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
-
What happens if I structurally uploaded two different images under the same name? Will Google penalise me for it?
Hi, we are a self storage company (www.boxie24.com) and for every url (500 url's) we use 1 head image containing the keyword of the url, so for instance: https://www.boxie24.com/en-us/self-storage-west-village the main image on top is self-storage-west-village-sm.jpg. It was uploaded months ago. Now we are adding more images between the content. But we call them: self-storage-west-village-sm.jpg as well and self-storage-west-village-boxie24-storage-sm. But for almost every url we have "duplicate image name". Is that bad and should we fix it or is it ok? It are different images though. I noticed it today, the images have the same name
Image & Video Optimization | | Boxie24TEAM0 -
Unusual Google+ Local listing ranking well
If you search for locksmith Phoenix, this Google+ page is ranked #3 in the local results: https://plus.google.com/117543374216451236579/about?hl=en The phone number is a VOIP number, they don't appear to have many/any citations, no reviews, etc. They've listed the Yelp search results page as their website. Strange. How are they ranking so well? Is Google ranking them well because it's associating them with Yelp.com? Any thoughts?
Image & Video Optimization | | AdamThompson2 -
Identical pages with different URL's
Hi All,I have a page with the titleFunny charactersanother page as Funny Characters/VideosAlmost all data is same in both URL's except the videos page will have 20+ video thumbnailsHow can i set Google not to index the images only on this page and consider both pages as identical and not create any issues but yet scan the videos.Thanks
Image & Video Optimization | | jomin740 -
Google Places best practise
Hi, just wondering what peoples' thoughts are on linking from a Google Places listing; where multiple locations are present (and multiple Places listings), do people generally link back to the home page or to the individual location pages? I would be interested to hear anybody's thoughts. Thank you
Image & Video Optimization | | jasarrow0 -
What's the best practice for submitting to YouTube?
Hi all, I'm looking to start having video on my website and have chosen YouTube to host. But what I am asking is "what is the best practice for submitting a video to YouTube". I would have thought that having a transcript would be good, as this will explain what is in the video, a good title to indicate the subject and then just a few keywords/tags for what I believe the audience would be searching for to find my video. Is this the best practice? Or am I totally wrong? Any help would be appreciated
Image & Video Optimization | | SeanLade0 -
How to Fix Issue for Inactive Products in Google Merchant Center?
Today, I was checking my Google merchant center account. I come to know that, there are 145 inactive products are available from product feed. I have checked few products manually and found following error. "The URL specified in your data feed wasn't working correctly when we reviewed this item." You can view more by attached image. I have checked my URLs and it's working well. There is no issue in URL. So, How do I fix issue? 6327664099_0430ef187e_b.jpg
Image & Video Optimization | | CommercePundit1 -
Google Places and Multiple Locations
Hi, I have a client with 3 different physical locations but only 1 phone number for his business. Does anyone know if Google Places will penalize me for duplicate listings due to having the same phone number or will I be ok if I have a different physical addresses per listing? Thanks, -Carlos
Image & Video Optimization | | caneja0 -
Local Search - New Business - 4 different Erroneous, Unverified Google Places Pages
My client is a new business <1 year old. Google has 4 unverified places pages for this business - all have slight errors in the business name and address. Which one should I claim? Will Google let me change the business name once I verify ownership? How will I get rid of the other listings once I claim and correct one of them? In light of these data errors and/or as a general rule do you recommend the paid submission services for UBL and Localeze (http://getlisted.org/resources/why-listing-services.aspx)? Thanks for the help! Jeff
Image & Video Optimization | | jeffgibson0