Folder names for Google image search

[norbiu]

Hi, I have a news site and keep all my images in example.com/images/

Now I'm opening a new section with products and was wondering which would be a better way for Google to index my images? Put them inside the root images folder or put them in individual folders like

example.com/product-maker1/product-name1/image1.jpg

example.com/product-maker2/product-name2/image2.jpg

etc

Thanks!

[tedster]

I've worked with sites that do it both ways - and I've never seen a difference.

[norbiu]

Great, thanks. I think I'll stick to separate folders, as it's easier to organize.

[pageoneresults]

I have a question...

Do you think it would help that the folder was /images/ since we are referring to Google Image Search? Is it possible that one of the factors in the image search algo are directory names, etc? I'm just guessing here but I "might" do something like this keeping in mind that the "taxonomy" is totally flexible.

/mfg/cat/images/12345.jpg

Now, let's look at the above closely. Think of this "strictly" from an image optimization viewpoint. Also, look at the "taxonomy" of it all. If I were to take the above and convert it to a Breadcrumb Trail I'd have this...

Manufacturer » Category » Images » SKU or Name

Depending on the industry, the search behavior, etc. will most likely provide clues as to how you'll set things up along that Breadcrumb Trail.

Also note that I may even have an index page at the /images/ level that provides a "Thumbnail" library of what's inside. Of course my Thumbnails are going to be enclosed in the proper elements and be surrounded by their "natural name" and/or number. They will of course have alt attributes assigned by default. They will link to the larger version of the image. And, if there are two sizes, I may even link to both. Heck, I might even throw in the "image details" in the process, you know, dimensions, size, etc. all that stuff Google might show to their visitors. It can't hurt, can it?

At the /images/ level, I'm going to have my "BIG" images. Those that are at least 640px in width and/or height and with file "size". Size may count in image search. These days I might even go as BIG as 1200px depending on the product and "magnification" levels. I like BIG pictures. So do the SE image searches.

I won't give away all the trade secrets but if you work with the above, you may see some improvement in image search results. Google kind of spells it out for you in various places. You just have to know where and then tie them all together. Its like one big jigsaw puzzle. Add the Patent research into that and you get a pretty good picture of how that image search really works.

If you are aiming for image optimization, then your /images/ taxonomy should represent that you "have" an image library for indexing. Get those images linked from a variety of entry points. :)

In some instances, I may treat that entire /images/ taxonomy as a separate entity in itself. The larger the website, the larger my optimzed /images/ taxonomy becomes.

[norbiu]

That's awesome advice. I have access to super high res pictures of the products. Unfortunately, the only thing stopping me here is the bandwidth.

I tried hosting them on other servers for free, but that just about brought my whole Google Images traffic to nothing.

It's also too late to change the code for the pages. I now have manufacturer/product-name/index.php for the product description and manufacturer/product-name/pictures.php for the images.

Will that be enough? If yes, should I use the img tag for the full size images or for the thumbnails, which will then be linked to the jpegs?

Thanks!

[Atharva]

Nice insight POR,
norbiu also remember that google image indexing is a relatively unknown beast.

pageoneresults, did you specifically mention that image hyperlinks should like to image ? Coz norbiu is talking about linking to image pages.

Thanks