X3Photo Gallery Forums

Yes.

I've mentioned all of this in my last few posts.

Find a way for image specific meta data to be indexed by google on the HTML side.

Option 1.) Can image pages be created without the image file extentions such as .jpg? I think this is why google is not indexing them for text search results. I believe it thinks the image pages are actual image files, which are not usually indexed for text search results by google.

If this works, it would only give results for people with HTML enabled. Thus the need for a second option.

Option 2.) A simple HTML based "site map" containing image specific meta data (and possibly thumbs). I think this is similar to what Karl has alluded to.

Option 2 would, most likely, be a better option for someone not wanting to enable the full HTML side (not wanting to make the full sized images available in HMTL).

pain wrote:Hmm do you guys have any ideas how we can improve search-friendliness after all?

From my last 2 posts before your question:

"If X2 "page" URLs end with an image file extension. Could this lead to Google (or other search engines) seeing x2 image pages as image files, and therefor not something to be indexed for text search results? "


and then:

"The biggest current obstacle on the imagevue HTML side is image pages, and therefor the image specific meta data, are not being indexed. This is possibly because of the file extensions mentioned before (an observation based on my limited knowledge).

Best thing that could be done, IMHO, is to find a way for image specific meta data to be found by search images within HTML. How to do that is the question.

Altering image pages so they can be found by search engines would ne nice, but will only work for those with HTML enabled. I'm included in this group -

Another option is a simple HTML based site map which doesn't show full images (and possibly not thumbs, although I'd rather see them). The developers have hinted this method could have drawbacks compared to the full HTML, but would most likely be more agreeable to people wanting to run flash only sites."

oops - duplicate posts....edit -;)

& the more thought I give it the more I like the idea of including image specific meta data with an HTML based "sitemap" page...& not using the full HTML side so the full images aren't easily saved or copied by the average viewer.

Thanks Again for listening.

anytime732 wrote:im sorry but i dont understand why you keep on about this html sitemap? its a know fact that most search engines will crawl a site and in the process search for a file named "sitemap.xml" it enables search engines to find pages which it wouldnt normally find and link to them accordingly.

If that image specific data (title, description, camera related data, etc) could be included in an xml file instead, that would be fine as well. My impression is that an xml sitemap file is just a list of URLs. I could be wrong on this.

I did create an xml sitemap for my site with a 3rd party app and pointed google to it. The app listed the main page, the folders, and the images. Google had already picked up everything else and still ignored the images despite the XML file. Possibly because of the file extensions, but I don't know that for a fact.

My hope is simply that Imagevue can make image specific data available in a way it will be found and indexed outside of flash...and if it can be done in a way that doesn't expose the full file publicly in HTML, that would be a bonus.

Sorry if I'm being repetitive, somewhat non-specific, or making unrealistic suggestions. I have very limited knowledge on the development end and just putting forth suggestions best as I can.

Thanks Ya'll,
MM
.
.

Oh...and Anytime, I think a large part of your issues may lie within the gallery being embedded as you mentioned, which is an added element and not something I originally considered in my comments. I know absolutely nothing about how that affects search engine indexing -;) With that in mind, I didn't mean to inadvertently hi-jack your thread!

Anyway...looking forward to hearing what pain and mauj mauj think re: all of this -;)

Im not shure if this is right, but when I was at AdobeMax 2007 in Barcelona was on a litle course with seo and google. And they sayd, google reade 200kb from the top of the site, so if we starting with a picture there and the size is 250K, google not read a thing from that site. So maybe it's right to made html site with smaal pictures. I realley not shure.

/Jonny

I am not sure what to add here, we can add more features to HTML gallery. I hope that after next major release we will finally be able to push it further with some SEO optimization too.

What of Flash counterpart, this is different story. While you can just from html to the corresponding flash page, I am not sure yet how to improve flash frontend so users land directly on flash page from search.

anytime732 wrote:there is no problem with search engines finding the first page a least when its embeded, the problem comes when your core site is based in x2 and the www knows nothing about it!!!

"knows nothing about it" is perhaps a little rash. If it didn't know about it, it wouldn't list it in html either. If it does know about it, it will list it no matter if its flash or not, but perhaps not for all the same keywords. The difference from flash and html, is that flash isn't really page based so it can't index multiple pages, and it won't deep-link.

The most important SEO features of your website are without question DOMAINNAME + TITLE. This is in both HTML and FLASH sites(including X2 galleries). The problem with flash sites, is that they don't allow you to add tons of "text content" to fight for higher page ranking based on content.

The main difference between a flash gallery and a html gallery, is that google will index the unique pages in a html gallery, while it will not index unique pages in a flash gallery(basically because poages don't exist). There is not really any difference in indexing the homepage/startpage of your gallery. That is indexed in google no matter what!

Well then we are getting somewhere at least. If google doesn't even "know" about your website, then it simply hasn't found it anywhere. Let me make an example:

If I register a domain and make a new website and launch it. I can live happily ever after until I die, and google will NEVER find it unless someone links to it. All search engines are crawlers - They crawl through all links on all sites, and index new pages as they work though the web. If your site is not linked from anywhere, or you haven't notified google somehow, it will NEVER index your site. Now, IF google has come across your site and refused to index it, that would be because you were banned from google(which I doubt very much).

anytime732 wrote:as i said before niether my flash or html site has been indexed by any search engine. (both are enabled)

I did a search in google for "sherwood fabrics", and there was your site in first place. Not sure how you would expect it to land on the gallery page, as it is under sherwoodfabrics/fabrics. Perhaps if you called that folder for "gallery" and I searched "sherwoodfabrics gallery" I would find that page. I don't know where you get that google is not indexing your page ... As we have discussed earlier in this topic, it has problems indexing individual jpg files, and there are reasons for that. Also, where is your html page if it is even going to be able to index folders and files?

anytime732 wrote:my real concern is that search engines are moving away from titles and metadata and focusing on content.

Search engines have already moved away from metadata long time ago. Google only uses <title>, but on the other hand, this is probably the most important tag you have in your document for search engine optimization, no matter if it is flash or html. The fact that search engines focus on content is very true, and makes flash weaker in competition for high search engine ranking than html. It doesn't mean google doesn't index all pages though ... As explained earlier TITLE+domainname are still some of the most important factors for basic indexing.

I think the problem we face now, is that google is not indexing independent images which end with *.jpg as pointed out earlier in this topic. FOLDERS are still indexed - Try searching "imagevue gallery super duper" in google, and you will find our "super duper" folder in the html gallery. Why it isn't working for you, may be because it can't find the html version for your gallery? I certainly can't ...