Correct. When the HTML gallery is disabled all the sitemap links are dead. (I don't see any way to disable sitemap)
& I was of the impression from the last posts prior mine that ya'll thought linking back to flash may be a bad idea, so I'm a little confused on where that stands.
I have some excellent news though, concerning "Bing" and imagevue. But I think it deserves it's own post (coming up in the general comments section)!
X3Photo Gallery Forums
X3 Photo Gallery Support Forums
Redirect SiteMap to Flash?39 postsPage 3 of 3
Well, we did create the sitemap based on your request, and the most natural thing to do would be to link it to the HTML gallery for any posible SEO advantages. As specified earlier, if you want to link it to the flash gallery, there are absolutely ZERO SEO advantages. Now you wanna disable the html gallery, and have the sitemap disabled with same setting ... I seriously see no need for the html sitemap at all. Either its disabled, or its enabled but does absolutely nothing in terms of SEO ...
Actually no...mjau-mjau wrote:Well, we did create the sitemap based on your request, and the most natural thing to do would be to link it to the HTML gallery for any posible SEO advantages. As specified earlier, if you want to link it to the flash gallery, there are absolutely ZERO SEO advantages. Now you wanna disable the html gallery, and have the sitemap disabled with same setting ... I seriously see no need for the html sitemap at all. Either its disabled, or its enabled but does absolutely nothing in terms of SEO ...
Anytime732 asked for a sitemap and I responded with suggestions:
viewtopic.php?t=4925&start=0
We ARE on the same page in that linking to flash itself will not have any SEO benefit. But having the image meta data someplace we know google is indexing definitely should.
- The links themselves to Flash? ZERO SEO advantage (as you've said)
- The image meta data on a page we know is being indexed for text search by google (the sitemap, or better the thumb gallery pages)? DEFINITE advantage. That info is not currently being seen at all by Google as Google is ignoring the HTML image pages.
Pain made a good point in that google might see that structure (all links directed to one file) as a negative. If ya'll think that's sufficient reason not to do it...then so be it. I'm sure there are many much more important issues on your plates & I'm happy to have been listened to -;)
But I DO also think a page full of dead links is a bad user experience, so...ya'll should consider, in the very least, allowing the option of turning off the sitemap if the HTML pages are not being used and they aren't going to link to flash.
Last edited by markam24 on 04 Oct 2009, 13:55, edited 1 time in total.
Well, sorry about that ... I didn ´t mean it in a negative way anyway.
I am just confused, and I feel we keep going in loops. I keep on coming down to the question: What is the sitemap for then? OK we made it, and it was not a huge task, but looking into small fixes here and there. Let me look at the scenario:
# You have HTML gallery disabled, then sitemap links are dead. OK, we can change them to link to the flash pages. Then what benefit does the sitemap have? NONE, because google won ´t be brining in a horde of people to a single-page sitemap that links to "blank" flash pages, that google doesn ´t understand. Then you would rather have them start on the flash startpage, which will be there if html/sitemap is disabled.
# The next option would be of course if you have the HTML gallery enabled, then the sitemap is there fair and square, just like now ... OK, so you still want sitemap links to go to flash gallery? Yes, we can do it, although I don ´t see how that will provide any enhancements. Afterall, now we are talking about when the html gallery is enabled, and I don ´t really see how the sitemap has any chance of getting above the html gallery.
I am just confused, and I feel we keep going in loops. I keep on coming down to the question: What is the sitemap for then? OK we made it, and it was not a huge task, but looking into small fixes here and there. Let me look at the scenario:
# You have HTML gallery disabled, then sitemap links are dead. OK, we can change them to link to the flash pages. Then what benefit does the sitemap have? NONE, because google won ´t be brining in a horde of people to a single-page sitemap that links to "blank" flash pages, that google doesn ´t understand. Then you would rather have them start on the flash startpage, which will be there if html/sitemap is disabled.
# The next option would be of course if you have the HTML gallery enabled, then the sitemap is there fair and square, just like now ... OK, so you still want sitemap links to go to flash gallery? Yes, we can do it, although I don ´t see how that will provide any enhancements. Afterall, now we are talking about when the html gallery is enabled, and I don ´t really see how the sitemap has any chance of getting above the html gallery.
Well, I will admit that the sitemenu itself doesn ´t necessary have any benefits at all, and like my #comment above, I seriously can ´t see any benefit of linking the sitemenu to flash. Then why not just turn of BOTH sitemenu and html ...markam24 wrote:I was of the impression from the last posts prior mine that ya'll thought linking back to flash may be a bad idea, so I'm a little confused on where that stands.
The benefit of putting ALL the image info on a page we know is being seen by the larger search engines is, the meta data will then be seen by the larger search engines.
Isn't that reason enough?
So.. re: your scenarios
#1.) Why is a page filled with common links (all pointing to the same flash file) worse than a page filled with dead links? Don't dead links universally suck?
#2.) See above... Image specific info on ANY page being found (sitemap or otherwise) counts. The HTML image page is not being found.
Isn't that reason enough?
So.. re: your scenarios
#1.) Why is a page filled with common links (all pointing to the same flash file) worse than a page filled with dead links? Don't dead links universally suck?
#2.) See above... Image specific info on ANY page being found (sitemap or otherwise) counts. The HTML image page is not being found.
Last edited by markam24 on 04 Oct 2009, 14:01, edited 3 times in total.
I ´m sure this is healthy in the long run ...
Ok, so lets say this benefits google, although any searches would refer to the same page(that of the sitemap). And also, taking into consideration outgoing links(to flash) have no SEO effect ... Wouldn ´t it then be an incredibly good idea to embed the sitemenu into a hidden <div> tag in the main flash gallery? That would attract the same google searches, directly into the main flash gallery page, without any silly workarounds ...markam24 wrote:The benefit of putting ALL the image info on a page we know is being seen by the larger search engines is, THAT INFO WILL THEN BE SEEN BY BY THE LARGER SEARCH ENGINES.
I checked the sitemap for our demo gallery, which is quite extensive, and I think it is around 30kb:markam24 wrote:Could it include image descriptions too? Or would that be info overload for an embedded sitemap?
https://www.photo.gallery/soda/?p=sitemap
Adding descriptions, perhaps you will double that size, if your descriptions are not too long. So in the end, we are not talking about a lot of kilobytes for a fast connection, and I don ´t see any reason why that amount of info would be a problem.
The main issue would be the speed - Creating the sitemap from PHP(similar to creating the main menu in the SWF gallery), will require some time, and is the heaviest script in Imagevue. Until we have some improved cache method(which is planned for the future), this would certainly make an apparent additional "delay" in the loading of your gallery. Of course, this would be proportional to the amounts of folders in your gallery, and the speed of server.
Obviously, this setting will have to be an option, most likely disabled by default. Pain, what you say?
I believe this can be done after next re-iteration with built-in cache system, then it wont strain server alot. Besides, this page will be rarely accessed by robots, so it doesnt matter that much.
If it's not embedded in hidden div ofcourse. Actually hidden div is good idea, but I think we need some wrapper for flash so link doesnt look like:
site.com/#/path/image.jpg
but rather something like
site.com/?show=path/image.jpg
If it's not embedded in hidden div ofcourse. Actually hidden div is good idea, but I think we need some wrapper for flash so link doesnt look like:
site.com/#/path/image.jpg
but rather something like
site.com/?show=path/image.jpg
firedev.com