Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
MSN Live is picking up my images just fine.
I was originally using PHP Thumb to automatically generate thumbnails but after a few months and I still wasn't on Google Images, I decided to generate all the thumbnails myself and store them on my server like normal (in the same directory as the full sized images).
I have at least what I think to be pretty good titles and alt tags. All the images are surrounded by legitimate content that is directly related to the image.
This is getting pretty annoying because I was getting great referrals from Google Image search on my old site, which was hosted on Blogger, and is now this site.
Any help would be great. My site is still relatively new and has pretty much all low page ranks, so maybe that's affecting it? I guess my experience with Blogger was that all my images were getting indexed pretty quickly but maybe that's because it was on Blogger? My site is getting indexed by Google just fine. If I look in my stats logs, the only Google bot indexing me is Googlebot and Google Sitemaps.
Thanks in advance.
[edited by: tedster at 3:00 am (utc) on Dec. 1, 2008]
We've had quite a few threads around here on Google Image Search, and still there's very little known for certain. Some key points:
I'd suggest you read some of the earlier threads to see if you can pick up any other clues. You can use our Site Search page [webmasterworld.com] to find those discussions.
Looking at the way in which my site is indexed (27 images out of something in the hundreds) my gut feel is that G don't burrow as deep into a site for images. If you are bothered about the indexing then try putting some in the same folder as the page rather than in a different folder.
/image-directory/particular-category1/image1.jpg
/image-directory/particular-category1/image2.jpg
/image-directory/particular-category2/image1.jpg
etc.
So they're not really that deep, but the only way to see the image is to be linked, you can't browse to that directory and check out all the images. If that makes sense.
I think I have to figure out if the Googlebot is crawling the images. I suppose I should experiment a bit with my directory structure.
Will my images immediately appear in Google Image search upon being found?
Take a look at this discussion, which might be helpful in any event...
Google Images indexing - how do these guys get so many?
[webmasterworld.com...]
/screenshots/mother-3/mother-3-cover.jpg
/screenshots/mother-3/mother-3-lucas-super-smash-bros-brawl.jpg
/screenshots/spore/spore-cover.jpg
/screenshots/spore/spore-gregs-creature-makrid-thumb.jpg
Take care of those 3 and don't worry what google does, create more good content instead.
First thing, you may want to make sure that all images are stored in a directory named /images/ as that is usually the default naming convention for an images directory. This is probably not mandatory but my gut instinct tells me it is a plus point in the overall scheme of things.
Thumbnails will not perform well in Google Image Search.
The path and the content along the path before you arrive to the image destination is of utmost importance. If I were selling paintings online, my competition would be watching me every move because "I am" going to get those images to rank the way they should.
The final resting place of the image is also of importance. If it is sitting too far down the click path, you'll need sufficient PR to push around and get the "juice" to those images.
If I were selling paintings online, I'd be using a flat structure keeping everything within 1, 2 or 3 clicks at most. My thumbs are going to be a bit larger than norm. I have this gut instinct that image size plays an important role in which images rank. I find that larger images tend to perform better than smaller images.
If I had a page of thumbnails as an index page that led to larger images, each of the larger images is going to have its own page that is very specific to the image. On that page will be a very large image for viewing, probably at least 400 pixels in width, the bigger the better.
Images should be optimized for quick download speeds. The image farms have failed in this area. They will throw a 150k image out there with no second thoughts. I can take that 150k and trim it down to 40-50k without any loss in quality. I'm also going to improve my chances of getting that image to rank, that is my personal opinion based on years of ranking images.
Of course the image name comes into play here but, it is not the end all. If the path leading up the image is set up properly, you could easily use a SKU naming convention for images. But, if you can name it appropriately, that is a plus point in my opinion.
When I show thumbnails, I have this "special way" of displaying them. If I'm using a table...
<tr>
<td><a href="/paintings/mona-lisa"><img src="/images/mona-lisa.jpg" width="400" height="600" alt="Painting of the Mona Lisa"><br>
Mona Lisa Painting</a></td>
</tr>The above also allows me to provide just one link to the destination instead of having duplicate links. What I've done above is combined the power of a text link with the image and the image alt attribute. The main reason for doing this is from a styling perspective. I utilize as much as I can from CSS to give that image display some visual appeal.
If you have a large site with multiple sub-directories that are uniquely different, then I might suggest placing an /images/ directory within each of those. Segment the site so each of the uniquely different categories is "totally" separate.
Use your power pages to start the process of getting images indexed. If I were selling paintings online, I'd have quite a few pages that sat at the top of the click path and showcased new paintings for at least 30 days. This brings those images up to the top of the click path during the initial indexing phase.
There are so many different ways to approach this. What's really cool is when you perform image searches and your images appear at the top of the regular SERPs. That's when you know you did something right. :)
P.S. Image hotlinking can be your friend. People usually hotlink to images that are appropriate. They also use content around that image that is relevant. I wouldn't be too quick to block image hotlinking these days if you are wanting to rank in image search. MSN put out a patent not long ago that discusses this in detail. They like image hotlinking.
P.S.S. I have a live experiment that has been running for years on this image hotlinking thing. The theme of that directory now ranks in the top five of millions of searches and has for years.
Again, thanks all for the advice. I think I have some work to do, but I also need to be a bit more patient.
Wow, thanks. I've read places though that's it's not best practices to produce thumbnails using the width/height tags.
I'm glad you brought that up. Those two attributes are "mandatory" for images. If you don't use them, your pages are going to jump around while loading. When you have the width and height set, usually an image placeholder appears and keeps the page intact while the image loads. In many instances, users don't see this unless the page is really heavy.
I'm not too certain about removing the width and height attributes. I wouldn't. Since I validate all of my work, I couldn't exclude those, they are mandatory.
Also, those two attributes tell the indexers the dimensions of the image. The bigger, the better! Provide as much information as you can to the indexer and you'll be that much further ahead. ;)
P.S. Yes, certain image sizes may cause challenges with ad blocking software. Most images that are relevant for ranking are probably not going to use those exact image sizes. I'd be real careful in the initial planning stages to make sure I didn't select a default size that may trigger ad blocking software. For example, images that use the IAB ad dimensions may be targets for ad blocking.
Is there any chance that my site may just be too new? My first real content with images was added on 9/29/2008. Maybe I'm just getting ahead of myself?
Is there any chance that my site may just be too new? My first real content with images was added on 9/29/2008. Maybe I'm just getting ahead of myself?
That's a solid 60 days of indexing but definitely not enough time to expect image search results. I'm not exactly sure of the update timelines in Google Image Search but I'm going to guess you'll need at least a solid 120-180 days before you see any "real" results. You may see some images now appearing here and there and they will most likely be those that are at the top of the click path. For example, if you featured a group of 10 images on your home page for 30 days, those 10 images "may" start to perform in advance of others. It is a natural cause and effect.
I'd make sure that you have all your bases covered in how you have everything set up. And then it becomes a waiting game. There are only so many things you can do on site and then you just leave it alone. Too many will make constant changes and always be behind the 8 Ball. Get it all done in one major rendition and let it loose. Once you have the templates in place and optimized, you won't need to fiddle with those much more. If you do, it will be for "micro" tweaking.
Image dimensions are required for WAI validation. They are not required for HTML/XHTML validation. I always recommend the use of width and height attributes, always. ;)
Google Images Indexing - How Do These Guys Get So Many?
[webmasterworld.com...]
I can't believe I didn't participate in that one. The insight and links shared in that topic are priceless. Thanks RC!
Read the response and the pdf link (Google's VisualRank) posted by piney. Whew! That will make your brain hurt but in the end, you'll be that much more knowledgeable about image search. :)
