Thank you for your replies, I think it's a good debate here and some good points of view as well.
Some photographers prefer to sell concepts, abstract titles with generic key words. They can sell, but as far as I noticed, in the landscape photography, most of them had zero sales.
Photos with relevant TITLE and/or DESCRIPTION had at least 1 sale. I know I'm not bringing a new getting rich formula, but I'm trying to explain what I realized so far downloading 25 photos/day for the last 2 months. I have over 350 Lightboxes waiting do be downloaded, at least 2k photos so far in my waiting list.
It's not really a frustration, it's just spending more than necessary time browsing portfolios and photos.
One quick example from my searches: https://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-alpine-lake-image151878
This a good example of generic TITLE and excellent DESCRIPTION. No problems at all here (and sales talk).
APO EX DG Macro II
Canon EF-S 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 50 mm...
Interesting thread. Kind of leads to that highly debatable question... Big descriptions and lots of keywords VS. smaller more targeted descriptions and keywords? Since I've only been on DT since May of last year, I'm still listening to the much more experienced stock photographers on this one. Which seems to be fewer more targeted words for descriptions and keywords.
Interestingly enough, I think one of your examples of a bad description is one of my photos. In fact, I agree with your assessment, and in the past I have given several photos different names, and I'm not sure if that has been a successful tactic or not.
I have a few thoughts on this.
The Matterhorn is a beautiful and recognizable natural part of the landscape. People looking for a picture of that mountain will know to enter in the name. There are some beautiful mountains, not so recognizable, that can be listed under their full name without generating more views. So in an effort to get more views, I sometimes attempt a generic naming route. Not always, but sometimes.
A stunning photo of an unfamiliar landscape can be hard to label. Unfamiliar natural wonders are, by nature, generic.
I agree with the comments about geo-tagging and detailed keywords/descriptions. Any other ideas for naming random landscapes are greatly appreciated.