Google Image Search traffic: Size does matter

got some google image traffic

[dailypress]

After a year I just got some incoming Google Image traffic for one of my sites. I guess I finally learned that size does matter! ;)
none of my images (120*120px) are indexed! The larger the dimension of the image, the better chance of getting more google image traffic.
just an FYI!

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]

[europeforvisitors]

I don't know what Google's ranking criteria are, but it certainly would make sense for postage stamp-sized images to be ignored. (As a user, I'm not very interested in searching on "Widget Island" or "Britney Jolie" and having Google Images thumbnails direct me to more thumbnails.)

[dailypress]

europeforvisitors: you made a very good point!

I dont know why I didnt think of it earlier, and wasted so much time on the thubnail images! I would have probably been better off using links rather than spending so much time getting those images at the right dimensions!

[europeforvisitors]

Aren't your thumbnails linked to larger images? Or to pages that contain larger images?

BTW, I wonder how many people here have tried (and had success with) "Enable Enhanced Image Search":

[google.com...]

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:

[images.google.com...]

[dailypress]

they are linked to pages that contain embedded videos!

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!

[dailypress]

I just tried the Image Label signing in as a guest!
Its interesting to see what other people chose as a name!

[mattg3]

I'd include medium sized images as mostly worthless. I usually go to large or xtra large. Sadly medium seem to be favored on G over decent sized images in the first default search.

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.

[asterix]

Dailypress - are you saying that there has recently been an update in google images index? I am not seeing anything

[jetteroheller]

It developt to a little extra income to sell licesnses for picutres to be printe.

My usual standard size for pictures is 600x450 or 450x600