Google Indexing of Images
-
Our site is experiencing an issue with indexation of images. The site is real estate oriented. It has 238 listings with about 1190 images. The site submits two version (different sizes) of each image to Google, so there are about 2,400 images. Only several hundred are indexed.
Can adding Microdata improve the indexation of the images?
Our site map is submitting images that are on no-index listing pages to Google. As a result more than 2000 images have been submitted but only a few hundred have been indexed. How should the site map deal with images that reside on no-index pages? Do images that are part of pages that are set up as "no-index" need a special "no-index" label or special treatment?
My concern is that so many images that not indexed could be a red flag showing poor quality content to Google.
Is it worth investing in correcting this issue, or will correcting it result in little to no improvement in SEO?
Thanks, Alan
-
I am chiming in a year late but there is just one thing I am not sure I understand. Why would you want to index images on no-index pages? What are these pages that you want to be no-indexed in the first place? If you do not want these pages to be found when searching in Google, why would you want some of the content, like images, be found instead?
I am with Michael and recommend that you fix the sitemap. I am also curious to know what has happened in the past year. Have your issues resolved? Have your SEO improved?
-
I would definitely update that sitemap. If your sitemap is telling Google one thing, and the pages themselves are contradicting the sitemap, AND it's happening thousands of times--that's a negative quality signal to Google, and could affect all sorts of things, from crawl budget to indexation to rankings.
ALT tags are worth fixing as well. That's really the #1 clue Google has to what the images are about. (Other clues: the image filename, and the page title, if it's the main image on the page). Here, I'm presuming that the images are ones you hope to have show up in image search results (otherwise why would you bother creating an image sitemap?)...in which case, you really, REALLY need to put the ALT text on them.
-
Apparently our site map submits images to Google even when they are on pages that are marked as no index.
The result is that only about 250 out of 2250 images are actually indexed by Google. Apparently Google (as you suggested) is not indexing images that are on pages that are marked "no-index".
Do you think it makes sense for my developers to modify the site map so it no longer submits images that are on pages that are marked as no-index? Is it worth investing resources in fixing this? If this is not going to cause SEO problems I would just as well leave it alone.
Also, the way images are set up, we do not have the ability to customize alt tags. Is this worth fixing? Could repairing these issues with images improve overall ranking?
Thanks, Alan
-
I've not seen instances where Google would index an image that's on a page that's marked noindex.
Be sure that you have consistency between your sitemap and your noindex/index tags on the pages, i.e. don't include a page or image in your sitemap where the page itself (or containing page) indicates noindex.
If you look at how Webmaster Tools OOPS I guess I mean "Search Console" (will Google EVER let a product keep the same name forever???) shows indexation of images in a image sitemap, you'll notice they pair the image indexation count with the web page indexation count. I take that as an indication that they're not interested in indexing images on noindexed pages (which I have to say makes sense to me).
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
-
Google Only Indexing Canonical Root URL Instead of Specified URL Parameters
We just launched a website about 1 month ago and noticed that Google was indexing, but not displaying, URLs with "?location=" parameters such as: http://www.castlemap.com/local-house-values/?location=great-falls-virginia and http://www.castlemap.com/local-house-values/?location=mclean-virginia. Instead, Google has only been displaying our root URL http://www.castlemap.com/local-house-values/ in its search results -- which we don't want as the URLs with specific locations are more important and each has its own unique list of houses for sale. We have Yoast setup with all of these ?location values added in our sitemap that has successfully been submitted to Google's Sitemaps: http://www.castlemap.com/buy-location-sitemap.xml I also tried going into the old Google Search Console and setting the "location" URL Parameter to Crawl Every URL with the Specifies Effect enabled... and I even see the two URLs I mentioned above in Google's list of Parameter Samples... but the pages are still not being added to Google. Even after Requesting Indexing again after making all of these changes a few days ago, these URLs are still displaying as Allowing Indexing, but Not On Google in the Search Console and not showing up on Google when I manually search for the entire URL. Why are these pages not showing up on Google and how can we get them to display? Only solution I can think of would be to set our main /local-house-values/ page to noindex in order to have Google favor all of our other URL parameter versions... but I'm guessing that's probably not a good solution for multiple reasons.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Nitruc0 -
SITEMAP - Does <changefreq>and <image:title>have any apreciable effect?</image:title></changefreq>
Hi everyone. It was hard to find some actual evidence that some of the atributes to be declared in a sitemap have some real impact.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gaston Riera
Particularly, im interested in these two: <changefreq></changefreq> and**image:title</image:title>** I've used them in a few cases just to check their effect and couldnt see any.
Do you have any experience with these? Or any other atribute that might be helpful, in order to create a more accurate and effective sitemap? Also, this could be a great topic to create a new Moz Blog post, the one about sitemap is 8years old.0 -
Ranking on google search
Hello Mozzers Moz On page grader shows A grade for the particular URL,but my page was not ranking on top 100 Google search. Any help is appreciated ,Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sobanadevi0 -
Best way to remove full demo (staging server) website from Google index
I've recently taken over an in-house role at a property auction company, they have a main site on the top-level domain (TLD) and 400+ agency sub domains! company.com agency1.company.com agency2.company.com... I recently found that the web development team have a demo domain per site, which is found on a subdomain of the original domain - mirroring the site. The problem is that they have all been found and indexed by Google: demo.company.com demo.agency1.company.com demo.agency2.company.com... Obviously this is a problem as it is duplicate content and so on, so my question is... what is the best way to remove the demo domain / sub domains from Google's index? We are taking action to add a noindex tag into the header (of all pages) on the individual domains but this isn't going to get it removed any time soon! Or is it? I was also going to add a robots.txt file into the root of each domain, just as a precaution! Within this file I had intended to disallow all. The final course of action (which I'm holding off in the hope someone comes up with a better solution) is to add each demo domain / sub domain into Google Webmaster and remove the URLs individually. Or would it be better to go down the canonical route?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iam-sold0 -
VisitSweden indexing error
Hi all Just got a new site up about weekend travel for VisitSweden, the official tourism office of Sweden. Everything went just fine except som issues with indexing. The site can be found here at weekend.visitsweden.com/no/ For some weird reason the "frontpage" of the site does not get indexed. What I have done myself to find the issue: Added sitemaps.xml Configured and added site to webmaster tools Checked 301s so they are not faulty By doing a simple site:weekend.visitsweden.com/no/ you can see that the frontpage is simple not in the index. Also by doing a cache:weekend.visitsweden.com/no/ I see that Google tries to index the page without the trailing /no/ for some reason. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://weekend.visitsweden.com/no/ Any smart ideas to get this fixed or where to start looking? All help greatly appreciated Kind regards Fredrik
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Resultify0 -
Google didn't indexed my domain.
I bought *out.com more than 1 year, google bot even don't come, then I put the domain to the domain parking. what can I do? I want google index me.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Yue0 -
Who is beating you on Google (after Penguin)?
Hi,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rayvensoft
After about a month of Penguin and 1 update, I am starting to notice an annoying pattern as to who is beating me in the rankings on google. I was wondering if anybody else has noticed this.
The sites who are beating me - almost without exception - fall into these 2 categories. 1) Super sites that have little or nothing to do with the service I am offering. Now it is not the homepages that are beating me. In almost all cases they are simply pages hidden in their forums where somebody in passing mentioned something relating to what I do. 2) Nobodies. Sites that have absolutely no links back to them, and look like they were made by a 5 year old. Has anybody else noticed this? I am just wondering if what I see only apply to my sites or if this is a pattern across the web. Does this mean that for small sites to rank, it is now all about on-page SEO? If it all about on-page, well that is great... much easier than link building. But I want to make sure others see the same thing before dedicating a lot of time to overhaul my sites and create new content.| Thanks!0 -
Indexing techniques
Hi, I just want a confirmation about my indexing technique, if is good or can be improved. The technique is totally whitehat and can be done by one person. Any suggestions or improvements are welcome. I create the backlinks ofcource first 🙂 I make a list on public doc from Google. On the doc are only ten links. After I digg it , and add some more bookmarks 5-6. I tweet the digg and each doc. (my 2 twitter accounts have page authority 98) I like them in Fb. I ping them thru ping serviecs. Thats it. Works ok for moment. Is anything what I can do to improve my technique? Thanks lot
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nyanainc0