| 4:05 pm on Oct 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm curious if the images that were dropped were on pages that have gone supplemental. Happened on my site. Pages of widgets went supplemental and then when the big change hit, all of those widgets dropped from the image index.
| 10:53 pm on Oct 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I was thinking about that too...
What's the fastest way to research that?
| 1:55 am on Oct 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Here's a small sample. Google Images as percentage of referring search engines:
| 2:57 am on Oct 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm a little confused if the question is about indexed image files or indexed pages.
With that said, my number of indexed pages is running about right and was after I made some fixes to my site in mid August. My site's rankings in SERPs plunged on the July 27th update and then reemerged for about three phrases on August 17th. My site had a complete recovery in Google's search results with the Sept 15th update. All is now good and my plunge is just a nightmare that has passed.
| 3:36 am on Oct 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My original question was about indexed images...the subsequent questions about pages are due to the theory that _images_ that disappeared from the IMAGES index may have disappeared after the PAGES they were on were declared supplemental in the WEB index.
If that's the case, the new question becomes "How do you get your images reindexed?"
| 3:50 am on Oct 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
By getting the pages that went supplemental back in the index or in the alternative putting the images on a new page or a page that is still in the index and not supplemental.
Some forms of supplemental issues seem to be cured by more inbound links in closer proximity to the page that went supplemental, some supplemental issues seem to be cured by making certain you have unique titles and descriptions, some supplemental issues appear to result from duplicated pages and respond to removing the cause of the dupplication.
In short find what caused the pages the images were on to go supplemental and cure that defect.
[edited by: theBear at 3:53 am (utc) on Oct. 3, 2006]
| 5:18 am on Oct 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This is bit off the topic. I read today about the tragic incident of a gunman killing 3 in an Amish school ambush. Sad and makes it worse when innocent children are killed.
I decided to know more about the Amish community and while doing that did a Google image search for Amish. To my surprise I saw an image associated with Amish killing story dated 2nd October. Is it common for Google to update images so quick? Never knew that.
| 6:27 am on Oct 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I lost well over half my images, but none of the pages are supplemental and rank quite well. I'm seeing my newer images replacing the older ones. Most of my images G has now are less than a year old and the site is over 4 years, but I do update my images almost monthly.
| 6:31 am on Oct 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
4430 images indexed from my main site. Seems there is no problem.
| 5:15 am on Oct 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
After the big drop, I started tweaking my pages to prevent any duplicates.
E.g. a red carpet photo can be seen in the galleries section (all events), the gallery for the news coverage of that event and in the subject's profile gallery.
To combat the duplicates I have:
- added noindex to the news coverage and profile galleries so the main galleries section is the only one that can be indexed.
- where there are multiple photos of a person at the same event (e.g. "George Clooney at the 77th Academy Awards") I have added a slide number to the title tag to make them different.
The script that creates the image pages sends out a last modified date equal to the photo's shoot date. Should I change that to help the googlebot reindex?
Any other suggestions? Is it now just a matter of crossing my fingers and waiting for a new crawl?
| 1:14 pm on Oct 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well in order to know a change has taken place they do have to see it ;).
Is your site being visited by Google on a regular basis and if so how often? Are other changes actually appearing in the index?
Remember to really look around a bit on locating duplicate stuff, it might not even be where you are looking but elsewhere.
In this quest Google search is your ticket.
| 2:09 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, the only encouraging thing that has happened to my site is that the number of images indexed has jumped from 3 to 8. :-p
The results still suck, but the fact that *something* happened (albeit a little bit) is giving me some hope. The good thing about this is that at least the images are all from my site. In the previous search I did, two of the images were from hotlinkers (MySpacers!), not my actual web site.
So... I'm still crossing my fingers on this one.
| 3:09 am on Oct 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
At least your hotlinkers disappeared. :-) Quite a few of my site:mysite results are for blogs and forums hotlinking.