14 Replies Latest reply on Oct 17, 2017 10:09 AM by AREA 6

    Image search is useless.

    vixler Level 1

      Even typing in very obvious keywords, the image search is near-useless. I found some images of the same product with all kinds of different keywords. Downloading previews to the computer, it was impossible to find the files again on the site, because those numbers aren't actually the numbers on the site (I didn't realize there were other numbers one needs to take an extra step to copy-paste). In any other stock site, you can save the preview easily. The images should be keyworded so that you do not have to search a million different things. It's a waste of time and money as you may buy some after a major effort of search and STILL find some you missed. Totally random. I've never encountered a stock site like this! I searched and searched to find a specific thing. Finally gave up, but suddenly found an image using a most unlikely keyword. Even images that have text in them, very simple text that refers to the image, cannot be found using that text. It's pretty much impossible to use this site because of the poor search. The tools are not very helpful. The images need to have DESCRIPTIONS containing multiple KEYWORDS--and if it's of a product, the NAME of the item should be in the DESCRIPTION--the item and brand, if it's clearly a certain brand--it's a very basic concept.

        • 1. Re: Image search is useless.
          EvilBugQueen1 Adobe Employee

          Hi V.


          I am a member of the Adobe Stock Quality Engineering team and am very interested in your feedback. Please note that the keywords are provided by the image contributors and we are always looking for ways to improve this. I'm especially interested in the reference you make to image/video ID numbers. Can you please provide an example where you had to search for different numbers for the same image?


          Also, it doesn't sound like you are using the Libraries feature on the Stock site. You can create multiple libraries on the site and save previews and/or licensed images to a specific library and the libraries can be accessed with Adobe Creative Cloud applications like Photoshop or Illustrator.


          Please let me know how we can assist you further.



          1 person found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Image search is useless.
            vixler Level 1

            Hi EBQ (love your name!)


            Thanks for your reply.


            I'm unable to find the ones with the different numbers, because I gave up looking for them last night--I don't remember which ones--it would be near impossible to find them again. I do see now that the previews have the numbers on the lower right corner. Last night I had not enlarged the preview, so did not notice that.


            The biggest issue is not being able to find an image via obvious descriptive terms. I have downloaded some, using up my images, but then keep finding others under really surprising terms.


            I sell cards POD on Greeting Card Universe, and they constantly remind us to write good descriptions. They give examples--write the main colors, patterns, textures, anything going on in it. They also have a robust search--not vague categories, but layer after layer of subcategories that really drill down--such as "Mother's Day to Grandma Humor Cat Knitting." Each card goes through a human approval system and the category has to be correct--if it's not, they put it into a correct category and they also give written suggestions to help with keywords. They also show you "most popular," as do other stock photo sites. There are almost a million greeting cards on the site, but it is not difficult to find things no matter how obscure, because of the category system and their willingness to train the artists and personally work with them.

            Also, the color wheel is strange, what is it that we would pick? Images are more than one color. Would we get images with any amount of a specific color? I didn't even try that one.


            Another thing here is that it should be stated clearly and up front that video is not included in the 10 images. I know it says images, but it also has copy about how you can pick from photos, videos, etc.--I spent a long time trying to choose a video only to find it was not included. I do not know anything about video, and though I did wonder if it was included, figured if it were not, Adobe would have told us. I know I should have read through the rules (if it even is in the rules) but it was my first time using this, and it seemed intuitive. It would be a cinch to simply add "videos not included in image subscription." I'm not used to using video, and only wanted a single one. Most people do not read the fine print, especially when they are just trying out something. yes, it is my own fault, but a bit of idiot-proofing is always good.



            Working with the artists and strengthening the categories would be the main way to fix this issue, I think.


            There's a great selection and I did eventually find images of what I wanted, but it took a lot of digging--I had hesitated to try it because previous searches had not turned up what I wanted, but I really needed them, so spent longer. I only found one image of a particular item I wanted, after relentless searches. I suspect there are other images of it, as there are dozens of a closely related item, but I'll probably never find them.


            Thanks for hearing me out!




            • 3. Re: Image search is useless.
              EvilBugQueen1 Adobe Employee

              Thanks for the information, Vicky! We value your feedback. I've passed this on to our product manager.



              1 person found this helpful
              • 4. Re: Image search is useless.
                Brad Lawryk Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                Hi Vicky,


                I do somewhat agree the search here needs a lot of work. But as a friendly work around in the meantime is to search on Fotolia.com instead if your need a deeper search. Then just jot down the Image numbers as they are the same as on Stock and then just search for the numbers in Stock. Not an ideal workflow obviously but it does give you access to better search in most cases. Worth a try in the future to see if that works for you in the meantime. Stock is still new so I would think these little things will get fined tuned as it grows.

                • 5. Re: Image search is useless.
                  vixler Level 1

                  Thank you, I didn't know about that.

                  Yes, I'm sure it will improve. The images certainly are nicer than most places. Good luck.

                  • 6. Re: Image search is useless.
                    BookCoverNinja Level 1

                    Saying it needs work is an understatement. The search here is just plain terrible.


                    I will have to try that Fotolia trick/work-around.


                    The biggest issue for me is not being able to search by author....and not being able to search an author's portfolio.


                    So...if I find an author with a style/vibe that I like...I can click on their portfolio...only to have to go thru it page-by-page. Some authors have thousands of files. It would be nice to be able to search that portfolio for a keyword.


                    It's not exactly an advanced feature. Especially since I could do it on Dollar Photo Club...and I can do it on Fotolia.

                    • 7. Re: Image search is useless.
                      Jahnu_AU Level 1

                      I have to agree whole heartedly that it is a joke. I was doing a search for "empowerment" and got up image 55368607 (which seems to be a BLT sandwich as far as I can tell) along with a slew of irrelevant and at times incomprehensible results. Having been forced to make the move from DPC, I am dismayed that my stock searches are now taking up to at least an hour longer, if indeed I am successful at all. I have seen images of the earth being held in hands (standard fare for spiritual themed clients) filed under "Body parts | Arms", and many more ridiculous classifications. Also, why on earth can we not see the keywords that an image is filed with? That simple, and you would think obvious, feature would mean we could amend searches in line with keywords on irrelevant results. Come on Adobe, you had a great search engine on DPC, I know you feel you have to reinvent the wheel every time you buy another company, but seriously - at least make sure the new wheel is round for once before lumbering your clients with it.

                      • 8. Re: Image search is useless.



                        While Adobe hasn't designed the site well for searching beyond the most basic of searches, you CAN search for specific keywords within a given portfolio, you just need to know how to edit the actual URL and what the URL for a search looks like.


                        Here's an example of a basic URL for a portfolio:



                        Here's an example of a search for two keywords:



                        Notice how there is a pattern in the queries of data_field=item


                        You combine queries with an ampersand (&). So to search for just zombie hands in this particular portfolio, you would enter the portfolio and add "&k=zombie+hands" to the end of the URL, looking like this:




                        Voila! Searching within a portfolio. The actual coding behind the site allows for more powerful search strings. It's just the interface that doesn't show these options.

                        • 9. Re: Image search is useless.


                          Is there any way to search by uploading an image? I saved this image few days ago and I'm trying to find and purchase the same image today with using the same keywords but no luck. This is really frustrating, since similar stock sites offer an option to search by image. I spent 2 hours trying to find and purchase attached image. Please help. 

                          • 10. Re: Image search is useless.
                            coreenm Level 1

                            No, but a Google image search says you can get it at Fotolia:


                            "knight riding horse charging with lance" Stock image and royalty-free vector files on Fotolia.com - Pic 28503212


                            It's entirely possible that this image was on Adobe stock when you searched a sfew days ago and no longer is. That has happened to me many times on various stock sites.

                            • 11. Re: Image search is useless.
                              vixler Level 1

                              Fotolia is also only about a dollar for most images while this one is $9.99. Go figure.

                              • 12. Re: Image search is useless.
                                AREA 6

                                Hi Wendy:


                                I did a search today for "has Adobe Stock fixed its search engine?" and ended up here. The reason I was looking is that AREA 6 clip sales suddenly have begun to take off (5 in the past two days as opposed to 5 over the past year or so).


                                I was hoping that Adobe/Fotolia finally had decided to include descriptions as part of the search.Can't tell if that has happened, but it's my guess it has, and would certainly explain the dramatic increase in sales, which would be a logical result. 


                                When I first learned that descriptions were not included, I could hardly believe it, as phrase-based search is the current trend and you are, after all, an innovative market leading company.


                                As a professional stock footage producer, I have to optimize my pipeline and carefully manage my time and, given the fact that Adobe/Fotolia is the only stock publisher that makes me index everything manually (no CSV uploads), there is absolutely NO way I was going to take additional time to make sure that the prime keywords in my descriptions were also in keyword sets.


                                If you haven't included descriptions yet, please consider it.


                                I can't imagine how much sales revenue you have lost (more than me, based on the revenue split) with an engine that lacks this very basic, utterly logical, industry-standard feature. Not to mention the aggravation that Vixler mentions, which is sure to drive off customers, never to return. I hope its fixed, once and for all.





                                • 13. Re: Image search is useless.
                                  EvilBugQueen1 Adobe Employee

                                  Hi John,


                                  I have passed your feedback on to our product management team. We are continually working to improve the features of the Stock and Contributor sites and your feedback is much appreciated.


                                  Wendy a.k.a. EBQ


                                  • 14. Re: Image search is useless.
                                    AREA 6 Level 1

                                    Thanks much. It's encouraging to know that the developers are getting real feedback.