My understanding is that before submitting the sitemap, you need to establish ownership of the website. It's done in one of 2 ways:
* Place a file in the root named google.........html The . are for many hexadecimals
* In the headers, have a meta tag header <meta name="google-site-verification" content="....." /> ... is the big key.
According to Google, I need to submit a sitemap for each domain/subdomain. But before I can submit the subdomain: photos.foto-biz.com I need that google....html file in the subdomain root. How do I do that? Do I transfer it to you guys...?
My understanding is that before submitting the sitemap, you need to establish ownership of the website. It's done in one of 2 ways:
* Place a file in the root named google.........html The . are for many hexadecimals
* In the headers, have a meta tag header <meta name="google-site-verification" content="....." /> ... is the big key.
According to Google, I need to submit a sitemap for each domain/subdomain. But before I can submit the subdomain: photos.foto-biz.com I need that google....html file in the subdomain root. How do I do that? Do I transfer it to you guys...?
Is there a better way?
Thanks
You put the appropriate meta tag in the head section of the advanced customization. Smugmug will then include that on every page on your site and Google will then believe that you own that domain.
Google tells us the bigger image we feed them, the more likely they are to index it. Thumbnails are pretty much guaranteed to be ignored. It's about the quality of experience they can provide their customers.
I have 7000 images indexed (over 5 times the number of listed images) but none above 800 pixels are indexed.
1. URLs not followed: When we tested a sample of URLs from your Sitemap, we found that some URLs redirect to other locations. We recommend that your Sitemap contain URLs that point to the final destination (the redirect target) instead of redirecting to another URL. HTTP Error: 302
URL: http://photos.foto-biz.com/Other/Photographers/1*6534095_G2WZ5
http://photos.foto-biz.com/Other/Photographers/1*6534095_G2WZ5
***********************************************************
2. URLs not followed: When we tested a sample of URLs from your Sitemap, we found that some URLs redirect to other locations. We recommend that your Sitemap contain URLs that point to the final destination (the redirect target) instead of redirecting to another URL. HTTP Error: 301
URL: http://photos.foto-biz.com/keyword
http://photos.foto-biz.com/keyword
***********************************************************
3. URLs not followed: When we tested a sample of URLs from your Sitemap, we found that some URLs redirect to other locations. We recommend that your Sitemap contain URLs that point to the final destination (the redirect target) instead of redirecting to another URL. HTTP Error: 301
URL: http://photos.foto-biz.com/keyword
http://photos.foto-biz.com/keyword
What's causing the problems?
BTW, I set the Google verification-code through the header.
I went to Google Web Master and found this. It shows Site maps not found. Could you kinldy advice what should I do to get it up. Besides, I found about crawls errors. I am not certain how it is effecting my site but I have all right protection on for all my images.
Your first image is of crawl errors, but the numbers are small and they could have happened for any number of reasons - I would just ignore it.
The second image is where you should be looking, but you are looking at the page for sitemaps that you have personally added and I don't believe you have added any. If you look at the right hand side of that image you will see 'Submissions by me(0), All(1)'. Click on 'All' and you should see the sitemaps that were automatically generated and hopefully it will be full of lots of your images
I notice I now have red x's on all sitemaps.
I have changed nothing.
Is this related to something Smugmug is doing?
I suspect that you may be correct. I'm pretty much sure mine wasn't showing red 'x's three days ago but is now and the number of images indexed has also dropped slightly. They seem to be working on an issue with right click protection blocking images being indexed at the moment so it may be related. I would guess it will get fixed pretty quickly.
Edit: looks like it was very temporary. The red 'X's of doom have all gone
Are you using right click protection on your images then as that sounds like a very small number of images being indexed?
I'm with you on this. I still want a message on right click even though I know it is not even a small stumbling block. It serves as a reminder, nothing else. And I do want my images indexed by Google.
Apologies if I missed this, but it appears we do something that's non-obvious to most people. It sounds like we need to do a much better job of making it known, or we need to change it.
And it is that when you turn on right click protection, we don't let Google index your images.
The reason is it's a security back door. Google will index your image, but when people view them on Google's image search results, they'd be able to right-click and download from there.
Another thing, which we're changing, is how the URL is formed without the original-image-name.jpg at the end. That change is in test right now and should help (the change will not be applied to hide owner galleries).
I hadn't seen this before. Wow. This explains a lot, as I just couldn't figure out why so few of my images were turning up on Google image searches, yet why some odd family images popped up at the top of certain searches (with my name or site name involved in the search). Since I have a lot of family images w/o RCP, that explains that. The odd thing to me is that I'm pretty sure I've asked this question in the past & was told that it wouldn't affect searches... so yes, I'm sure you're correct that people are not aware that this is the problem. I feel that if people have their Gallery Settings to "Let Google & the world find me" (or whatever that setting is!), Smug should change its search policies to just that... let the world find me, whether or not I have RCP on.
I understand & agree with what others observe, that RCP is far from fail-safe. But it's also true that it's a deterrent to plenty of casual viewers. Knowing that someone might copy some small versions off an image search would not keep me up at night near as much as the knowledge I'm going to all this work to get my stuff seen and not getting seen just because RCP is on! It would take a lot to convince me to ditch RCP from my more artistic galleries, but I'm very bummed to hear that's why the images aren't showing. I do wish at the same time that filenames would only show up in the URL if we want them to. I don't know if that's possible, but I really hate having to worry about my filenames being that public every time I write one. I know in some cases (when viewing fileinfo is allowed) they're visible anyway, but rarely in as public a way as a URL. Anyway, thank you for explaining this, as it answers a lot of questions I've had.
I do wish at the same time that filenames would only show up in the URL if we want them to. I don't know if that's possible, but I really hate having to worry about my filenames being that public every time I write one. I know in some cases (when viewing fileinfo is allowed) they're visible anyway, but rarely in as public a way as a URL. Anyway, thank you for explaining this, as it answers a lot of questions I've had.
Are you seeing image filenames in any URL other than the direct URL to the image? Regular end-users browsing my site never see the direct image URL so I'm not seeing how the filename there is a problem. Am I missing something? My filenames are all date/time-coded so they are long and ugly so I don't want them visible either, but I haven't see it as a problem yet which is why I'm asking.
That would be a huge improvement, especially given that it doesn't protect anything.
--- Denise
I agree in theory, but changing the name here wouldn't do much, as that's the term in wide use across the internet, with & without the acronym. I think we're pretty stuck with the term now, unless we wanna stage a Smuggy word revolt to change the whole internet's usage!
Are you seeing image filenames in any URL other than the direct URL to the image? Regular end-users browsing my site never see the direct image URL so I'm not seeing how the filename there is a problem. Am I missing something? My filenames are all date/time-coded so they are long and ugly so I don't want them visible either, but I haven't see it as a problem yet which is why I'm asking.
No, I think you're right that the filenames would only be in the direct URL to the image (they're not yet, right? I didn't think this had gone live yet, but honestly haven't checked-- I just realized I was responding here to old posts several pages into this thread & that since those posts, Smug has already decided to go with allowing Google indexing of RCP images. Guess I've been living under a rock!) I guess I just am not nuts about the filename showing up in the URL anytime, for the reasons you listed & other stuff-- like way-back-when I named some images, I'd have never given one bit of thought to the filenames being for anyone but me. Some of those oldies are around here.
When I started submitting for stock, those files got named a bit more cryptically, but with enough info for my own usage. I don't have extremely strong feelings about it, but I'm not excited about looking back over lots of old images & having to think about these more public URLs too, on top of all the other organization I'm trying to straighten out. Probably in my case, the added length to the URL would be the ugliest part.
Okay, the decision is we're going to let Google index images with right click protection. Working on the change now and we'll let you know when it's live.
The reasoning is the customers we've spoken to still want the right-click warning but also want Google to index their images even when they understand that it's another back door to foiling RCP, just like screen captures are.
We're also working on a number of other changes to indexing single images for Google image search that I wish I could talk about but can't at this time. But hopefully in the weeks and months ahead you'll see improvements wrt Google image search.
One thing that I can talk about is image URLs will soon end in your-image-name.jpg, which Google likes better than the current scheme.
Sorry, Baldy-- when I responded recently to an earlier post of yours, I didn't see that it was as old as it was, and then saw this update. I'm so glad to hear of this change; it makes me one even-happier customer. I'm not sure about the part about URL changes; I still wish we'd have a choice on that somehow, but I'll wait to hear more discussions of those options. I'll be glad to see the image search improvements!!
Seems like the changes to the names has had an improvement on indexing, well done smuggers
One question though, apart from removing my images and breaking blog articles and then re-posting them, how can you force the update of the filename from the old format to the friendly file names? I've got a bit of a mish-mash at the moment, a very few are updated to the file name, but the majority are keeping the old format. I've tried marking for re-publish in lightroom and uploading them in-place and that has no effect. I've tried modifying the file name to make sure it is refreshed and that has no effect. It seems very hit and miss as to whether it gets a friendly name for the direct links or not. Any thoughts on what's happening?
As also mentioned here and as I did a couple of months ago, having larger files referenced for indexing does have an impact according to all of the reading I have done... any plans to change this? Having it as a configurable option that influences the sitemap.xml on a per gallery basis would be fantastic
There's nothing in my sitemap with that name and I'm seeing crawl errors on /sitemap-images.xml.gz and /sitemap-index.xml.
--- Denise
Your sitemap-index.xml file is looking okay to me. I'm sure Google will update soon so whatever error you're seeing will go away.
Your sitemap currently still uses the images file instead of galleryimages - that's nothing to worry about. As long as you only have the sitemap-index.xml file added, Google will update the sub sitemaps automatically.
Not sure if this is a sitemap question, but I've been seeing my images drop away in Google. Last month I had over 100 images, a few weeks ago I had ~50, and now I see ZERO. I'm using 'site:mike.imagesinthebackcountry.com' and clicking on 'Images'.
When I do a search at images.google.com for site:mike.imagesinthebackcountry.com I am showing 111 results. It was 95 on Friday, so it seems to be going up. My guess is that this is just a momentary re-org as the new sitemaps take effect. Do you see anything warning/error like in your webmaster tools? Also make sure that you only added sitemap-index to webmaster tools and not the individual sitemap-images, as those do get renamed based on how many images there are on your site (since sitemaps have to be less then a certain size and contain less then some number of URLs).
When I do a search at images.google.com for site:mike.imagesinthebackcountry.com I am showing 111 results. It was 95 on Friday, so it seems to be going up. My guess is that this is just a momentary re-org as the new sitemaps take effect. Do you see anything warning/error like in your webmaster tools? Also make sure that you only added sitemap-index to webmaster tools and not the individual sitemap-images, as those do get renamed based on how many images there are on your site (since sitemaps have to be less then a certain size and contain less then some number of URLs).
It shouldn't effect this, but I have my Smugmug site as a sub-domain. I have my "regular" site (www.imagesinthebackcountry.com) with a different set of sitemaps. Both show zero images. I list 'sitemap.xml', 'sitemap-index.xml' and 'sitemap-images.xml' on my webmaster tools. Should I remove 'sitemap/xml' and 'sitemap-images.xml'?
It shouldn't effect this, but I have my Smugmug site as a sub-domain. I have my "regular" site (www.imagesinthebackcountry.com) with a different set of sitemaps. Both show zero images. I list 'sitemap.xml', 'sitemap-index.xml' and 'sitemap-images.xml' on my webmaster tools. Should I remove 'sitemap/xml' and 'sitemap-images.xml'?
I guess I had my "Safe Search" set to moderate. Switched it to 'off' and I can see them now.
I was getting frustrated because I have a 4 other websites and none of those have issues with my images showing up.
I guess I had my "Safe Search" set to moderate. Switched it to 'off' and I can see them now.
I was getting frustrated because I have a 4 other websites and none of those have issues with my images showing up.
Thanks Greg!!
Ahh, that explains it. Well, not really "explains it" - I don't see why your images would need to have the safe filter turned off. I wonder if its something Google is picking up on your website?
Well, at least the number of result mystery is solved.
Ahh, that explains it. Well, not really "explains it" - I don't see why your images would need to have the safe filter turned off. I wonder if its something Google is picking up on your website?
Well, at least the number of result mystery is solved.
- Greg
About three months ago my Wordpress blog was "hacked" and put a p-o-r-n-o link site on one of the pages. It took a while for the images to disappear. I'd like to get my filter back to normal again.
Seems like the changes to the names has had an improvement on indexing, well done smuggers
One question though, apart from removing my images and breaking blog articles and then re-posting them, how can you force the update of the filename from the old format to the friendly file names? I've got a bit of a mish-mash at the moment, a very few are updated to the file name, but the majority are keeping the old format. I've tried marking for re-publish in lightroom and uploading them in-place and that has no effect. I've tried modifying the file name to make sure it is refreshed and that has no effect. It seems very hit and miss as to whether it gets a friendly name for the direct links or not. Any thoughts on what's happening?
Seems like my questions was missed around renaming images having no effect on the sitemap or the name of the image on the site... does anyone have any thoughts?
Seems like my questions was missed around renaming images having no effect on the sitemap or the name of the image on the site... does anyone have any thoughts?
I don't think you can update old images to new URLs unless you delete and reupload.
I really think that's not the case... it's just not consistent in the results... some have updated, some haven't, but there is no rule that I can see that makes it change. My portfolio has remained as is for a while now and I always update in place because of the associated blog articles.
Opposite question...
Is there a way for me turn off the searching of my page on google or other search engines? I need to do an overhaul of my page and don't want to have it found in searches until I'm done.
Thanks!
Maiwyck
Is there a way for me turn off the searching of my page on google or other search engines? I need to do an overhaul of my page and don't want to have it found in searches until I'm done.
Thanks!
Maiwyck
Set a sitewide password, is one way.
Set Hello World (and Hello Smuggers) to 'no' in control panel, settings tab.
Comments
Hi,
My understanding is that before submitting the sitemap, you need to establish ownership of the website. It's done in one of 2 ways:
* Place a file in the root named google.........html The . are for many hexadecimals
* In the headers, have a meta tag header <meta name="google-site-verification" content="....." /> ... is the big key.
My current setup:
* I have my own blog: http://www.foto-biz.com
* I have the subdomain: photos.foto-biz.com that points to the smugmug galleries/homepage.
According to Google, I need to submit a sitemap for each domain/subdomain. But before I can submit the subdomain: photos.foto-biz.com I need that google....html file in the subdomain root. How do I do that? Do I transfer it to you guys...?
Is there a better way?
Thanks
http://www.sritch.com
The Dogs of Vancouver, BC
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I have 7000 images indexed (over 5 times the number of listed images) but none above 800 pixels are indexed.
borealphoto.smugmug.com
I submitted the sitemap: http://photos.foto-biz.com/sitemap-index.xml and I get the following error:
/sitemap-base.xml.gz: status warning
The 3 warnings are:
What's causing the problems?
BTW, I set the Google verification-code through the header.
Thanks
http://www.sritch.com
The Dogs of Vancouver, BC
I went to Google Web Master and found this. It shows Site maps not found. Could you kinldy advice what should I do to get it up. Besides, I found about crawls errors. I am not certain how it is effecting my site but I have all right protection on for all my images.
You've just missed it but I think it is there.
Your first image is of crawl errors, but the numbers are small and they could have happened for any number of reasons - I would just ignore it.
The second image is where you should be looking, but you are looking at the page for sitemaps that you have personally added and I don't believe you have added any. If you look at the right hand side of that image you will see 'Submissions by me(0), All(1)'. Click on 'All' and you should see the sitemaps that were automatically generated and hopefully it will be full of lots of your images
Rich
I suspect that you may be correct. I'm pretty much sure mine wasn't showing red 'x's three days ago but is now and the number of images indexed has also dropped slightly. They seem to be working on an issue with right click protection blocking images being indexed at the moment so it may be related. I would guess it will get fixed pretty quickly.
Edit: looks like it was very temporary. The red 'X's of doom have all gone
Are you using right click protection on your images then as that sounds like a very small number of images being indexed?
Rich
DITTO!!!
Jason Scott Photography | Blog | FB | Twitter | Google+ | Tumblr | Instagram | YouTube
I understand & agree with what others observe, that RCP is far from fail-safe. But it's also true that it's a deterrent to plenty of casual viewers. Knowing that someone might copy some small versions off an image search would not keep me up at night near as much as the knowledge I'm going to all this work to get my stuff seen and not getting seen just because RCP is on! It would take a lot to convince me to ditch RCP from my more artistic galleries, but I'm very bummed to hear that's why the images aren't showing. I do wish at the same time that filenames would only show up in the URL if we want them to. I don't know if that's possible, but I really hate having to worry about my filenames being that public every time I write one. I know in some cases (when viewing fileinfo is allowed) they're visible anyway, but rarely in as public a way as a URL. Anyway, thank you for explaining this, as it answers a lot of questions I've had.
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
When I started submitting for stock, those files got named a bit more cryptically, but with enough info for my own usage. I don't have extremely strong feelings about it, but I'm not excited about looking back over lots of old images & having to think about these more public URLs too, on top of all the other organization I'm trying to straighten out. Probably in my case, the added length to the URL would be the ugliest part.
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
One question though, apart from removing my images and breaking blog articles and then re-posting them, how can you force the update of the filename from the old format to the friendly file names? I've got a bit of a mish-mash at the moment, a very few are updated to the file name, but the majority are keeping the old format. I've tried marking for re-publish in lightroom and uploading them in-place and that has no effect. I've tried modifying the file name to make sure it is refreshed and that has no effect. It seems very hit and miss as to whether it gets a friendly name for the direct links or not. Any thoughts on what's happening?
As also mentioned here and as I did a couple of months ago, having larger files referenced for indexing does have an impact according to all of the reading I have done... any plans to change this? Having it as a configurable option that influences the sitemap.xml on a per gallery basis would be fantastic
Eye For Images
Site: http://www.eyeforimages.com
Blog: http://blog.eyeforimages.com
Has the format of the sitemap changed now?
Eye For Images
Site: http://www.eyeforimages.com
Blog: http://blog.eyeforimages.com
Yeah, pay attention to the sitemap-galleryimages
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
Your sitemap-index.xml file is looking okay to me. I'm sure Google will update soon so whatever error you're seeing will go away.
Your sitemap currently still uses the images file instead of galleryimages - that's nothing to worry about. As long as you only have the sitemap-index.xml file added, Google will update the sub sitemaps automatically.
SmugMug Support Hero
Any help/ideas?
Images in the Backcountry
My SmugMug Customizations | Adding CSS to Your Site | SEO for the Photographer | Locate Your Page/Widget Number | SmugMug Help Desk
When I do a search at images.google.com for site:mike.imagesinthebackcountry.com I am showing 111 results. It was 95 on Friday, so it seems to be going up. My guess is that this is just a momentary re-org as the new sitemaps take effect. Do you see anything warning/error like in your webmaster tools? Also make sure that you only added sitemap-index to webmaster tools and not the individual sitemap-images, as those do get renamed based on how many images there are on your site (since sitemaps have to be less then a certain size and contain less then some number of URLs).
- Greg
Interesting, I'm not seeing anything http://images.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=655&q=site%3Amike.imagesinthebackcountry.com&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
I don't see any warnings or errors.
It shouldn't effect this, but I have my Smugmug site as a sub-domain. I have my "regular" site (www.imagesinthebackcountry.com) with a different set of sitemaps. Both show zero images. I list 'sitemap.xml', 'sitemap-index.xml' and 'sitemap-images.xml' on my webmaster tools. Should I remove 'sitemap/xml' and 'sitemap-images.xml'?
Images in the Backcountry
My SmugMug Customizations | Adding CSS to Your Site | SEO for the Photographer | Locate Your Page/Widget Number | SmugMug Help Desk
I guess I had my "Safe Search" set to moderate. Switched it to 'off' and I can see them now.
I was getting frustrated because I have a 4 other websites and none of those have issues with my images showing up.
Thanks Greg!!
Images in the Backcountry
My SmugMug Customizations | Adding CSS to Your Site | SEO for the Photographer | Locate Your Page/Widget Number | SmugMug Help Desk
Ahh, that explains it. Well, not really "explains it" - I don't see why your images would need to have the safe filter turned off. I wonder if its something Google is picking up on your website?
Well, at least the number of result mystery is solved.
- Greg
About three months ago my Wordpress blog was "hacked" and put a p-o-r-n-o link site on one of the pages. It took a while for the images to disappear. I'd like to get my filter back to normal again.
Images in the Backcountry
My SmugMug Customizations | Adding CSS to Your Site | SEO for the Photographer | Locate Your Page/Widget Number | SmugMug Help Desk
Seems like my questions was missed around renaming images having no effect on the sitemap or the name of the image on the site... does anyone have any thoughts?
Eye For Images
Site: http://www.eyeforimages.com
Blog: http://blog.eyeforimages.com
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Eye For Images
Site: http://www.eyeforimages.com
Blog: http://blog.eyeforimages.com
Is there a way for me turn off the searching of my page on google or other search engines? I need to do an overhaul of my page and don't want to have it found in searches until I'm done.
Thanks!
Maiwyck
Set a sitewide password, is one way.
Set Hello World (and Hello Smuggers) to 'no' in control panel, settings tab.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Thanks Andy. I knew I was missing some easy way!