homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

Google Image Search traffic: Size does matter
got some google image traffic

 6:31 pm on Jan 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

After a year I just got some incoming Google Image traffic for one of my sites. I guess I finally learned that size does matter! ;)
none of my images (120*120px) are indexed! The larger the dimension of the image, the better chance of getting more google image traffic.
just an FYI!

does anyone else agree that you get much better google image traffic for larger pictures?

im wondering if the quality of the image and the file size (image size, i.e. KB) matters as well! If it does, I guess I shouldnt shrink the image size, degrading the quality in order to lower my page file size to decrease the download time for my site!

[edited by: dailypress at 7:09 pm (utc) on Jan. 24, 2008]



 6:47 pm on Jan 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

I don't know what Google's ranking criteria are, but it certainly would make sense for postage stamp-sized images to be ignored. (As a user, I'm not very interested in searching on "Widget Island" or "Britney Jolie" and having Google Images thumbnails direct me to more thumbnails.)


 7:08 pm on Jan 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

europeforvisitors: you made a very good point!

I dont know why I didnt think of it earlier, and wasted so much time on the thubnail images! I would have probably been better off using links rather than spending so much time getting those images at the right dimensions!


 8:41 pm on Jan 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

Aren't your thumbnails linked to larger images? Or to pages that contain larger images?

BTW, I wonder how many people here have tried (and had success with) "Enable Enhanced Image Search":


I've enabled it on my own site but haven't had the time, energy, or inclination to try the related Google Image Labeler feature:



 11:48 pm on Jan 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

they are linked to pages that contain embedded videos!

I've tried "Enable Enhanced Image Search" on all my sites so don't know what to compare the results with!

In regards to [images.google.com...] I didn't bother either! But now that you mentioned it, I might try it on my new website which should hopefully be ready by next week!


 11:58 pm on Jan 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

I just tried the Image Label signing in as a guest!
Its interesting to see what other people chose as a name!


 5:18 am on Jan 26, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'd include medium sized images as mostly worthless. I usually go to large or xtra large. Sadly medium seem to be favored on G over decent sized images in the first default search.

We have two sites with about 4000 self made pics, that contain animals and plants on very good domain names. The problem with the image labeler is that non experts decide what a plant is.

Maybe it cuts out the worst cr@p but exact it certainly isn't.

Or in travel. How many pics will end up as being labeled as mountain or beach completely missing the location?

Nevertheless it's probably good to subscribe to get your images labeled as you don't have to rely on a stupid robot.


 8:36 am on Jan 26, 2008 (gmt 0)

Dailypress - are you saying that there has recently been an update in google images index? I am not seeing anything


 1:01 pm on Jan 26, 2008 (gmt 0)

It developt to a little extra income to sell licesnses for picutres to be printe.

My usual standard size for pictures is 600x450 or 450x600

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved