| 3:56 pm on Jan 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't really know how the algo works on the images. I don't think you can submit. It is based on the normal google search relavency.
| 4:07 pm on Jan 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"...Google is working to crawl more images to increase the quality and quantity of images returned when you search, so it's likely we will add the image you're looking for in the near future..."
If you're that keen on increasing the prominence of a particular image, it may be worth making sure you have an appropriate alt tag and that any text surrounding the image correlates with this.
There's a little more info here [google.com]
| 4:10 pm on Jan 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google's image bot was around a bit last month, but as to how it ranks images, who really knows?
Not as good as the regular Google text search.
| 4:21 pm on Jan 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
IMO they are spidered in the "normal" way when a page is spidered.
The file name eg "widgets.jpg" and the alt tag appear to be the most important factors with regards to indexing.
Belt and braces would dictate that you use title tags and relevant copy as well, but I find that file name and alt tag should do the job for you in most cases
| 4:23 pm on Jan 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Good point Cornwall - I'd not actually thought of filename as a contributing factor in the grand scheme of things...talk about not seeing the wood for the trees...
| 8:27 pm on Jan 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don' believe that images are spidered during the normal crawl. None of my images (more than 700 photographs in jpg format) are anywhere to be found in the Google Image index, although virtually all of my pages are in the main Google index. If the normal bot took in images, all of my pictures should be showing up by now.
Instead, I think images for the google image index are only taken in by the image bot. And since the image bot seems to take its time in finding sites (it was 4 months before the image bot found mine), it may take a while for the images to get put into the index.
The image bot first grabbed some of my pictures back in mid to late December, so maybe they will start showing up in February or so.
Just my two cents.
| 9:47 pm on Jan 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't think Google's image database has been updated for almost a year. Nothing recent and a lot of broken links.
But "Googlebot-Image/1.0" was sighted by a number of people in late December, so maybe they're actually planning on doing an update soon.
| 11:40 am on Jan 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've been waiting and hoping for six months with a new site. Nothing. All images are on normal, static html pages and we're considering whether we should make our photo galleries dynamic.
| 11:43 am on Jan 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Double check that your images are linked to with:
a) a quality appropriate filename.
b) if possible, the title of the page should match the kw.
c) if possible link text pointing at the page should match the kw.
d) that the image is not blocked by some referrer blocking scheme.
e) that the image uses a standard <img src=> tag (js will not work)
f) the page has as high a pr as possible (well duh).
g) use a quality alt attribute with the kw in the img tag.
h) use a quality TITLE attribute with the img tag.
| 11:54 am on Jan 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
And please don't name a 1x1 transparent gif as keyword.gif. There's enough of that going around in certain circles -- I keep waiting for Google to start filtering for that little goodie.
| 12:00 pm on Jan 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Any evidence that using height and width has any impact at all?
| 1:24 pm on Jan 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
When I checked a bunch of images a while back, this seemed to help a whole lot.
In a table:
Column 1 (or 2) = Text
Column 2 (or 1) = Image
| 2:16 pm on Jan 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I agree with msgraph. Google seems to like pictures in tables.
It also appears to look at text near to an image e.g.
<img ...><BR>caption text
| 5:52 pm on Jan 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Subjectively I'd say that the HW in pixels, or the file size, has a huge effect on the current rankings. Pick any search and browse a few pages deep and you'll find fewer and fewer photos, and more and more titles, logos, spacers and buttons.
| 11:07 pm on Jan 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have the opposite problem. I hate it when people search my site for pictures.
I found by accident however, that people will find your wigit pictures in the regular Google index if you put something like "click here for wigit pictures" as link text.
| 12:37 am on Jan 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
im very often found for images and sometimes it gets me links. so well.. :)
i dont use much images for site design this may be one point
all may pictures appear only once
only one larger picture per page
my sites rank high for those search terms, no imagename, no alt-tags
delish on that :)
- google divides pagerank through number of pics
- often used pics (navelements) are discared before or after
- results are mixed with different scoring rules (serps, alt-tags, img-names etc.)
the last guess i sometimes think to notice on normal google-serps. (mixed pageranks, domain-influences, etc.)
| 6:49 am on Jan 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Brett, would you please explain how this is done:
h) use a quality TITLE attribute with the img tag.
| 12:30 am on Jan 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Interesting sidenote. Image-bot spidered my site back in mid-late December. Just yesterday, I began to see referrals from Google/Image. I checked in google and, searching by my domian, noticed that Google had 1020 of my images.
Then, tonight, while searching again, none of my images were listed!
Seems like Google Image may also have some sort of a fresh bot going around, or at least a Google Image update is now occuring, since images are listed at one time and not at another time.
| 4:58 am on Jan 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hey, me too! Some of my images started showing in the early morning of the 14th. It's happening! It's finally happening!
| 5:14 am on Jan 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have just been checkng this out, and here is what I have found. If you go into the google images search, take the mydomain out of mydomain.com (look in my profile) and search that, you will see over 122 images, yet in the entire time that the site has been active, there has only been 122 hits from 1 googlebot image visit. Interesting, I thought. Also, I would have to concur on the idea that google likes images in tables as some one else suggested. I use alt tags in many of my images, which are just added from the category keywords in the database, so many pictures end up with the same alt tag, but google doesnt seem to care. Also, froogle has all my images, I wonder if this has anything do with it.
| 8:54 am on Jan 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
BTW, here's a data point for you: I got 178 referrals from Google Images yesterday.
| 10:06 am on Jan 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My goodness, 300 pics in after SIX months waiting, whoohoo! :) :) :)
| 2:21 pm on Jan 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>how this is done:
>>TITLE attribute with the img tag.
<a href="/"><img src="http://www.webmasterworld.com/" title="Click here to go to the homepage of the #1 ranked forum on search engine marketing - an alexa top 700 site" alt="your know the drill here"></a>
| 2:50 pm on Jan 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 3:08 pm on Jan 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I expect we'll see more action out of the Google imagebot since image retrieval is a necessary component of Froogle.
| 3:09 pm on Jan 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There's a keyword where one of my pictures comes up first. It's on the page keyword_and_other_stuff.htm and is named keyword.jpg. But I have three other pictures on that page named keyword_2.jpg, keyword_3.jpg, and keyword_4.jpg and they don't appear anywhere that I can find and the first picture doesn't have one of those "see other pictures from" tags either.
I just don't get it. The other pictures *are* in there. I can find them by searching on my domain name, but what makes one of them a #1 candidate and the others not worth showing, I can't guess.
| 3:22 pm on Jan 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I checked a couple of my keywords maybe 15 minutes ago and was suprised to find some JPEGs come up that I'd never seen on the image search before. I just checked the same ones again, and now the pix are no where to be found! Must be the same wierdness as the regular google updates...
| 6:10 pm on Jan 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
dalguard, search under "keyword_4". Google doesn't treat the underscore as a word break. Kind of sucks, because it IS very commonly used as a delimiter (and even as punctuation, e.g. _Catcher in the Rye_), and who on earth ever needs to use an underscore as part of a search?
| 9:39 pm on Jan 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
How much traffic are you guys getting from the image portion?
| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: 40 (  2 ) > > |