Philosophical: Does Google know when a photo isn't what your meta data says it is? And could you be downgraded for that?
-
Not something I've ever heard discussed before, probably still a bit too esoteric for present day, but I've always been one to be guided by where I see Google headed rather than trying to game the system as it exists now. So think about it:
- Most stock and public domain photos are used repeatedly throughout the internet.
- Google's reverse image search proves that Google can recognize when the same photo is used across dozens of sites.
- Many of those photos will have alt and/or title text that Google also has crawled. If not it has the content of the page on which the photo exists to consider for context.
So if Google has a TON of clues about what a photo is likely to be about, and can in theory aggregate those clues about a single photo from the dozens of sites using it, how might Google treat a site that mislabels it, old school "one of these things is not like the others" style?
Would a single site hosting that photo be bolstered by the additional context that the known repeated photo brings in, essentially from other sites?
If 10 sites about widgets are using the same widget photo, but the 11th uses an entirely new, never before published photo, would the 11th site then be rated better for bringing something new to the table? (I think this would be almost certainly true, drives home the importance of creating your own graphics content.)
Anyway, like I said, all theoretical and philosophical and probably not currently in play, especially since an image can be used in so many different contexts, but it's New Years and things are slow and my brain is running, so I'm curious what other folks might think about that as the future of image optimization.
-
Thought provoking discussion Rebecca!
I'm with you in thinking there is potential for Google to start using misleadingly labeled images in it's ranking algorithm. Alt tags in particular. They're supposed to be used, in part, to help visually impaired search engines and people understand what's being shown on the page. If they don't do that, if they're just stuffed with keywords, they lessen the value of the page. In that context "Hawaiian sunset" has more value that "church", "travel site" or "inspirational quote", even if dozens or hundreds or thousands of other sites use the same descriptor.
I also agree with Egol's opinion that unique content derives value from its perceived popularity; its ability to earn repeat and lengthy visits as well as exposure, links, and shares.
I consider it a best practice to use unique images accurately named and described (using alt tags) with a brief and accurate description of the image that incorporates keywords. Not easy or even possible all of the time, but a good target to aim for.
-
I believe that popularity in image search has an impact upon rankings in websearch. So, if you have produced a unique image that is more popular, then you will benefit from it. But, if your unique image is not popular then the effect will be neutral.
-
Good call on the reCaptcha stuff, I hadn't even thought about that. Google is teaching its algo image recognition by asking real humans "so, what exactly is this?" in a sort of backhanded way. And what would that do with that?
I do see a case to make for unique images being more highly valued. If duplicate content is devalued, and images are content, well... ¯_(ツ)_/¯
-
I agree with you about naming convention. I'm thinking more about alt text, title attributes, on-page context.
But I think it would be difficult to figure out if an image is being used in an unusual way. Say you have a photo of a Hawaiian sunset. What are you using that for? Maybe a travel site. Maybe a page of inspirational quotes. Maybe a church. Maybe a massage therapist. Maybe a Hawaii-themed restaurant in Oslo. Maybe a funeral home. The appropriate context could vary so much that it would be a tall order.
-
Certainly an interesting question. It's becoming more and more evident that image recognition software (more specifically, subject recognition) is gaining traction within big names including Facebook and Google. The software (still in development) can recognize subjects, objects, settings, etc. - to the point where they can "name" an image based on these factors. Which, of course, is extremely relevant to this conversation.
That said, I disagree with the notion that incongruities between an image name, alt-text, or title and the recognized subject of that image will have any factor at any point in time. I have two main points on why I suspect this will never become practice:
- Naming an image based directly on its contents has never been a suggestible convention. Historically, naming an image has been more about the "message" or intended use of that image than about its direct, visual content. To push content creators to start doing this would be overly heavy-handed (yes, even for Google).
- The web would be utterly polluted by images with the exact same name, all over the place. As you'd brought up stock photography and its proliferation across the web, I'd counter that this is exactly why it won't happen. The amount of images by this convention that would be named "man in suit at laptop" alone is staggering. More to the point, Google and other curators prefer specificity; so much so that it would be impossible for them to accurately define more than the visual assets - which often don't make up the bulk of a pictures meaning.
TL;DR version: Do I think what you're suggesting is possible? Absolutely. Do I think it will happen? No; this would go against naming conventions and Google's own desire for specificity.
-
Hi Rebecca,
I can see this happening in the future for sure, if not already. The new Google reCaptcha already kind of does this, "Select the pictures with tacos", which is kind of like Google saying hey we already know which of these pictures have tacos lets see if you do. They could of course expand the reCaptcha to help identify more pictures if they wanted to.Though that may diverge from the original purpose of captcha which was designed to tackle 2 problems. OCR readers having trouble with certain words / scripts in books, and spammers.
Nice thoughts,
Don
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Negative SEO with Google Images
We have a client in the heavy equipment industry that is trying to "push down" images in a Google image search that are associated with an accident over ten years ago. This client has launched a new website, and we have applied the best practices of on-page SEO (page titles, unique meta-descriptions, alt-image tags, focused keyword targeting, etc.). The challenge we have is with Google Image results. It seems the image results shown in the Google Image search rankings are often not inline with how images have been labeled in the alt-tag section. I have checked these images with the Moz Chrome extension, and I have often found the way the image is labeled in the alt-tag is not related to the search query made within the Google image search bar. I certainly may not be factoring in other weighted items when it comes to how images are ranked. Are there other ranking factors associated with Google Image results outside of the Alt-Image Tag? If so, what are those factors? Our ultimate goal is to provide a strategy that would allow us to tag images within this specific sector that are relevant to this specific heavy equipment product, and at the same time, "push down" the rankings of the images that have a negative association to them. We certainly want to take the right approach here, and want to earn these rankings. However, the way Google ranks images seems to be a mystery of sorts. Is there a specific strategy relevant to Google Image rankings that would fall inline with the challenge listed above? I appreciate any advice on this topic. Thank you.
Image & Video Optimization | | JaredBroussard0 -
What's better for SEO an Optimized Image URL vs Optimized Image File Name?
I would like to know what is best practice for optimizing images for our website. Is it better to give an Image an optimized filename Or an optimized URL for SEO? Or is it better to do both? Would there be any harm in doing both if they are identical in their format? Any help would be greatly appreciated. With thanks, Kate
Image & Video Optimization | | K_borg0 -
Google instantly suspends Google+ local listing of brand new company
I just tried to create a Google+ listing for a client. It's a brand new company. As soon as I submit the listing, I get an error message: "Google has suspended your page due to quality issues." There is no content on the listing, no website, etc. Just their NAP. All I can guess is their business address or phone number is on a blacklist due to some previous tenant/owner. Does Google keep a blacklist of addresses and/or phone numbers? Any other ideas?
Image & Video Optimization | | AdamThompson0 -
Google Places UK address has randomly changed to a US address in Texas!
Hello, one of my clients has 2 Google Places listings, both UK addresses. However one of them has randomly changed to a US address in Texas, and it won't let me update the country unless I create a new listing.... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/preview#!q=the+43+club&data=!4m16!1m15!4m8!1m3!1d22152595!2d12.5088275!3d47.73855!3m2!1i1440!2i774!4f13.1!7i10!9m1!6e0!10b1!17b1!25b1!6m1!1e1&fid=1 As you can see the second listing is Texas, but it should be: Tall Trees Cottage, Winkfield Road, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 7EX. 0208 144 0166 Any help would be great. Thanks
Image & Video Optimization | | Kerry_Jones0 -
How should I list my client in Google+?
My client is a personal injury lawyer with one office in a highly competitive major metropolitan area and another office in a very small town. They are changing offices in the major metropolitan area in June and will have a new address. They are already doing well in serps related to the small town but are nowhere to be found in the metropolitan area serps. Currently I can find unclaimed listings in Google+ Local for both offices. I cannot find any Google+ business page and they don't know of one. Given this information and the current state of Google+ how would you proceed to list this client? Specific questions include: *Would there be any straight SEO benefit of making a Google+ Business Page for them? *Would you claim the Google+ Local listing for the Metro office that is going to be moved in 5 months? or would you wait until the office is moved then create a new Google+ Local listing?
Image & Video Optimization | | JesseCWalker0 -
Better ranking for google places
Hi, What can i do to rank better in Google for local listings? im already ranking number 1 for my keywords after local listings, but i really want to improve that, because im loosing a lot of traffic, I do have my business listed in local.yahoo.com, yelp citysearch.com etc.. and i constantly build my link to google places plage. Thanks
Image & Video Optimization | | vladraush990 -
Online Photo Gallery: drive traffic and increase social media activity
I run a photo booth rental business for weddings and other social events. One of the features that comes standard with every package is that all of the photos from the event are hosted on an online photo gallery. We currently give the guests a business card at the event with our website address and on the website they can click a link that takes them to their online gallery, which is hosted on www.smugmug.com. I wanted to see if there is a way that we could keep the traffic/visitors on our website longer vs. sending them to www.smugmug.com. I also would like to see if there is a way that they can incorporate social media sharing, such as Google+ to share our website with their friend and family. So my questions are: 1. How do I get visitors to spend more time on my website vs. leaving to go to the www.smugmug.com website? 2. How do I get visitors to share our website/gallery/photos via social media like Google+, Facebook, etc... and bring traffic to our website?
Image & Video Optimization | | pharcydeabc0 -
Google Knowledge Graph - change bio image
I have a client who is a well known personality in a particular niche that I've done some general event and design work for, but he hasn't had interest in SEO or social help until this point. He is very displeased by the image that was chosen for his Google Knowledge Graph result when you search his name. The issue isn't due to a poor photo, but rather due to the site it links through to. Google has chosen to use a bio image for his Knowledge Graph result which links to an "anti-" site. This site is opposed to the organization he leads. If you click on the image, it sends you to an image result page backed by an article which is full of misinformation and overall negativity about this individual. The source is also listed under the image on the Knowledge Graph result, a source he doesn't believe deserves any publicity, especially in conjunction with his name. So, what best practices might you suggest should be employed to go about getting Google to choose a replacement image for his Knowledge Base bio? Optimize his own bio page and bio image on his website? Get an image on his Wikipedia page? Create a G+ page with the bio image? Integrate the rel author syntax into his articles pointing back to his bio page? He doesn't want this to become a public matter, so he's against posting the issue to Google's Help Boards or reporting it in a public fashion. I'm not sure what should be the best first steps and top priorities for him and am hoping the SEOmoz team is starting to see some trends with Knowledge Graph. Let me know your thoughts when you can. Thanks so much! iLqNW iLqNW.png
Image & Video Optimization | | windturbines2