|Which is Better for SEO? Inserting Images with Direct HTML Image or CSS|
Is it better SEO wise to direct place your image into your HTML with good alt tags, or to call the image via css. My fear is through the CSS mode, the text you put on the website is hidden when the image is injected via CSS and thus it could be penalized.
Views and thoughts appreciated.
I don't think it would make a significant difference one way or the other. I prefer to embed images into content using html and when dealing with templates I prefer css images. There are so many other ranking factors that I personally would not worry about this one.
how usable is your document with images turned off? with CSS turned off?
that should answer your question.
I've wondered the same thing, more in terms of how link juice flows to html images vs css images. I've read that link juice flows to images, so it's a good idea to make sure your images link to internal pages (when feasible). Does link juice flow to css images as well? My guess is 'no', because css images are typically structural, part of the layout or navigation.
The approach I decided to take is to stick with css images on structural images. Then on images that are part of actual content, stick with html images - but link them internally if it makes sense to. Where it doesn't make sense, ie. you want the user to remain on the current page, I've seen a few sites that will link to the current page. That makes some sense to me - at least the link juice is going somewhere onsite, subject to the 85% decay factor, instead of evaporating. I haven't had the guts to do this though, out of fear of being penalized for over-optimization, plus it may confuse the user.
>>it's a good idea to make sure your images link to internal pages
this makes NO sense to me ... you mean you wrap all your images within anchor tags? and then link to another page on your site ... unless there is a good reason to (such as a thumbnail image linking to a product page), i really cannot see the point.
why should link juice flow to an image? you are not linking out to it, it is just an element on a page, to me it's the same as saying you lose link juice to every p or hx tag on the page.
|why should link juice flow to an image? you are not linking out to it, it is just an element on a page, to me it's the same as saying you lose link juice to every p or hx tag on the page. |
Well, that's what I've read and that's why I asked here. Many websites/blogs suggest that link juice flows to any element (that's not in the header) that can be linked to - as in starting with 'http'. And if said element links to nothing, then the link juice evaporates. And that makes sense because why wouldn't the spider follow something that begins with http?
I'm not suggesting that anybody go out and wrap all their images in some useless anchor tags. In fact, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just a noob asking questions. But it does make me think twice about many of my images that link to nothing.
MarkOly if this was true then you would find images with pagerank, i have never seen an image url with pagerank
Thanks seoskunk! That makes a ton of sense.