Every piece of content you upload gets reviewed by our moderation team, and metadata is a critical part of that evaluation. Here's exactly what we check and why it matters.
The moderation process for metadata
When your content enters the review queue, moderators specifically evaluate:
1. Tag relevance and accuracy
Moderators ask: "Do these keywords accurately describe what I see in this image?"
Each tag must be genuinely present or relevant to the content
Generic or misleading tags lead to rejection
Overly broad tags without specific ones are insufficient
Example rejection: A photo of a rosary tagged with "mass", "priest", "church interior" - none of which are visible in the image.
2. Minimum tag count (7+ required)
Submissions with fewer than 7 tags are automatically insufficient
Shows lack of effort in making content discoverable
Will be rejected with note to add more relevant keywords
3. Tag quality over quantity
30 generic tags is worse than 10 specific, relevant ones
Keyword stuffing (repeating similar terms) is flagged
Tags should cover different aspects, not variations of same concept
4. Appropriate categorization
Is content in the right category? (Sacraments, Architecture, Prayer, etc.)
Does category match the primary subject matter?
Miscategorized content may be rejected or recategorized
5. Spam detection
Red flags that trigger rejection:
Irrelevant tags added to boost visibility
Repeated keywords with minor variations
Tags for content not actually present
Generic filler tags ("beautiful", "amazing", "wonderful")
Competitor names or trademarks
6. Catholic relevance in metadata
Do tags clearly indicate Catholic content?
Are Catholic-specific terms present?
Would a Catholic user searching find this relevant?
What happens if metadata fails review
If metadata issues are found:
Minor issues:
Moderator may fix simple problems (typos, one missing tag)
Content approved with corrections
You're notified of the changes
Moderate issues:
Content rejected with specific feedback
Email explains what needs improvement
You can fix metadata and resubmit
Serious issues (spam/abuse):
Content rejected
Pattern of spam may lead to account review
Repeated violations can result in contributor suspension
Examples: Pass vs Fail
Image: Gothic cathedral exterior at sunset
✓ PASSES:
Title: "Gothic cathedral facade at golden hour sunset"
Tags: gothic architecture, cathedral, church exterior, medieval, flying buttresses, stained glass windows, sunset, catholic architecture, religious building, European church
Category: Architecture
Why: Specific, accurate, relevant, well-categorized
✗ FAILS:
Title: "Beautiful church"
Tags: church, building, pretty, nice, religion, god
Category: General
Why: Too generic, only 6 tags, vague title, poor categorization
The "7+ tags" rule in practice
From contributor guidelines: "Write 7+ tags per resource."
This means:
Absolute minimum: 7 tags required for submission
Recommended: 10-15 for optimal discoverability
Quality check: All 7+ must be genuinely relevant
Moderators verify that if you submitted 7 tags, all 7 accurately describe the content.
Title evaluation
Titles are also reviewed for:
Descriptiveness: Does it clearly describe the content?
Accuracy: Does it match what's actually shown?
Professionalism: Is it written appropriately?
Length: Is it concise yet informative?
Generic titles like "Church photo" or "Catholic image" may lead to rejection.
Description assessment
If you provided a description, moderators check:
Does it add value beyond title and tags?
Is it accurate and professional?
Does it provide helpful context?
Poor or misleading descriptions can impact approval.
Location field verification
From guidelines: "Including your location enables users to find content from specific places."
If you specified a location:
Moderators verify it seems accurate for the content type
Architecturally significant buildings should have specific locations
Generic content doesn't require location
What quality metadata looks like
Characteristics of metadata that passes review:
Specific and detailed: Precise terms that accurately describe content
Searchable: Terms users would actually search for
Balanced breadth: Mix of specific, moderate, and broad terms
Honest: Only tags for content actually present
Well-categorized: Placed in most relevant category
Professional: Properly capitalized, spelled correctly
Catholic-focused: Clearly relevant to Catholic audience
How to avoid metadata rejection
Study approved content to see successful metadata patterns
Use Trends to understand common search terms
Include minimum 10 tags, not just 7
Be specific and honest about what content shows
Double-check spelling and capitalization
Choose appropriate category carefully
Think like a user: What would they search for?
The goal of metadata review
Cathopic's metadata standards serve to:
Maintain search quality: Users find what they actually need
Prevent spam: Keep platform professional and trustworthy
Ensure relevance: All content genuinely serves Catholic community
Protect contributors: Quality standards benefit all contributors
Well-crafted, honest metadata passes review quickly and sets your content up for strong download performance.
