The Practical Keyworder - did you mean…?

I got a call from an upset customer one day - he had been looking for glamour shots of women's legs for some kind of ad campaign and his search results were coming up with some very strange stuff. Instead of images of female legs, he was getting page after page of baby animals and farm shots! Can you guess why?

Yes, exactly! One of his search terms was "calves". And the word 'calves' is what is known as a 'homograph' - a word that is spelled exactly the same as another word with an entirely different meaning. Here are some others:









Try using the term calves in the Dreamstime search engine - you will have the same problem as my customer had - mixed results with body parts and farm animals. Try the word 'bow' - you get mostly 'bows', as in ribbons, but you also get bow ties, the bow of a ship and a bow and arrow. These 'homographs' are ambiguous terms. Because of this, some search engines support what is known as 'disambiguation'. That is, when you plug in a term like 'orange', the search engine will ask you "Did you mean 'orange (color) or 'orange' (fruit)? Because the Dreamstime search engine does not support disambiguation - what's a practical keyworder to do?

Remember, one of the goals of effective keywording is to maximize your own search results (and thus, your sales!) and to make the Dreamstime engine work smoothly for the community. Well, the bad news here is that there is no one, sure way to disambiguate terms when there is no controlled vocabulary to work with. Even the more complex search engines that distinguish between terms and have controlled vocabularies have some difficulty with ambiguous search terms. (I actually ran a test and used the term 'calves' on several of the major stock sites and they ALL had the same problem of mixed results.)

There are some tricks however, that can help you. First, simply be aware that you are using a homograph and try to add modifiers to clarify your meaning (remember when using modifiers however that some modifiers, like 'baby' can dilute search results and do more harm than good (remember Babies and baby tomatoes...?). When using the word 'orange' for example, add the word 'color' if the color orange is important to your image. If you have a picture of an edible orange, add 'fruit' or 'juice'.

Use plural terms whenever you can. Plural terms take care of a lot ambiguity. "Oranges", for example, brings up only the fruit and not the color. Combine two terms whenever possible - 'bowtie', instead of 'bow tie' (which will be split in two by the search engine). Use as many unambiguous, alternate terms as possible and try to discard the ambiguous term. There is not much that anyone can do about 'pupils' - you will always get both 'eyeballs' and 'students'! But maybe you can try substituting the less ambiguous terms for the confusing one and monitor search results to see how effective that is for you…

Good luck!

Photo credits: Roberta Munoz.

Your article must be written in English

May 10, 2010


There used to be an issue with major search engines where SEO companies would pad keyword metas with tons of irrelevant terms in order to get into as many search results as possible. They did it because they were being paid to by misguided website owners who thought that kind of behaviour would help them. Just the opposite.

I've found on DT that some photographers have the same idea. On occasion I've spent hours sifting through photos, often weeding out completely irrelevant results. I've looked at some of these images and found 30 - 40 keywords, some of which having nothing to do with the subject.

The point is, sometimes ambiguity is intentional as photographers struggle to get their images seen. Perhaps some education is needed to help photographers realize that they will improve search effectiveness by streamlining their key terms to be more relevant.

May 07, 2010


when kewording EVERYONE must think that helping DT means helping himself.

May 07, 2010


must try calves+woman

May 07, 2010


on the other hand, "calves" isn't exactly the first term that comes to mind for a search for women's legs - woman, girl, leg finds plenty.

May 05, 2010


Since you can't avoid using the ambiguous term, I agree that adding more terms should help for images best described with an ambiguous term. If you mean the color orange, you'd better have 'color' as a keyword, versus 'fruit' and 'food'. As for searching, I would fall into the group of people who tend to use more words to do a Google search to eliminate, but I use the opposite behavior on DT (I exclude keywords). In my sales buyers very heavily tend towards one or two keywords. Too bad DT doesn't provide data on what they might have excluded! A lot of this can be helped by starting with a category search (body parts for 'calves', 'fuits and vegetables' for orange, etc.), but I don't think the DT category search is particularly obvious to a buyer, unfortunately.

May 05, 2010


Yes, you are absolutely right! Advanced search features can solve a lot of ambiguity by excluding terms. But - research has show that most users ADD terms rather than use advanced search features when searching. Here is a link to a good article on the subject (it isn't too technical)SEARCHING THE WEB: THE PUBLIC AND THEIR QUERIES

The article was written a while ago and it is about web searching, not image searching, but I think that this kind of user behavior is still true - at least it is in my experience. Thanks for the comment! You've given me a good idea for my next post...

May 05, 2010


nice tips and advices

May 05, 2010


Nice article. Buyers can also exclude unwanted keywords, e.g. animal and farm in the "calves" example, using DreamFinder advanced search.

Related image searches
Engine related image searches