Does an Image on a page score points with Google?

If a picture is worth a thousand words, would it be worth any extra ranking with Google?

Myself, I'd prefer landing on a page that had an image rather than one that didn't.

It's something that I had not thought of before, and just came to mind tonight.

 

No, apparently it doesn't. Besides, their software would have a hard time separating 'relevant' pics from, say, your logos, borders, and other graphic stuff on the page. (Yeah, I know, relevant file names and alt tags and all that, but it's not that simple.)

 

In my opinion it does count. If you use ALT and other attributes on <img> tag google will pick that up, counting towards your keyword rankings.

 

They count as backlinks, which scores points the the G.

 

How do images count as backlinks?

 

if u use the url html around it, it becomes a clickable link/image -

 

Also don't forget about Google images. You can use your images on "Google Images" as traffic generating machine. There is a post at DP, how you can do that.

 

if you have used alt tags on your images, it effect the score of the page because it changes the keyword density and the keyword density is one of the serp criterias

 

I'm not a software expert, but if I had a search engine, I'd ask my team to identify sites that have images between 30K to 100K or bigger. Odds are, if a big image is included, there must be a reason. So I think I'd be aiming for file size maybe even more-so than alt tags.

Or fairly big images that are linked to even bigger files of the same.

In one way, alt tags drive me nuts. I look at how many times people come to my site because google pops up an image thumbnail and my page. But then I realize that it helps my Adsense / Googe Ads, so then I begin to not mind the alt tag thing so much.

 

doesn't make sense because a nice text link with the proper anchor text and title text would do more for your page than an image link

 

I think what they mean, is that along with proper anchor text, etc., they become better than either one would be alone.

In other words, suppose there is an article with perfect text and tags, but not one image of any sort - like on the Grand Canyon.

And there is another page - give it the right text and tags too - but it has an image of the Grand Canyon, and the image is linked.

Which one would we like to read if we were from New Zealand or something and had never seen the Grand Canyon? The text page that tells how cool it is? Or the page with text and an image, which more than probably really is of the Grand Canyon since "Grand Canyon" is in the text several times?

Anyhow, I think that's what they may have had in mind on the logic behind that.