google images

how do i submit

[chris]

hello, how can i make my picture appear on google images
under the keywords?

my images appear on altavista image search but no google.
any ideas?

all my website pictures are named after the keyword

thanxs

[dalguard]

You're right, jomaxx. It seems that keyword-otherword, keyword%20otherword, and keyword.otherword are all OK but keyword_otherword is not. That's certainly worth knowing. Guess who's going to be doing some image renaming?

[WebWalla]

There's a particular search that I'm interested in appearing for, where the number 1 image is named keyword1%20keyword2. No title or alt text at all. It seems therefore that spaces between keywords for your filenames are certainly the way to go - anybody else seeing this?

The page this image is on also includes the keywords in other parts of the text, plus the images are organized in tables. The description for this particular image is in a cell directly below the image and uses the text "Great keyword!"

[vitaplease]

From: [google.com...]

Google also uses sophisticated algorithms to remove duplicates and ensure that the highest quality images are presented first in your results

Which parameters would qualify for "highest quality images"?

with more than 390 million images indexed

At an actual Google index size of 3 billion, thats probably a lot of text only pages and also a lot of duplicate images. Either that, or their Imagebot is way more selective.

[dalguard]

By highest quality they don't mean resolution or size or I wouldn't have shown up at #1. They must mean relevence.

[WibbleWobble]

I think dimensions (well, resolution, then) must play some [probably small] part, because most searches I've run scouring for photos have had the larger ones first - even when they seemed irrelevent, with tiny useless things last. Perhaps its coincidence.

[bcarnathan]

Google's duplicate image removal algorithm is certainly not perfect. Search for "redemption tickets". I was surprised to find our image (the third image) repeated again at position 12.

This might be a good way to find stolen images!

[rjohara]

First: This is too creepy. I was reading this thread, and then went to check my site in the Google image database. I hadn't seen any referrals, which is expected since I try to exclude image indexing. I found two images that slipped through, and pulled them up in the Google image index. Within minutes, two referrals came through for those two images from stanford.edu, Google's home institution. Almost like someone was watching. <shiver>

As I just said, I try to keep my images out of the Google index, so hearing that there was an update going on I decided to do a check. Here's something that I don't think should be happening: on one page I have two gifs that are included as <img>s from another site. That is, on mypage.org I include two <img>s with src=othersite.org/alpha.gif and src=othersite.org/beta.gif. If you search Google's image index for "mysite" it pulls up both of those gifs, and the address it lists under them is "mysite.org" as though the gifs were really on my site instead of being transquoted (as Ted Nelson would say).

I do understand the logic of returning those images when I search for the word "mysite", but I don't find it intuitively correct to list mysite.org as the address under them; "quoted on mysite.org" would seem closer to the truth, and Google can certainly tell from the URL where the image is coming from. I suppose this is a minor interface point, but it really struck me as odd.

[newsphinx]

After nearly a year hard waiting, our images are in the index! 4850 of them! Woo, that looks great. I receive 206 clicks from Google Image Search on January 20th. I love this. They ranks well too. Hard work not wasted. :)

[ciml]

Welcome to WebmasterWorld, newsphinx.

Were those 206 referrers hitting images or pages. If pages, then I'm impressed.

[takagi]

Yes, Google has now indexed an extra 35 million images (from 390 million to 425 million). But I'm sure there are more to be found.