How specific should I make the final keywords in a hierarchy?

[Damit]

I am working on my Keywords and thesaurus again and, like always, its down the rabbit hole! Anyhow, I am reconsidering my final keywords and how specific I should make them. For example, macro photography. The structure is How|Photography|Style of Photography|Macro Photography. I had considered, for succinctness, to just have Macro at the end, but I think Macro photography works better. Plus, when filtering, I would not have to use "Photography" AND "macro" to get macro photography results.  I could just use the term "macro photography." In addition, macro and photography by themselves would return a result. Also, if I convert the first 3 words in the hierarchy to group keywords, the word photography would still get a hit (though so would all my photographs, but you get the gist).

Other examples include classroom interiors which resides within What|Architecture|Building Interiors|Education|Classroom.  But I think instead of classroom, it should be classroom interiors for the same reasons.  If Building interiors is made into a group, then classroom interior or classroom AND interior would not result in a hit. Similar examples are What|Architecture|Architectural Elements|Furniture|Chairs|Deck Chairs.
 I would not just put "Deck" as the final keyword, would I? Or What|Architecture|Architectural Styles|50's Style.  I would not just put 50's as the final keyword, would I? In short, I think it is best for the final keyword to have as much detail necessary to convey what you are trying to label in the picture.  Yes, the hierarchy may be present, but it might not be.  Of course this may lead to a longer more cumbersome list, but one that is easier to search. Of course, there are examples like What|Attribute|Texture|Abrasive that you could leave as just Abrasive, instead of abrasive texture, but there are plenty of examples where it would be better to be more specific.  The keywords lists I have don't seem to be consistent on this. My macro photography example came from a pre-made keyword list, but mostly the specificity is not included.

Any input on this matter would be appreciated.  I have waffled back and forth and want to put this to bed.

[sinus]

I depends mostly, how you want/must use your pictures. In the past I worked with a lot, a lot of keywords.
If you have 10 pictures in the forest, the forest from far, then some trees together, then 1 alone, and then a branch and a macro from the bark.

If you now want it make "perfect", you have to give different keywords for every pic.
I did so in the past.

But nowadays I would give only a few keywords, like forest, trees. And then there is also singular-plural, what you could consider. (Better is, I think, to go with one of them).

I have about 370'000 image, now the only problem is, if I want find images, that I can find them.
Therefore, in my example, I would (nowadays) search for forest and end with, say 100 - 500 images, and then I would srcoll through them.

I have the most relevant "keyword" in the filename and often that is enough good to find.
Then I have the most information in the headline and description, also enough good to find.
And finally I have the keys, but nowadays I do not more search a lot for them.
Except maybe cities and persons (for historical work with my images I have all relevant persons in keys, hence I do not work with the cool person-possibility of IMatch).

Maybe I forgot now something. But in easy words: I have changed from complicated keywords to easy keys.

But of course, as I wrote, it depends, what your work is. If you have a lot of different birds, then a good keyword-strategy could enhance your work a lot.

Specialy if you work with your keywords as a source for other categories.
Then it is also interesting, because you can "link" them with create new categories with formulas, like "family-members" - "forest" - "snow".

I would lean back, and think about, how I want really find my pictures. Want I find only some pictures, but precise or is it also ok, to find 200 and scroll finally through them?
But I think, you are a precise person, I guess, hence I could also understand, if you want a nice and perfect keyword-list, like I had, ahem, 20 years ago

[Jingo]

I too have gone down this rabbit hole many times... and changed my style and hierarchy as many times. 

After years and years of playing, I realized I hardly have difficulty finding things in the database so keeping things as simple as possible works best for me.  Since I'm not submitting my photos to agencies or magazines, I don't need a detailed hierarchy... Animals|Birds|Great Blue Heron is sufficient for me.. just as Objects|Ocean works just fine too.

I try to use location data as much as possible.. so a search for "White Beach" finds the image a bit quicker than just pulling up all images marked Objects|Ocean... for more common keywords - I might use an advanced search to narrow it down quicker but at the end of the day - I have found simpler is easier!

For your example:  How|Photography|Style of Photography|Macro Photography -> I have a simple keyword Special Item|Macro Photograph... others are similar: Special Item|Food Photography, etc.

Ask 10 folks, you'll probably get 9 different answers!    The fun of Keyword organization... Good luck on your journey!!

[Mario]

KISS (Keep it Simple)!

Ask you this:

What do I need the keywords for?
A stock photographer has different requirements (many, many keywords!) than a press photographer, a scientists or a hobby photographer. Or a plane / train spotter.

Do I send photos to clients or upload to web sites and social media?

If I want to find my files by keywords, how would I search?
Is searching for "car" enough or do I need to search for specific models, built years, colors, ...?

Several features in IMatch can automatically add keywords to your files, e.g. assigning a person to a face or applying an IMatch location. Or running the AutoTagger. Consider that when setting up your keywords (hierarchy).

In my experience, sometimes users start up with something super-detailed and complex, but never really apply it.
Simple keywords, maybe with a 5W hierarchy, is usually enough for most amateur photographers. If you have to deliver files to clients, agencies or web sites / social media, things look a bit different.

Setting up, using and sticking to a controlled vocabulary is important for quick and consistent tagging. If your thesaurus is well-maintained, the Keywords Panel in IMatch will be very effective when it comes to adding keywords to a large number of files in very little time.

Consistency is paramount when it comes to keywords. Using the same keyword for the same thing. Using different keywords for the same thing is bad, e.g. for searching.

See this IMatch knowledge-base article for some additional info about visual clues you can use to aid keywording.

AutoFill allows you to add any number of keywords, even dynamically produced on-the-fly, with a few keystrokes or mouse clicks. And other data to. At the same time.

[loweskid]

Is there a specific reason why you need to use keywords?.  I only ever put keywords in images that I am submitting to an agency, all the rest are taken care of with IMatch Categories.

In your example I would have a category for 'Photography' and another for 'Macro' then use the Category Builder to combine the two.

Even simpler would be to have 'Macro' as a 'child' of 'Photography' then you just need to select that.

[Damit]

Thank you all for your input! For now, I am specifically considering my the final leaf in my hierarchy and how detailed it should be.

I would lean back, and think about, how I want really find my pictures. Want I find only some pictures, but precise or is it also ok, to find 200 and scroll finally through them?
But I think, you are a precise person, I guess, hence I could also understand, if you want a nice and perfect keyword-list, like I had, ahem, 20 years ago

Yes, I like to be precise.  I have thought about this for many hours and on multiple occasions. Keywording is the paragon of rabbit holes!  I am re-approaching it after trying to use them for searching.  That is when I realized that just using macro would not be good.  If I was searching for macro photography, I would use that term to search, not macro or macro AND photography. I guess when you come up with the final leaf you must consider if it conveys what you want by itself, without any parent that might be turned into a group. This might lead to longer or repetitive keywords but really the main thing is to be able to find the image with the keyword.

One of the main things I also consider is the process of keywording itself.  I do not want very long lists or more than 5 maybe 6 levels because more would make actually keywording cumbersome, needing a very large window to do it quickly.  If a list has more than 20-30 terms I need to subdivide it, creating another level in the hierarchy.

If I want to find my files by keywords, how would I search?
Is searching for "car" enough or do I need to search for specific models, built years, colors, ...?

Thanks Mario!  I am indeed using the 5Ws and One H. I also employ a closed vocabulary and all my keywords are in my thesaurus. I plan on using your color coding, which is a great feature in the near future.

Is there a specific reason why you need to use keywords?.  I only ever put keywords in images that I am submitting to an agency, all the rest are taken care of with IMatch Categories.

In your example I would have a category for 'Photography' and another for 'Macro' then use the Category Builder to combine the two.

Even simpler would be to have 'Macro' as a 'child' of 'Photography' then you just need to select that.

I have contemplated using categories but I don't want all my labeling to be stuck in IMatch.  I like to use multiple platforms and keywords can be accessed by all the programs where categories only in IMatch.

[sinus]

I too have gone down this rabbit hole many times... and changed my style and hierarchy as many times.

After years and years of playing, I realized I hardly have difficulty finding things in the database so keeping things as simple as possible works best for me.  Since I'm not submitting my photos to agencies or magazines, I don't need a detailed hierarchy... Animals|Birds|Great Blue Heron is sufficient for me.. just as Objects|Ocean works just fine too.

I try to use location data as much as possible.. so a search for "White Beach" finds the image a bit quicker than just pulling up all images marked Objects|Ocean... for more common keywords - I might use an advanced search to narrow it down quicker but at the end of the day - I have found simpler is easier!

For your example:  How|Photography|Style of Photography|Macro Photography -> I have a simple keyword Special Item|Macro Photograph... others are similar: Special Item|Food Photography, etc.

Ask 10 folks, you'll probably get 9 different answers!    The fun of Keyword organization... Good luck on your journey!!

For me this is a very good statement. It could have been from me   
Additionally, most magazines do not look at keywords, at least this is my experience. And a lot of agencies have own keywords or own rules that must be used. 

Hence for me it goes down to Jingo's sentence "I hardly have difficulty finding things in the database so keeping things as simple as possible" and Mario's even shorter statement: KISS. 

[Damit]

Thanks again, Sinus.  Another question I have is if each term should be discretely listed once and never repeated. For example, tennis can be listed under a recreational activity or under a sport.  One would want to differentiate between the two as the setting and resulting images may be very different.  In the help, Mario warns about assigning many different terms to one item and not be consistent (other than the use of synonym, I presume).  Is it a bad strategy to list the same keyword under different hierarchies, such as having Tennis under What|Sports|Tennis and What|Leisure|Tennis? Stadium is another one.  A stadium could be used as a music venue or a sports venue.  It could even be used for things like Monster Trucks. Would it be a poor choice to list Stadium under both Sports Facility and Music Facility?

[Mario]

Is it a bad strategy to list the same keyword under different hierarchies, 

No, if it makes sense. An actor can be a "movie actor", "TV actor", "stage actor" or just a plain "actor."
Depends on how you plan to search keywords or other keywording requirements. As long as you put movie actors always in movie actor and stage actors into "stage actors", consistency requirements are fulfilled. You can later search for actor or, more precise, only for stage actors.

[Damit]

Thank you, once again, Mario. So, in your example you would have the word actor under Movie and also under TV and stage? I had read that this was ok and actually regularly done, and it was the way I was planning to go, but I really want to make sure I am doing things right before implementing the keyword system.

[Mario]

If you look at the default thesaurus included in IMatch, it does something like that:



That's just an example.

Free or commercial controlled vocabularies (google!) may do things differently. Press agencies and stock photo agencies usually provide thesauri to use. Commercial clients usually have their in-house bespoke thesaurus for marketing DAM and if you only use your thesaurus for private reasons, you can do whatever works for you.

Check out some of the available controlled keyword vocabularies (google!) to get some ideas on how others have solved this problem for various environments.

[Damit]

Thanks again for the information.  It is helpful to get my inclinations confirmed by those who are much more versed on the topic than I.

[Damit]

Does anyone see any benefit to grouping/listing activity keywords under groups.  Some of the keyword lists I have check out have activities divided into groups and some terms are repeated as Mario explained above. For example, "Assembling" is listed under Construction & Preparation, but also under Design & Production. The list in question was professionally prepared and sold as a product, so there is logic behind it, but I wonder if it is just best to have a long list of activities that is not subdivided, except maybe by letter. Is it good to have them grouped so that you can have a bunch of keywords listed for easy clicking when considering a photo that may fall under one of these groups. For example, maybe you are looking at a photo depicting a construction project.  Maybe it is good to put in construction in your search and all these terms will pop up, or you go to the Construction & Preparation area of your thesaurus, and you will have all those keywords listed to suggest what you may want to select? What are the benefits and drawbacks of listing activities under groups/categories as explained above? What method do you employ? Any input from anyone would be appreciated.