Printer Friendly Version
Email this thread to a friend
|
~~* OMG *~~ I am in LOVE! ( with google tools ) (In: Google)
Google PR (In: Google)
Google (In: Pay Per Click - Google/Yahoo & Others)
How much Organic Traffic do you get from Google (In: General Search Engine Optimization)
Featured Web Site Template |
|
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
|
|
| Member |
Message |
beth_lk
Staff
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
# Posts: 1216
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-08 10:15
If someone has a web site with 90% of it being pictures, graphics, images and such with just some short text of the general subject - how do you get that ranked/indexed?
Such as for example:
( image a picture of a man riding a tricycle with a lawn mower tied to the back of it )
the text with the image would say a red necks riding lawn mower
the meta tags would be:
key words - red neck, lawn mower, strange picture, funny picture
title - red neck lawn mower
description - a red necks riding lawn mower
OK so with such little content how would you give this specific page ( and all the other ones like it ) good SEO ?
I always worked with content to do my SEO work at least in part for me - so this is a new one for me 
|
 |
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10418
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-08 10:45
You need at least a paragraph of text with each image, preferably several paragraphs, and a heading to introduce that paragraph.
The page title and meta description also need to match the on-page content. I am trying to convince a site of that, at this very moment.
I don't use the meta keywords tag. Apparently only Yahoo makes any usage of it, and then does not treat anything in it as important.
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-08 11:04
Visualise the page with no pictures, to get an idea of what the search engines will see.
It's really a matter of adding more text. Instead of a one line caption, make it a paragraph.
And you can help your case by:
1. Trying to get pictures whose captions are related, onto the same page.
2. Reducing the 'shared content' of the pages (eg menus, intros, promos), which will have the effect of increasing the 'unique text' proportion of the page, which make the SEs job easier when (se readable) content is a little thin.
|
|
dudibob
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
# Posts: 1459
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-08 14:00
Best ways to see what a search engine sees is to
1. get this lynx add on [link] - an all text browser
2. Go to the Google cache of the page and view the text only version
If the site your working with Beth isn't the next Flickr it may be worth changing the image to text ratio 
|
|
freeflyer
Joined: Aug 06, 2007
# Posts: 211
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-08 22:53
and as an extra tip dont put keywords in the meta which arent in the copy or anywher else.
|
|
beth_lk
Staff
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
# Posts: 1216
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-08 22:58
I agree with all that has been said here - and I Thank All Of You. However how the heck does one add a paragraph or more to such an example as I gave above? The whole site will be like this - images that are funny, strange etc etc.
PS: change the image to text ratio
HUH?????? Now I am lost
|
|
dudibob
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
# Posts: 1459
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-09 08:50
I meant remove some images and replace with text. Is this work for a client? because surely they could whip up some good content?
If all else fails, a good way to rank for images is by getting a lot of links in the anchor text you want, perhaps even have a code snippet under the image encouraging people to link to it.
|
|
beth_lk
Staff
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
# Posts: 1216
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-09 08:55
Thanks for clearing that up - I was having a duhhhhh moment
Yes is for a client. I am the one however in charge of "whipping" up the content lol and doing the SEO end. For the life of me I can not think of any content that would go with goofy, strange etc type pictures/images and such.
I even went to several other sites that do this type of work and all they have is ( as example ) red necks riding lawn mower.
I feel like I am missing something here that I should know, as I just can't grasp content to go with such a page. I guess my duhhhhh moment continues lol
|
|
beth_lk
Staff
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
# Posts: 1216
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-09 08:58
As examples: ( hope this is OK to post these ):
www.funnies.com/redpics.htm
www.davesdaily.com/pictures/new-exit.htm
Both of these pages even have a PR - what am I missing??
[ Message was edited by: g1smd 07/09/2008 06:49 am ... Reason: De-linked examples. ]
|
|
dudibob
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
# Posts: 1459
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-09 13:33
ah I'm with you, that's a tricky one and a very hard one to market too, especially as you have to rely on your images for your content in some ways. icanhascheezburger.com is very similar but they get a mountain of links and comments (the best content you'll probably get) for every image they upload, same for Flickr, on some accounts anyway.
My number one tip would be to make it as easy as possible for people to link to the image/page as possible.
My second would be to try and tag each image, categorise them all and make them searchable (on site) if not already.
I'll think of some more, anyone got some other ideas? 
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-09 16:14
You can get some indirect benefit by ensuring that:
1. Other pages in the folder DO have good content
2. Your site has good, clean, html navigation
This advice is based on the theory that page rank tends to share itself about on a good navigation site.
But think a little outside the box; you may find it useful to optimize more for image searches.
Be sure all pics have appropriate, not excessive, ALT attributes as well as TITLE text, and an appropriate legend (caption). Having a related filename - 'redneck-mower.gif' - can't be bad.
As always, remove as much code bloat as you can (make everything you can into css, including bold and italic (<span=bold-text> looks bulkier to me than <b>, but the css people assure me that's right!), and don't have links to every page on the site (this is in support of the image to text ratio, cited above)
BTW, if my details are wrong, someone please say; I'm writing under the influence of severe backache, and my concentration is even poorer than usual
|
|
freeflyer
Joined: Aug 06, 2007
# Posts: 211
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-09 18:17
as quad says pagerank on such a page is purely down to site nav.. if its good enough it will get PR, nothing to do with onsite SEO of the page.
As for onsite SEO of the page ... well look at in a different and somewhat controversial way.
Ignore for a moment the fact that everyone says 'content is king' and look at it like this.
Instead of thinking 'what has this page got in the way of good content for that term', i'd be thinking 'what is this page clearly and unmistakably about?'.
Answer.. its completely completely obvious to anyone, and therefore to the search engines, that this page is clearly about redneck pictures and absolutely NOTHING ELSE. It has no other content, it has no other wording, and it has no other images. Add to that a title which carries little else and metas which do the same, and what do you get? A solely dedicated page about redneck pictures with NOTHING ELSE IN IT. No other terms, no text to water it down, no other images to confuse.
Its not difficult for the search engines to see EXACTLY what this page is about.
If you ignore the content is king argument (which i'm convinced no longer applies in many situations) and what ou're left with is a 100% dedicated page for that term and no others. No watering down, no other topics, just a page about redneck pictures.
I've seen similar things happening before. I add a new page ona site, but put no content in it. I do all the work for metas, titles, heading tags, anchor, navigation etc etc is all spot on. But, the actual copy is blank. The results is a high ranking page for that term. Next week, i add content, and what happens? it slips down the serps until that content tweaked and retweaked to get it back up again.
I've said it before.. content isnt king. Blatant technical page theming is currently winning it over.
[ Message was edited by: freeflyer 07/09/2008 10:34 am ]
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-09 18:49
freeflyer; the flaw in your argument is that the search engines do not see sites as you do.
Look at the code, that's what google does.
Google would not just see, say,
<img src="/redneck-mower.gif" border="0" alt="redneck mower" title="redneck mower"><BR>Redneck mower
Google would ALSO see many lines of other stuff; the tiny bit of relevant content would be utterly swamped by non-relevant content.
Now, that could, theoretically, still be found in a Google search, but many other sites would probably do better (try it!). Probably about 771 of them. More if the search had no "".
And if the search was for redneck, then the page would likely be buried beneath a few million.
You can diss 'content is king' to your heart's content; but this is not a good example to convince others of your views.
It's all about the difference between being 'findable' and being 'found'.
Too often people find their stuff on webmaster searches (eg for domain.com), and don't realise that on keyword searches - the real world - their stuff is all but invisible.
Long Live the King!
|
|
beth_lk
Staff
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
# Posts: 1216
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-09 18:51
duhhhh moment is gone - Thank You ALL!! I really appreciate the details you each explained this to me in - I understand it now
I was really starting to doubt my own knowledge there for a little while.
|
|
freeflyer
Joined: Aug 06, 2007
# Posts: 211
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-09 19:32
"Google would ALSO see many lines of other stuff; the tiny bit of relevant content would be utterly swamped by non-relevant content. "
thats exactly my point.. reduce or remove the non relevant content (i'm not talking about code) and what do you have left? pure relevant content, and at a percentage of such that it completely themes the page, ie theres nothing else in it. This is what the pages on redneck pictures cited above have essentially done.
When you add a few paragraphs complete with blurb this and blah blah that, you water down the page.
I'm not saying this is the way to go because its just not practical, but it explains how a single image and one line of text can portray a page better for a term than a page with five paragraphs about it.
Its happening mate.. i'm seeing it.. a lot. Content isnt king in relation to dedicated and specifically targeted onsite page theming. But we agree to disagree do some experiments... you'll see the results yourself.
"It's all about the difference between being 'findable' and being 'found'. Too often people find their stuff on webmaster searches (eg for domain.com), and don't realise that on keyword searches - the real world - their stuff is all but invisible. "
I'm applying this to many major competitive terms... its being found for them, high, and without the quotes.
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10418
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-09 19:42
I think what Quad is getting at, is that in having just ten words of content it would be swamped by all the text from headers, navigation, and footers. In that case, you really need at least double (or somesuch) the amount of words in the content part of the page compared to the stuff in the "template" in order for it to stand out. In the main, I would have to agree with that.
|
|
Prowler
Staff
Joined: Aug 14, 2000
# Posts: 1788
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-10 06:06
>> the flaw in your argument is that the search engines do not see sites as you do.
Yes. Search engines may see the elaborate thematically structured lattice work of the skeleton. But they still need to chew on the "content" the body, the meat - the juxtaposition of words and their relevance. Without this "body" the automated program will miss the significance. There are thousands of pages with exquisite images buried in the SERP because they don't have the required textual content.
It is always a problem to rank flash/image rich sites with little content. A technique - is to use a combination of CSS and some clever coding - to display images "on the top" of paragraphs of text content. I know I would incur the wrath of some purists here even to suggest such a scheme. I am only pointing out the possibility.
|
|
beth_lk
Staff
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
# Posts: 1216
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-10 09:04
Very interesting the different point of views on this subject - much for me to now ponder
|
|
freeflyer
Joined: Aug 06, 2007
# Posts: 211
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-10 12:36
"I think what Quad is getting at, is that in having just ten words of content it would be swamped by all the text from headers, navigation, and footers. In that case, you really need at least double (or somesuch) the amount of words in the content part of the page compared to the stuff in the "template" in order for it to stand out. In the main, I would have to agree with that. "
totally agree with all of that (how do you quote on here?), and i'm honestly not being argumentative with anyone. I'm just relaying what i've discovered over the last year.
Yes, the content can be swamped by headers, nav , templating etc etc, but the search engines must see through this, perhaps cause they see it on every page? i dunno. Anyway, I can tell you it is easy to get a page listed for a relatively competitve term, purely by targeting it (and nothing else) in the title, metas, heading tags, and say a page title in h2 or h3. Thats it ! The page does not need any other content, the main copy can be blank, yet the page will be listed reasonably well for a competive term. I'm not saying in the top five, but were talking say 15th in the serps. Now i know 15th isnt a good result, but its a good result for an empty page without (as is believed to be very important) any 'content'. It certainly above other pages full of paragraphs and content for that term, yet doesnt follow the basic coding rules.
In these situations i've also seen the serps drop off by ADDING content, as this waters down the relevancy. I hope you can see where i'm going with this, in that Google will not give less relevance to a page for having little or zero 'natural' content, providing that page is themed correctly and whatever little content it has conforms to and reflects that theme as close to 100% as possible. You dont need lots of content for ranking, you need consistency, good W3C, common sense, and a page which gives a high relevancy percentage for that term. If you've got 5 words in the copy, but those five words are all about your term, you'll possibly win over a page with 500 words and only 10% mentions of your term. Content is not king in this case! and you will not be penalised for having a high keyword percentage with this small amount of text. You're not spamming th page, you've just got one line of text about the term.
But, i am open to discussion and opinions on this, so feel free to disagree
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10418
|
Posted: 2008-Jul-10 13:39
Yes, most search engines can detect that a list of internal links, or a div full of internal links, is the site navigation. Likewise they can discern the header and footer code blocks, especially when they are common to multiple pages. What's left over must be the on-page content.
They surely must measure the size of that content and/or compare it with the size of all the other stuff on the page?
|
|
You are not permitted to post messages in this forum or topic, because of one or more of the following reasons:
- You have not yet logged in, or registered properly as a member
- You are a member, but no longer have posting rights.
- This is a private forum, for which you do not have permissions.
If you are a recent member, it's possible that you simply have not yet confirmed your account. Please
check your email for a message entitled 'JimWorld Forums: Confirm Your Account' and follow the instructions
contained within.
If you cannot find this message, click here to Re-Send it.
|
If you are still experiencing problem, please read the
Login Assistance
Article for some advice on what may be causing your login not to work properly.
|
Switch to Advanced Editor and ...
Create a New Topic
or Reply to this Thread
|
|
Inbox
