Optimizing for images.

does anyone have good results for Google's images search?
If so, how much traffic does it provide you with?

 

I am getting about 20 hits/day for my images. I just checked for the 1st time where they appear..and most seem to be one of the first ones on page 1.

My images arent really things people want to see...telephones...
Never thought much about this...but I bet you would get a decent amount of traffic
for something more interesting

 

ROAR, do those images appear on more than one of your pages and do you name them in a certain way?

 

TO get you a full ideea, for a satellite internet profiled company, with 1000 uniques / day (~3000 page views) i get aprox 10 hits per day for images.

 

Speak to asksam2 (member here) she gets alot of traffic from Google Images, its obvious why though

 

Sitetutor,

Yes, the majority of those images appear on multiple pages. Typically on two pages. This is about as unscientific as possible, but here goes:

1) The images that appear on multiple pages rank higher than the images that appear once.

2) For the most part, the images have been named accurately. I.E. a red baseball is named "red baseball" on a page describing this red baseball or on page listing all the available baseballs.

3) all images of the red baseballs have alt text that includes "red baseballs" and not much else

If I find anything else, I will share.

 

I get about 10% of my SE traffic from Google images - more than Yahoo provides despite decent rankings in it.

It took a long time for G to index the images (nearly 12 months) so can't say for sure on any specific tips but the obvious ones of relevant file names and alt text.

 

Hi ST,

I'll copy my own post from a previous thread on this same subject:

 

i've seen some shady webmasters optimizing their google images. when the image thumbnail is clicked, i quickly got redirected to a porn site...

 

It amazes me that Google Images might like the %20.

You sound as if you know for sure although do not know why and how.
Can you confirm this?
Did you try also using underscores, dashes or hyphens, plus, etc?

Interesting subject...

 

Awesome, I have suspected this but not seen it for myself. Thank you!
You too Tapanti. I know the %20 don't seem to hurt rankings at all. In. pages or images.
It seems to be very similar to the regular algo, being placed on many pages, have some alt tags, and I also believe being on important pages with related content.
The p0rn redirect shows me that algo is not perfected yet, far from it.
Our surf site will launch in a few days (the new surf site version) and we will have daily images added. There will be a few homepage and inner page images which will stay, the others will move.
Of course we want to be ranked for images but I am trying to do it naturally.
I guess when someone asks to feature our images on his site, I should ask them to make sure it will be on a surfingsandiego.com url and not their own.

Mike

 

I don't put the %20 in the URL; I just leave a blank space. It's Google who puts the %20 to replace the blank space in the resulting URL.

It's not that I know for sure Google likes this, but I know for sure it has worked for me, and I know for sure that many of the images showing in the first pages of the Image Search results follow this pattern.

In terms of using underscores, dashes or other symbols, I have noticed that Google seems to prefer (at least for the Image Search results) URL's using dashes to separate keywords in folder names.

But again, this is just speculation based on what I've observed.

.

 

I have similar url's in my forum and they get indexed and ranked with the %20 as well

 

Mike, you have probably searched Google Images for "surf san diego". See the URL structure of the first image? It's an image named following the "blank-space-%20" pattern.

Again, this is just speculation, but I think it’s worth conducting further tests.

.

 

yeh, Google follows the redirects all the way thru and acknowledges them.

 

Try making an ad for the image in the co-op. Not sure whether it will pass moderator review but it would be an interesting exercise. The TOS doesn't mention file extension limitation. Could be a way to see whether IBLs make much of a difference.

 

Sounds interesting because even though the href attribute is not used very often to link directly to images, it IS used to make image thumbnails pages; one of the -I believe- important components of the "blank-space-%20" pattern.

If not against Co-op TOS, I might be running some tests soon.

.

 

You are just begging for a million "Why is my page linking to an image" threads. Not to mention all the people that have had ads rejected.

I will have a great time hitting CTRL-V with "Ask T0PS about it"

 

FYI - I wouldn't approve it.

 

I guess it's pushing it a little but hey, innovation is good