Msg#: 3557080 posted 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]
Msg#: 3557080 posted 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.)
Msg#: 3557080 posted 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!