| 8:45 pm on May 18, 2013 (gmt 0)|
That's certainly not too many - I've seen a lot higher.
| 7:16 am on May 19, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Most of my images are in js photo galleries so when I create the sitemap there is no alt text on most of them. What is the best to do in this case? If I add alt text in the sitemap for each image would that be ok having in mind there is no alt text on the page where the image is, because as I said it comes from a js file?
| 9:46 pm on May 19, 2013 (gmt 0)|
An xml image sitemap can contain an optional "title" field, and Google will see it. How much use they make of that data, I'm not sure - I never tested it. There's also an optional "caption" field, but to use it honestly you should have a caption displayed on the page, too - makes using it almost superfluous.
| 10:02 pm on May 19, 2013 (gmt 0)|
If you're hoping to get traffic this way, you might be disappointed. A lot of people have lost significant traffic with the recent changes to the way images are served.
| 5:35 am on May 20, 2013 (gmt 0)|
In addition of an image xml sitemap I also have txt and xml sitemaps for my urls submitted to my WMT. I was not sure if it is a good idea to submit both xml and txt sitemaps or only xml?
| 12:13 pm on May 20, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Either one is plenty. See [support.google.com...] As I read that, the two are alternative choices - with the .txt file being a courtesy to sites that would have difficulty generating the xml protocol version.
[edited by: tedster at 5:15 pm (utc) on May 20, 2013]
| 5:08 pm on May 20, 2013 (gmt 0)|
You might want to reconsider after reading these
| 5:32 am on May 21, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Thanks tantalus. So right now i have 3 sitemaps - txt, xml and image xml. so does it mean i should only have a txt and image xml?