I just discovered this issue, and it's extremely frustrating. The entire purpose of hierarchical metadata structures is to create relationships between metadata. To then strip those relationships on export is to remove substantial value/usefulness, and is an absurdly bad practice from a records-management standpoint.
My use-case for Lightroom is admittedly an edge-case*: I use it to manage the photographic output of inspectors on a large-scale public works project. I have thousands (approaching tens of thousands) of photos to manage from a dozen photographers, and thousands of project-determined keywords, many of which are numerical and only meaningful in the context of a hierarchy.
I now have the task of exporting all this data to be worked with in other contexts. I've built considerable redundancy into my system at the filename/folder level, but to allow you to build hierarchical relationships and then not preserve them on export is akin to if Excel allowed you to build a spreadsheet full of formulas to manipulate your data, but only allowed you to export the formula inputs, not the outputs. The inputs have inherent value, but the relationships between them can allow you to create significant, sophisticated value.
(*You'd think there would be a bunch of software solutions for my use-case, but there really aren't. Most projects like this still manage their files by dumping them into Windows Explorer and then just changing the filenames to something descriptive and hoping for the best when you need to find something specific later on. Lightroom was still the best solution within my budget.)
I already do this in my keywording scheme, what would be REALLY helpful for Adobe to do would be to give us some control over which and in what order keywords are embedded in the image. This would help tremendously with certain stock agencies. For one the alphabetical order just doesn't work for the way most of use lightroom.
Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: Lightroom: Support defining mandatory keyword node hierarchy (instead of only val....
Its been brought up before and a little crazy its not in the new release so start it again.
Lr7 really needs the ability to export keywords in a custom order and NOT alphabetical order. Its particularly crazy now as Adobe stock requires keywords in priority order meaning their very own plugin in LR is pointless to use as you still need to log in, repaste the keywords in order before submitting.
As a compromise, how about a custom (adobestock keyword) metadata field where it'll use these in the order they appear on an images EXIF rather than the alphabetical ones?
Thank you for writing into us here at Mylio. I am happy to help.
At this time, Mylio will always store keywords in alphabetical order. Obviously, your use case is a great one and something we didn't keep in mind when we were designing Mylio. The good news is that we've been hearing this request for increasing regularity, so it is bubbling to the top of our to-do list. So, while it isn't something we have immediate plans on changing (it actually changes quite a few things for us) it is something we are discussing internally and are working to find the right time to change.
I'm going to add your voice to the choir of users asking this question as it will continue to assist us in prioritizing, and if I hear anything specific about this coming to fruition I will let you know.
Thank you very much for the feedback.
-- Matt @ Mylio
Visit the Mylio Support Site
Gary Schimelfenig on October 18, 2017 at 11:38pm wrote:
For professional photographers working with stock photo houses, keywording is an absolute critical factor of uploading images to the stock sites. Most stock sites REQUIRE keywords for images be uploaded in order of relevancy to the image being uploaded. Can mylio store and attach keywords in the order set by the photographer to images to be submitted to stock photography houses?
Keywords entered in the Basic tab of Bridge and Photoshop File Info are written to dc:subject but not lr:hierarchicalSubject, while keywords added in the Keyword panel of Bridge are written to both. If some keywords are added in Photoshop or Bridge via File Info and then others added via Bridge Keywords panel, the lr:hierarchicalSubject is not updated. So you have different sets of keywords in the two namespaces. Additionally, if keywords are assigned via Bridge Keywords panel then deleted, an empty lr:hierarchicalSubject tag is left behind. If keywords are added back in File Info->Basic, that empty tag is deleted.
And yes I have filed a bug on the problem.