X3Photo Gallery Forums

markam24 wrote: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).

Just a short response(its late) ... Yes, and of course its great that flickr and your blog can get the image this high into google. Sorry to say, a flash gallery just can ´t do the same. Yes, it is possible to aim towards similar results from strictly the html gallery. But then linking it towards your flash gallery from thumbnails?

Lets see just how your blog image and flickr image is able to get that high into the search engine - You have a HTML page that displays the image, along with related text in BOTH examples. Most likely, you also have incoming links with related keywords, and both your sites may have good pagerank(flickr certainly does). Now, if you are going to link your thumbnail to flash, then google would not be able to read the page for the image itself, and it would not have any effect in the search engine(it wouldn ´t even be listed).


1. The html gallery could theroretically be improved to match your google results from flickr and blog. But linking thumbnail to flash gallery? That would certainly ruin ALL chances of achieving this.

2. So whats left? At best, you would be luring users into the flash gallery from his/her search on categories related to your gallery, and surprising them by loading a new interface when they click a thumbnail.

mjau-mjau wrote:.....

2. So whats left? At best, you would be luring users into the flash gallery from his/her search on categories related to your gallery, and surprising them by loading a new interface when they click a thumbnail.

Sort of... you see, in addressing most challenges, the solution or approach comes with trade-offs. Break the problem/solution into pieces. In this case, I believe if you get the results from the search side you want, you lure them into the initial engagement, which is a version of the pic (in this case) that you are willing to risk. AND you provide an option for the high value version WITH the app for which you have control.

My opinion... G

yes, I agree its an option, although very dirty .... and to the bottom line, it will not work on image searches because you are certainly ruining all your chances of getting into search engine for a specific image. So, it is ONLY for a possible search that targets a FOLDER/CATEGORY and NOT a specific image. How often do yo do searches that land on a subcategory of a certain photographer, and not a specific image or just the root page? I just don ´t see this as very usable ...

I think we will be adding this option to the next release, since it ´s not a huge task anyway.

markam24 wrote:-:) -:) -:)

Much Appreciated!!!!

Spoiled! Why does he get everything he wants?

Also interesting question is how the link should look like:

gallery.com/?a=gallery&path=content/folder/image.jpg

or

gallery.com/#/content/folder/image.jpg

We should use the SWFAddress method of internal linking. I think url vars should only be used as a method of initializing global parameters. Or else, the gallery url may end up looking like this after visitor browses around the gallery:

gallery.com/?a=gallery&path=content/folder/image.jpg#/content/folder/image2.jpg/

I wonder how it will end in google index when all links point to the same page just different anchors.

pain wrote:I wonder how it will end in google index when all links point to the same page just different anchors.

Yup, well that ´s a good observation also ... Google will see ALL the thumbnail links as if they go to the same page. I have already stated that using thumbnails as links to SWF will have absolutely no value for google, and at worst even a negative effect. At best, you will still keep google indexing for the html category page.

markam24 wrote:I DO still wonder if something should be done about the "sitemap" page showing all dead links when HTML is turned off. ???

Yup, well first of all, perhaps the sitemap page should be attached to the HTML toggle? So that if HTML is turned off, so is the sitemap? They seem kinda "parallel" to me ... I mean, what ´s the point of the sitemap if html is disabled? Its just a visual map with dead links ...

Dead links, why? Sitemap can be linked to html or flash pages for each pic.

pain wrote:Dead links, why? Sitemap can be linked to html or flash pages for each pic.

Well, if HTML is disabled, and the sitemap is not, then the links in the sitemap will obviously be dead, no??