Russell Glenister, writing on the whichstockagency.com blog describes some of the less than enlightening descriptions that microstock photos often have applied to them:
“First, let us take a brief look at bad keywording and descriptions because, although it’s a problem for microstock companies as they insist their contributors post their own descriptions and keywords (few of which are checked), it’s not our only, or indeed, major gripe. Of course, if an image is keyworded badly it will make it difficult find and can throw all sorts of strange images into a search.” [Read More]
While the article applies to microstock, there are some potentially valuable lessons for Enterprise DAM. Many companies who implement Digital Asset Management get their staff to do the cataloguing work because they lack the budget or cannot afford a dedicated picture librarian. This is a very similar approach to microstock: the cataloguing work is delegated to the asset suppliers (the photographers) many of whom are amateurs.
This allows microstock agencies to keep their costs low but the quality control can suffer as a result. So it is also with Enterprise DAMs and search results are often haphazard, inconsistent and potentially risky (from a legal perspective). This type of “Garbage In Garbage Out” scenario is not unknown to vendors and consultants, yet it remain a key issue for users of DAM systems. Does your DAM vendor take any steps to help you ensure the quality of your catalogued assets (whether through functionality and advice on best practices), or is this just left down to you?
- Metadata Automation Webinar Recording From New Jersey DAM Meetup Group
- Can Enterprise Taxonomy Management Survive Analyst Reticence - And Does Anyone Else Care Anyway?
- The Role Of Taxonomy Governance In DAM Interoperability Initiatives
- Google's Visual Case Study Of The Perils And Politics Of Automated Metadata
- The Perils And Politics Of Automated Metadata Generation