Photo Gallery Forums

What's the possibility of the option of pointing sitemap links to the flash deep links instead of the HTML pages?

Google and some other engines have found my sitemap, but if HTML is not active it links to a blank page.

Also...what is the possibility of including thumbs on the sitemap, or additional image metadata sometime in the future?

1. Pointing the sitemap links to the flash instead of the html kinda negates it ´s effect altogether. A link will be picked up in google because of the link text, and because of the text in the page where the link goes. If it goes to flash(which is pretty much just an empty page for google), I doubt it will build an index for it in google. I mean, why not just disable the sitemap? What ´s the point of having it?

2. That is possible. But then its just starting to look and act more like the html gallery! I don ´t see the advantage of having a sitempa work like this, when the html gallery can do the same. I don ´t think we should spend to much energy on two separate modules getting one to work more like the other that already exists.

That's the idea actually. The sitemap page as an optional alternative for displaying HTML thumbs and meta data for users who don't want to post full size images in HTML, but do want image data visible to search.

Users could turn the thumbs and metadata on or off in admin, depending on how they wanted to use the page.

Just thinking out loud -;)

yup, is possible of course. But what would be the benefit of this? Having them link to the flash gallery certainly won ´t make it any useful in terms of SEO. At best, it will index the same sitemap page for all images.

I don't mean this as a way to map flash. I understand that's not going to happen.

If a host has HTML turned off in the X2 gallery the sitemap becomes a list of dead links. A full site worth of dead links.

Frankly, as it is, the only real value of that sitemap is to include metadata not being shown on other indexed pages.

Otherwise, the HTML gallery works fine on it's own, feeding it's own links to search engines. The only exception being the html image pages not being indexed (meaning that image specific data is not available for text search).

This is what sparked the idea of including that image specific data on a page (or pages) we know ARE being indexed.

If not the sitemap page, would it be possible to do within the current HTML thumb pages? And then give hosts the option of having the thumbs and links feed directly to flash from there?

In terms of pure SEO for text search...the html image pages are doing nothing, and the sitemap pages includes some (but not all) image data. So I'm just wondering if there are possibly ways to utilize ALL the image specific data, and then optionally (if the X2 host wants) by- pass those un-indexed pages and feed directly into flash.

Perhaps you can explain your goal with this ...

Like you say, if html gallery does nothing, then why do you need to link the thumbnails to flash version? I can ´t see how that will change anything ...

SUMMARY: Could we (optionally?) have all the image specific meta data available along with thumbs, within pages we know are being indexed by search engines, and have that directly feed the flash gallery (instead of an html page with a full sized / easily down loadable by anyone via right click )

Currently the HTML image pages and the meta data within are of no use strictly in terms of SEO for TEXT search.

Google image search results ARE being generated, however. But I believe that is generated by the right click directly linking to the image when the gallery is in lightview mode. Not from within html image page. Thus the full image description and data may still not be utilized. I'm not certain. But that appears to be the case.

& No No No... ...I didn't say the HTML gallery does nothing.

But rather it's specifically the html image pages (with the full sized image) that do nothing in terms of SEO for text search.

I'm also saying the sitemaps only practical benefit is to provide metadata not currently being indexed on those html image pages (with full sized images), as the html gallery as a whole otherwise works fine and feeds it's own links.

I understand in the proposed scenario an experienced user could still get to the images. But it's the average user I think most of us are concerned with.

As someone who has had images lifted and used for advertisement by local businesses, I would certainly appreciate that if it is possible -;)

And it would be a very strong selling point for X2, IMHO.

So, please forgive me if this sounds too simplistic. I have been intrigued by this discussion, following it, and trying to understand it.

Is the bottom line goal to protect your images?

Are there other goals as well (if so what)?

Curious?

As far as I can understand, the main issue here is to try to ultimately get google searches into the flash gallery.

It is true that you can for example search the phrase "imagevue earth animals" in google, and top result will be www.photo.gallery/soda/?content%2Fd_Earth+Animals%2F from the demo gallery HTML version. If we changed the links on the thumbnails so that they linked to the image in the FLASH gallery, then we have ultimately achieved that goal.

What I don ´t like about this process, is that we are building and maintaining a system that is nothing more than a really bad workaround. Personally, if I ever was searching for individual images or image groups, I wouldn ´t be happy if a thumbnail link started loading an entirely new application just to display the image I was hoping to see. Also, I don ´t really see how you will be intercepting people searching for individual items in your gallery anyway. I mean, why would I search for "imagevue earth animals"? If I left "Imagevue" out, I wouldn ´t even be close to be in the results anyway.

At best, we would have a really bad workaround system. And honestly, I can ´t really imagine any real-life situations where it would be a benefit. I could possibly be searching for a photographer, or a model, but then I would be more than happy to just land on the root of their gallery(which already works). Of course, I could be wrong or missing somethin ...

I have an image titled, "Rochina Favela, Rio de Janiero, Brazil".

The same image in my WordPress blog (posted a few weeks ago) ranks #8 or #9 on Google text search depending on the search term used (Rochina Favela, Rochine Brazil, or Rochina Favela Brazil).

The same image on flickr was ranked #1 for those terms by Goolge for a while.

All based on the image specific info.

I understand what you are saying though. My suggestions may not be an improvement (attempting to look at it from an objective POV).

The answer may simply be that keeping up multiple galleries is necessary to get that kind of search result.

Thanks for listening regardless -;)

gadgetologist wrote:So, please forgive me if this sounds too simplistic. I have been intrigued by this discussion, following it, and trying to understand it.

Is the bottom line goal to protect your images?

Are there other goals as well (if so what)?

Curious?

Protecting the images from the average user was a secondary concern.

The first goal was to use all the image specific data in a way it can be found in a text search.

Not to rely on a gallery title...but the image info on it's own. Currently the search engines aren't indexing the image pages and therefor, not the data within them.

Pain has said more than once it is unlikely X2 will be re-coded to fix that as the cause is unsure and recoding would be intense.

This is something that is possible on most online galleries. Photoshelter, Flickr, SmugMug, etc. They all offer the possibility that someone will find your images by searching for specific places, or people, camera's, or something within the story (think editorial photography) This is regardless of what gallery or group the image is included within.

Say I list a group of images for Carnival. The gallery can't elequently list all the variables of the images within it's description. What Krewes are included, the routes, who was the grand master of each, what marching bands played, where the parties where, what were the various float themes.

The individual images can easily include all these variables and text search possibilities would be greatly enhanced if that info was text searchable.

All of that info can be included on the image pages of X2, but none of it does a bit of good in terms of SEO for text search, as the image pages aren't indexed and most of the info is not available anywhere else in the site.

So my thought was...can the info be included within the site someplace we know is being indexed? And feed the flash gallery from there.

I've always thought of the HTML portion of X2 as simply a method to feed the flash site. I disagree with Karl that it has to be awkward. The current HTML gallery DOES feed the flash as it is. Why not refine it?

But. If it's not doable, it's not doable. If Karl thinks it's a bad suggestion, he is the final word.

After all, every platform will have limits. X2 is by far my favorite and certainly the most flexible in terms of design and function. It's unparalled in that sense, IMO.


--------------------
PS - Karl, I understand RSS is a consideration for the future. If all the images and related data where included might that improve search engine results? Is that part of the plan?

Maybe the post should have been titled "Displaying all image data in a way it will be indexed by search engines"

I can see how the thread could be confusing as I should have offered more info re: "why" in the beginning.

markam24 wrote:Maybe the post should have been titled "Displaying all image data in a way it will be indexed by search engines"

I can see how the thread could be confusing as I should have offered more info re: "why" in the beginning.

Actually, I was with you until you were asked specifically what is your goal. Your response began and ended with "protection", with a little more in between. The search engine part of the discussion seemed more like a means to and end... that being, providing access without getting ripped off.

I totally see your point, did and still agree with your intentions. How could anyone not. Regarding Imagevue however, I was sooooo happy to hear the kinds of responses from their team. I really like this product. I see huge potential. But huge can be overwhelming, messy and chaotic if not executed properly. Here in Silicon Valley, I've watched huge potential get sucked into huge vortexes, leaving a huge mess.

--G

Which response do you mean?

My response to you began by saying protection is secondary only because you specifically asked about it.

Actually, my feelings sway from time to time on protection.

I instinctively tend to freak a little seeing the 850 pixel wide images direct linked in google image search when the html gallery is activated.

But then I see Ami Vitale's un-watermarked images on the web @ 500-700 pixels.

So..I go back and forth on that. It's a secondary issue.

I do, however, think if image specific metadata was included someplace else on the site (being indexed by google), than the image pages (which aren't being indexed), the index pages would become redundant purely in terms of pure SEO.

I'm with you on everything else you say though. The developers here do a wonderful job and I'm impressed how responsive they are to users!

And yes...X2 Rocks.

My apologies if this has turned into a distraction.

markam24 wrote:Which response do you mean?

My response to you began by saying protection is secondary only because you specifically asked about it.

I was referring to your response to Karl asking your "goal", but no matter, it's clear.

markam24 wrote:Actually, my feelings sway from time to time on protection.

To me that means you have the right perspective as long as it doesn't paralyze you.

markam24 wrote:I instinctively tend to freak a little seeing the 850 pixel wide images direct linked in google image search when the html gallery is activated.

But then I see Ami Vitale's un-watermarked images on the web @ 500-700 pixels.

Exactly! So, always asking what are you getting for what you giving up?

markam24 wrote:So..I go back and forth on that. It's a secondary issue.

Yes, but a biggie!

markam24 wrote:I do, however, think if image specific metadata...

...understood... and that's where product planning, modeling, etc. and execution requires discipline to avoid the vortex. There are so many items on the list, can be put on the list of things to do. There are so many ways to do each of them. This team is very responsive which is great. But saying not just yet is just as important sometimes.

markam24 wrote:My apologies if this has turned into a distraction.

No way, not at all, from my perspective. Interesting and relevant![/quote]