Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
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]
BTW, I wonder how many people here have tried (and had success with) "Enable Enhanced Image Search":
I've enabled it on my own site but haven't had the time, energy, or inclination to try the related Google Image Labeler feature:
I've tried "Enable Enhanced Image Search" on all my sites so don't know what to compare the results with!
In regards to [images.google.com...] I didn't bother either! But now that you mentioned it, I might try it on my new website which should hopefully be ready by next week!
We have two sites with about 4000 self made pics, that contain animals and plants on very good domain names. The problem with the image labeler is that non experts decide what a plant is.
Maybe it cuts out the worst cr@p but exact it certainly isn't.
Or in travel. How many pics will end up as being labeled as mountain or beach completely missing the location?
Nevertheless it's probably good to subscribe to get your images labeled as you don't have to rely on a stupid robot.