Options
Limit on gallery size for Google indexing? Images missing from Google-fetch
Ferguson
Registered Users Posts: 1,339 Major grins
I decided to look at how Google sees my new web pages, and I was pleasantly surprised to see fixed IMG tags that look indexable.
Well, mostly, I was disappointed at the lack of ALT or TITLE tags, which should improve indexing, but...
The real issue is that it quit after 46 images (about - quick count by hand). This is using the College Landscape layout.
The gallery had 81 images in it. Everything after this last image would be invisible to Google, it appears.
I haven't tried different formats (this is the only format I use). I'm glad to see SM passing out non-javascript page formats to Google. I'm concerned about the lack of content (ALT/TITLE) but now particularly if it's not passing out all the images.
For those interested in what am image on a college landscape looks like to google, below is what came back.
Well, mostly, I was disappointed at the lack of ALT or TITLE tags, which should improve indexing, but...
The real issue is that it quit after 46 images (about - quick count by hand). This is using the College Landscape layout.
The gallery had 81 images in it. Everything after this last image would be invisible to Google, it appears.
I haven't tried different formats (this is the only format I use). I'm glad to see SM passing out non-javascript page formats to Google. I'm concerned about the lack of content (ALT/TITLE) but now particularly if it's not passing out all the images.
For those interested in what am image on a college landscape looks like to google, below is what came back.
<div class="sm-tile-info"> <p title="Miracle v Charlotte Stonecrabs 08/09/2013" class="sm-tile- title" itemprop="name"> Miracle v Charlotte Stonecrabs 08/09/2013 </p><p itemprop="description" class="sm-tile-caption">Some crisis during the race</p><meta itemprop="caption" content="Some crisis during the race"> </div> </a></div></li></ul><ul class="sm-tiles-list sm-tiles-S"><li id="sm-tile-yui_3_8_0_1_1376400355707_811" style="width:377px" class="sm-tile-wrapper sm-tile-photo " itemscope="" itemtype="[URL]http://schema.org/ImageObject"><div[/URL] class="sm-tile" data-clientid="sm-galleryimage- model_48"><a itemprop="url" href="[URL]http://www.captivephotons.com/Events/Miracle/Charlotte080813/i-zk5fTG7[/URL]" style="height:250px" class="sm-tile-content" data-clientid="sm-galleryimage-model_48"><img itemprop="image" src="[URL]http://www.captivephotons.com/Events/Miracle/Charlotte080813/i-zk5fTG7/0/S/Miracle%20v%20Charlotte%20Stonecrabs%2008-09[/URL]- 2013%20-%2020130808%20-%20043-S.jpg" id="sm-tile-image-yui_3_8_0_1_1376400355707_812" class="sm-image" data-clientid="sm- galleryimage-model_48" alt="">
0
Comments
I did and I don't think that's true in this case. The page is well formed, not truncated, has footers, etc.
If it's returning a partial page it's doing it extremely selectively and removing (only) pictures in the middle.
But the fact that all the tags are closed seems to say to me it is the whole page.
Try it.
Yet this search from Google:
site:www.captivephotons.com miracle stonecrabs steamy
finds absolutely nothing. Variations will seemingly never find this gallery (there are older galleries with the Miracle and Stonecrabs you might see).
Makes me wonder if something about navigation and the new folder design is not friendly to the crawl.
It's not really clear exactly what Google sees as for the galleries I have tried there is Javascript used. There used to be an sitemap of the images but at the moment that doesn't seem to be being generated or at least I can't see it for my site. I'm guessing that this is fairly low down the priority list compared to finding a solution to the case sensitivity of URLs and getting keywords indexed again.