New URLS = Better SEO??
eyeforimages
Registered Users Posts: 29 Big grins
I've asked questions on another thread and haven't received a useful response, so I figured I'd try a new thread and see if that gets anyones attention...
The new feature detailed here: http://news.smugmug.com/2011/04/26/new-urls-better-seo/
What are the rules for this happening... half of the images in one of my galleries have the updated URL's and half of them don't... the lifetime of both halfs is approximately the same, so it isn't like the newer images are bring updated to the new format. When the change happened some of my images had a URL modification happen and some didn't.
What are the rules that define whether an old image should be updated to the new format? How is this taken into account with the Lightroom Plugin and republishing an old photo?
The new feature detailed here: http://news.smugmug.com/2011/04/26/new-urls-better-seo/
What are the rules for this happening... half of the images in one of my galleries have the updated URL's and half of them don't... the lifetime of both halfs is approximately the same, so it isn't like the newer images are bring updated to the new format. When the change happened some of my images had a URL modification happen and some didn't.
What are the rules that define whether an old image should be updated to the new format? How is this taken into account with the Lightroom Plugin and republishing an old photo?
0
Comments
Eye For Images
Site: http://www.eyeforimages.com
Blog: http://blog.eyeforimages.com
Does this help?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
1. Old images will remain with their old links.
2. In Place Replacements will modify the link to the new SEO friendly format.
3. New images will take on the new SEO friendly format.
4. Renaming a file in Lightroom and re-publishing will create a file on smugmug with the new SEO friendly format.
Now we have established the rules, I'd like to report a bug in rule #2 and #4...
Half of my images published to smugmug from lightroom ended up with the nice new shiny names, half of them didn't... I fail to identify why... I would like them all to have shiny useful names
The image "Tagged on the South Bank" originally had a bad name, <DATE><TIME>-EDIT.JPG because names didn't matter to Smugmug because of obfuscation. Ater the SEO friendly name update, I went through and game my images nice names in lightroom... When I renamed this image to "tagged on the south bank", it renamed the path to the image and not the actual image name... I altered it and varied it to try and force the change, but nothing...
http://www.eyeforimages.com/Portfolio/Urban/Tagged-on-South-Bank-Southbank/1198935046_NpC7J-X2-12.jpg
To show that I really did do it, I just renamed the file in lightroom to "Cheeseburger Banana Monkey, Southbank, London.dng" which will be uploaded as a jpeg when published... as you can see, the portion of the update that actually happens is in the URL and not the filename, so this doesn't fit rule #2 or #4
http://www.eyeforimages.com/Portfolio/Urban/Cheeseburger-Banana-Monkey/1198935046_NpC7J-X2-13.jpg
Where as for this image...
http://www.eyeforimages.com/Portfolio/Urban/i-fLn6KP8/1/X2/The-Clock-At-Waterloo-X2.jpg
I rename it and it works every time...
http://www.eyeforimages.com/Portfolio/Urban/i-fLn6KP8/2/X2/Stop-looking-at-my-clock-X2.jpg
Any thoughts on how to correct this would be appreciated or a fix so it just works would be even better
Eye For Images
Site: http://www.eyeforimages.com
Blog: http://blog.eyeforimages.com