engine. We can use spreadsheets to bulk change ourselves.

    Alamy you look naive to say the least - please consider reversing this decision.

    How long will it be until you ask us to re-keyword our collections after this?

  87. 21 August 2008 at 01:11 dave j

    Also how about

    1. give us a checkbox to us specify on a per image basis whether stemming should be used for building the index

    2. let buyers click a 'stem' checkbox

    3. email contributors and ask them what they think (specifically to turning off stemming), instead of making clumsy ill-thought out announcements on a blog

    4. email people when you do something generally. It would be a basic courtesy to the majority who don't read the blog every day.

    How hard can it be?

  88. 21 August 2008 at 19:17 Rainer raffalski

    Dear Alan Capel,

    You wrote, "Our keywording advice has always been to include plurals where relevant and not rely on stemming".

    I may sound harsh, but - that is simply not true.

    Alamy have explicitely instructed the contributors they don't need to use "dogs" if they used the keyword "dog". You know that yourself.

    Reading the comments you can find that the decision to turn off stemming is a desaster for the vast majority of your contributors, who spent enormous amounts of time and energy preparing their keywords according to Alamy's instructions.

    It is neither kind nor a good business decision to completely ignore that, and to force your contributors to rererekeyword once more.

    Therefore, at the very minimum, hold on to your own words, and turn on stemming for the simple plural s.

    YOU SAID SO!

    And we keyworded accordingly!

    Rainer Raffalski

  89. 26 August 2008 at 14:56 Andy arthur

    Has anyone told our customers that the search engine has changed?

  90. 30 August 2008 at 09:43 Karen spencer

    I've been offline for a few weeks and to come back to this makes me want to weep - a really, really daft idea. Why should we take any notice of anything you say since you move the goal posts so frequently or when we do all the work to rekey word(AT YOUR REQUEST) and are being penalised because you've not implemented your end. Ach, just disgusted.

  91. 01 September 2008 at 00:52 Jim Batty

    1) A couple of months back I queried MS as to when the use of annotations would become 'live' in searches. A series of answers came back from MS people of increasing seniority, all stating that it was simply not known when it would begin, BUT that I should continue to add the annotations (including the ^ stemming feature) to new as well as older images already for sale — as it would ultimately improve searching and, thereby, sales.

    So, despite wondering why the organisation seemed to honestly not know when they might publicly introduce a new system already implemented with contributors, I have been diligently fine-tuning my keywords by adding all necessary annotations. I have taken this seriously and, as many here have attested, it is a long and time-consuming process. I have also been relying on ordinary plurals, past tenses and such to be picked up in searches.

    2) I am a photographer. I do not have the time or patience to keep re-visiting my image's keywords. Certainly not two, three or four times a year.

    3) I do not wish to be an unwitting guinea pig for the various search engine optimisation ideas Alamy is keen to investigate. It is not rocket science to set up tests with control groups populated by supportive and consciously active participants. I am sure there are many many Alamy contributors and buyers that would volunteer to take part and offer excellent and constructive feedback to help fine-tune the search algorithm.

    4) Like a number of contributors here, I am beginning to question whether Alamy really know what they are doing. I am also starting to feel my time and good-will is being abused. There is, and has always been, a great deal of trust involved in the stock industry and the relationship between photographer and agency. It will be a real shame if this trust is thoughtlessly thrown away for ... I'm not sure what end.


    Jim Batty


  92. 03 September 2008 at 15:12 David mcintyre

    As a photo buyer, I agree with posters above who suggest letting photo buyers turn stemming on or off. Sometimes I want stemming on (e.g., when I know there are many variants of the search terms I'm entering, and I don't want to bother thinking up all of them), and sometimes I don't (e.g., when I know there are similar terms that will clutter up the results with irrelevant hits). Why not trust buyers to decide whether they want stemming or not? A relatively easy way to do this may be to allow wildcard searches such as * (for any string of characters) or ? (for a single character).

    I find it a pain in the neck to have to search for both "dog" and "dogs" if it's not important to me whether the photo has just one dog or several dogs.

    And for the record, I have received NO notice, as a buyer, that this change has been implemented. I'm sure I have missed relevant search results because I was unaware of the change.

Add your own comment
Means that we require this information. We respect your privacy and store your details securely. See our privacy policy for more.
Security code picture
No picture? Reload page.
No picture? Reload page.