Hi Jared,

Webmaster tools is indeed the only way you can check what the % of image search is (you can also see it in Google Analytics if you have linked both accounts - it is the same data however as it's measured via webmaster tools). Solution you put in place seems a very good idea.

rgds

Dirk

I think these names would be fine and following google guidelines for image search (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/114016?hl=en) - quote: "The filename can give Google clues about the subject matter of the image. Try to make your filename a good description of the subject matter of the image. For example, my-new-black-kitten.jpg is a lot more informative than IMG00023.JPG. Descriptive filenames can also be useful to users: If we're unable to find suitable text in the page on which we found the image, we'll use the filename as the image's snippet in our search results."

rgds

Dirk

Agree with Ryan - if you want to make changes - better make the image name a descriptive one.

Also, take care if you get search traffic from image search - changing the name of your images could cause a big negative impact on your traffic. In my experience the image index is updated slower than the normal index - so if 2554.jpg is indexed and you change it to 6842.jpg or even better red-ford-truck.jpg the image in the result will return a 404 and be replaced by the same image from another site (if it's a stock photo) or dropped from the results. Better to keep the old image in the initial location until the index is updated

rgds

Dirk

The trick with the underscore seems to work on http://keywordtool.io - I tried 'how to _' and it came up with 502 suggestions.

rgds

Dirk

Do you get al lot of traffic from image search? If not, I don't think it really matters, there are thousands of site who are using the same setup as you.

if you get a lot of traffic from image search you need to be careful. Never moved from main domain to sub domain, but did a recent migration of a site where 80% of traffic came from image search. All the images were moved to a new folder.

In my experience, the image index is updated much slower than the normal index, and while google is quite fast to index the redirected urls it seems to need  much more time for the images. On a previous migration we had the situation where the image thumbnails where still visible, but as soon you did preview the image the image didn't load as it had moved from it's original location. The problem with image search is that when this happened the position of the image remained in the results the site behind it changed (at that point we also discovered that an huge number  of sites had stolen our original images).

To avoid this we now migrated the images to the new location and updated the links in the html, but we also kept the same images in the old location until we had the impression that they were no longer indexed.

this strategy seemed to work as unlike the first migration our results from image search were unaffected.

hope this helps

Dirk

Hi Olivier,

The question that Matt is answering is quite specific - is a "coming soon" page bad for new domains as Google seems to prioritize new domains. The answer is "no" for this situation.

The situation of your friend is quite different - he has an existing site which is generating some traffic. Unless your "coming soon page" is extremely interesting & rich in content, it will not rank for any keyword - basically you're reducing your site to a one page site, so bounce rate will inevitably be very high.

If you want to proceed, you just have to put up a redirect rule that is redirecting all url's to the index page of your site (which would then be the "coming soon" page).

rgds

Dirk

Missing metadescriptions are on your /tag/ pages - but these are noindex so shouldn't be a problem. Few missing metadescriptions apart from that. Normally Moz bot respects noindex - so a bit strange that it's reporting these errors.

Didn't find exact duplicates but I guess these are generated by pages like http://venture.photo/kristine-chris/ - http://venture.photo/danielle-dave/ - the only difference between these pages is the video, which makes it almost impossible for bots to tell the difference between these pages. You could try to add some text & some images (with alt wedding photo) to make these pages more unique or integrate it with the "article style" content you have on site.

The galleries have a bit the same problem - a lot of images - but almost no text. I also noticed that you use "-" between the words in the alt text of the images -which is not necessary - it's even better to make it a plain descriptive text.

rgds

Dirk

Hugh,

Without the actual url is difficult to judge what's going on. If it's a recent site the difference could be related to the crawl frequency. You could always try to double check with a crawler like Screaming Frog (free is you use an url list or for the first 500 crawls).

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

Why would you do that for? A coming soon page has no value for visitors, and as a result no value for search engines.

If you're going to create a new site, I would first launch the new site and then redirect the old pages to the new ones.

rgds

Dirk

In countries where the "old" image search is still used (like Germany) - it is counted as Referral traffic rather than search traffic (not sure why). You could check in Webmastertools what your % of image search is (and compare January & February)

You could also try to check the landing pages report for this referral traffic and compare this with the landingpages in Acquisition >Search Engine Optimisation > Landingpages with secondary dimension "Google Property"

rgds,

Dirk