Posted Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:26AM
There have been discussions about whether or not to provide a sub-category 'Other' under some, if not all, terms.
For example, take surnames. Some are taken up by one particular individual. Something as common as Smith allows the option of Al Smith (who is he?), and no one else.
I have just uploaded an image of John Hunter, a distinguished surgeon. Not altogether surprisingly, 'hunter' is taken up with hunting terms, so this surname cannot be added to keywords except by spamming.
The same applies to all surnames that have their roots in day-to-day terms, or that clash with a particular present-day personality. It is not possible to keyword them, which puts those images at a disadvantage.
Having 'other' as an option seems to be one way of getting around this. Are there other options, maybe?
Posted Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:34AM
...you may have to be content with keywording his profession/age/era/scottish/scienist/eminent/famous/postcard ect ect.
Posted Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:56AM
You obviously know this man Hunter, Alistair!
Posted Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:19AM
As you know, the other option is to send the KW team your KW suggestions. I don't think the Other KW option is something that is ever going to fly. I see the addition of a Other term on all files creating even more bad DA problems with increased muddled search results.
The good news is this: with increased sharing of terms from the GI CV more NOPs (Name of Person) and other terms are becoming more available. If we don't have something we know you'll let us know. Keep the suggestions coming.
Posted Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:23AM
^ ^ Thanks David.
So what about this guy Al Smith, for example? How would you open this keyword up for all Smiths?
Posted Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:21AM
Al Smith is an old KW and one that shouldn't have Smith as a search synonym. That's been fixed now. Most NOPs (Name of Person) shouldn't have last name/first name as search synonyms unless there are commonly known by their last name/first name ie: Beyonce.
Posted Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:33PM
^ That's clear, thanks David.