You will be glad to know that the inventor of the web Tim Berners-Lee is actually quite disappointed with how it has developed too. He was hoping for it to be more like his idea of a . In this the network understands your queries rather than it all just being simple keyword matching.

Interesting. We are all trying to figure this stuff out.

Thanks again Guy!

If you actually pay attention to a more meaningful search like, Denali National Park Photography, then you will see that it is dominated by worthy photographers. There is a reason that Ron, Phil, QT, Rolf, & myself come up high in a lot of search results. I agree that the landscape photography search makes no sense, but if you do a more rational search, those of us that know what we are doing artistically & technologically come up high.

Now you seem to suggest that search algorithm filters are not optimized. I have to agree with you on that too. There is certainly a room for development in terms of how computers define “good” art. Rules such as having a balanced histogram in an image is a mathematical equivalent of human perception of “good” image. And I am very certain that there are other rules that need to be programmed into search criteria so as to at least screen out the outright appalling images. Since art is very subjective none of these rules can completely cover human interpretation of “good” but can hopefully be a step forward from where we are today.

Now on the disagreement part. I feel art cannot be judged on the commercial platform alone. I am with you when you question monetary advantages of social media but there are few channels available today where one can discuss an image and provide feedback on it. For me social media has been of great help to meet talented people and learn from them. As a matter of fact I found you through one of my flickr contacts. There may not be very many buyers of art on social media but there are certainly consumers of art.

Another disagreement I have is the point you make about Ansel Adams. As far as I know he was a very popular photographer in his day and was better at marketing than Ed Weston, as point out in one of the comments above. Now the good part is that even though Ed Weston did not make much money from his prints while he was alive, his images are a huge success today despite his lack of marketing. Good art survives in the long run. Ansel Adams being on page 81 is just the immaturity of search engines today and I would not bet on it being that way in the long run.

Thanks for posting this. It made me think and put together my thoughts.

Cheers,
Saurabh

Of course SEO has nothing to do with art. It is all about Marketing in the age of the Internet. And, like it or not it is the reality we live in.

Marketing of course is one of the major departments where every company must allocate resources. To survive, we as freelance Photographers must learn to see ourselves as a “company,” too. If our company can only afford one employee (you) then you must split your time doing different things — Art and Marketing being two of them, but bookkeeping/accounting come to mind, too, and of course our art involves two major activities: field and Post-processing work. So…

I understand your frustration, and of course I feel it, too, but let’s not assume those Photography companies that have invested time and resources into SEO, by default produce inferior or mediocre photography.

As it happens, I did give my son the SEO job (not for free, either) and, at his direction we avoided optimizing for terms such as “Landscape Photography” or “Nature Photography” (too broad) but… well… Google “Pacific Northwest Photography” and see what he has accomplished (and kept us there all these years.)

And… please don’t assume the first page hits are necessarily all trash

Cheers,

This comment in your post stood out. “All things being equal, a good marketer will be more prominent than a poor one, but things are no longer even remotely equal.”

Things have never been remotely equal, and good marketing has always trumped good photography. Now it might be SEO and social media, 15 years ago it was direct mailings and phone calls. We have know idea how many great photographers were out there before the internet. Photographers whose images were never viewed by anyone outside of possible close family.

Today, anyone, in any part of the world who is willing to embrace the opportunities has a chance. As Matt pointed out, the playing field has never been more level. Look at the opportunities it has afforded the likes of David duChemin and Trey Radcliff.

To me it is empowering. I don’t have to rely on a big stock agency, book publisher or art gallery – look where that is getting Ansel Adams. I will have no one but myself to blame for my success or failure and I prefer it that way.

Ron