| 10:46 pm on Oct 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, Ill give you some more information..............don't do it!
| 11:19 pm on Oct 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How about a little more information, other than don't do it?
For instance, why not? Do you feel you've suffered ill effects because of it? Please explain your reasoning for being against this.
| 11:44 pm on Oct 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I used to have about 150 images indexed in Google. Most of them were right on in terms of relevance and a few ranked very well for some very competitive terms. I used to get about 300 to 400 hits a day from Google images.
I decided to try the "enhanced image search" because
1) The conversion rate on the images searches were pathetic as far as selling products goes anyway so I wasn't too concerned.
2) I have tens of thousands of images which Google has yet to index.
3) I get zero traffic from regular Google search and I'm willing to try anything to show good faith.
In less than a week all my images but ten were gone from the index. None of the images rank for anything. I now get zero traffic from Google. Plus, one of my images which used to rank #1 or #2 for 75,000,000 search term now links to a myspace page that's hotlinking my image.
Like I said, the conversion was terrible anyway so it's not like it cost me any money but it was nice to have SOME traffic and get a little exposure.
Do no evil my *ss.
| 11:48 pm on Oct 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yeah. Why not?
I've heard whispers about an enhanced image recognition feature in Google, where images are actually mapped for content and not only alt and title attributes and file names as now.
I'd join if I had a site with lots of unique images that I didn't mind sharing with Google and Google's users. Naturally accompanied with a frame breaking script on each of my landing pages and a fair sized watermark with my site's url on each and every image made available via the image search.
| 11:49 pm on Oct 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
fjpapaleo, where those images your own unique images or where ther lots of other instances of them in Google's index?
| 11:57 pm on Oct 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
They're mostly prints by famous artists so yes, there are lots of them on the web. But mine were no different than the ones that rank there now. There really is no such thing as an original Van Gogh print now is there. ;)
| 7:43 pm on Oct 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
50% of my images for one site just disappeared recently, before signing up for "Enhanced Images", so it could be a coincidence, or something to do with Google's implementation of the service versus actually signing up for it.
One image which used to bring in a lot of traffic on a specific topic, just disappeared, and is no longer indexed at all. This image was picked up through a thumbnail, and I'm wondering if Google changed their algo relating to indexing images referenced by thumbnail.
Another factor I discovered recently seems related to safe search. Turning safe surf on and off I saw a different number of images in Google's results for the "site:" command. My site is clean, but after lots of research I found I was linking to other sites that also did not show the same number of images for safe search on and off. There was nothing wrong with these sites, but one was electronics related and might have used words like "sex" refering to connectors, etc. After removing links to sites that did not pass the "safe search" image count test and waiting a couple months now my site passed the safe search image test, same number of images, with safe search on and off! After this more images were also indexed, even for non-"safe search".
Regardless now I have even fewer images indexed after Google's latest image algo change, but I do pass the safe search test.
Also I've decided not to go with "Enhanced search" yet, but that could be a big mistake.