Images on other host

[NedProf]

One of my clients is a very large worldwide company. They have a huge website on www.a.nl, but almost 95% of the images are on www.b.nl. The B domain is some sort of big image server dedicted for only their website.

I think that Google thinks that site A has no images and therefore rated less relevant than other sites. I want to put all of the images on domain A for beter results.

What is the best thing to do, will it help or is it just a minor detail?

[g1smd]

I have recently helped a small site that has a lot of images, and due to several factors the main HTML and thumbnails are hosted in one palce but the larger images are in another. It does not seem to have caused any problems whatsoever so far.

[theBear]

www.a.nl and www.b.nl are different domains, it could be possible that Google is treating that kind of a setup as a case of massive crosslinking.

We run an image server on a seperate (actually 2 seperate servers) server than our content. I am not aware of that type of setup causing Google any issues.

The image server(s) are treated as a subdomain.

But this kind of question makes me wonder about who is waging whom.

[digitalghost]

Shouldn't be an issue. I've set up a number of sites that way (at the site owner's request). It isn't an issue for WebmasterWorld either, check the url of the images...

[tedster]

www.a.nl and www.b.nl are different domains, it could be possible that Google is treating that kind of a setup as a case of massive crosslinking.

I don't think so. The src= attribute of an image is not a link.

[bcolflesh]

Like previous posters, I doubt remote image hosting causes any kind of SERP problem.

If you really want to rule it out, mount the remote server and change the src links to point to the locally mounted (symbolic path) directory.