I don't think I see what you're seeing. All I see are image names like- image.jpg under the images.
Dayo_UK
7:40 pm on Dec 13, 2005 (gmt 0)
I see it - thats pretty cool.
ken_b
9:04 pm on Dec 13, 2005 (gmt 0)
I see it and it is cool.
Of course a quick browse through a few relevant searches turned up even more sites using my photos with any credit given.... sigh.
engine
9:21 pm on Dec 13, 2005 (gmt 0)
Neat. Seems to be taking the text immediately following the image, and not the alt text.
ken_b
9:30 pm on Dec 13, 2005 (gmt 0)
Seems to be taking the text immediately following the image, and not the alt text.
In my case it's using the alt text, but I wonder if there is a built-in preference for the alt or a visible caption.
engine
9:32 pm on Dec 13, 2005 (gmt 0)
The images I looked at all had alt text, but it wasn't used.
ken_b
9:36 pm on Dec 13, 2005 (gmt 0)
So if those images had both alt text and captions, and the caption text was used, it would seem like the prefernce is for captions.
The question then is would it be worthwhile adding captions to existing images? Nice place to pop in a few more keywords of course.
engine
9:48 pm on Dec 13, 2005 (gmt 0)
I'm still not sure how it might benefit the average site. However, if you run an ecommerce site with captions to support the product image, I can see the benefit.
Those of use adding the captions since day one can sit back and watch the stats. ;)
ken_b
9:52 pm on Dec 13, 2005 (gmt 0)
Those of use adding the captions since day one can sit back and watch the stats.