Understanding My Sitemap & Visitor Stats
Darter02
Registered Users Posts: 947 Major grins
Please bear with me as I try to understand how my sitemap to Google, and my visitor stats are all working in the new Smugmug.
First, let us look at my sitemap question. My sitemap indicated that at the beginning of the month I had over 3,000 urls submitted with over 2000 indexed. Suddenly on the 19th it dropped to 190 Sumbitted and only 25 Indexed.
Why would this have happened? I unveiled the new site around the 8th or 9th. This is a bad thing, right?
Ok, now about visitors to my site according to Statcounter, Google & Smugmug. I always used Statcounter as my main tool, and it always seemed accurate. When I'd compare it to Google Analytics they seemed pretty close. Not so anymore.
Here's my Statcounter from the past week. Note the giant spike of traffic from yesterday. When I check visitor paths I can see that there are not over 1000 visitors, but that there were a couple of people who both looked at literally hundreds of photos, as well as a good number of visitors browsing around. It seems it's now reading some, certain visitors as a unique visit for each image they open in lightbox.
Why is it doing this? I don't remember it doing this before, on the legacy site. Could it be something to do with how Smugmug modified the script in order to implement it they way they do?
In Google Analytics things look more normal. It shows only 80 visitors yesterday. This is what I'd expect as I just don't get as much traffic as some those big-city hotshots... LOL
As for Smugmug, I never use it but thought I'd show its records. I believe it's trying to show how many actual images were viewed? Is that what it does?
First, let us look at my sitemap question. My sitemap indicated that at the beginning of the month I had over 3,000 urls submitted with over 2000 indexed. Suddenly on the 19th it dropped to 190 Sumbitted and only 25 Indexed.
Why would this have happened? I unveiled the new site around the 8th or 9th. This is a bad thing, right?
Ok, now about visitors to my site according to Statcounter, Google & Smugmug. I always used Statcounter as my main tool, and it always seemed accurate. When I'd compare it to Google Analytics they seemed pretty close. Not so anymore.
Here's my Statcounter from the past week. Note the giant spike of traffic from yesterday. When I check visitor paths I can see that there are not over 1000 visitors, but that there were a couple of people who both looked at literally hundreds of photos, as well as a good number of visitors browsing around. It seems it's now reading some, certain visitors as a unique visit for each image they open in lightbox.
Why is it doing this? I don't remember it doing this before, on the legacy site. Could it be something to do with how Smugmug modified the script in order to implement it they way they do?
In Google Analytics things look more normal. It shows only 80 visitors yesterday. This is what I'd expect as I just don't get as much traffic as some those big-city hotshots... LOL
As for Smugmug, I never use it but thought I'd show its records. I believe it's trying to show how many actual images were viewed? Is that what it does?
0
Comments
I can't recall it doing that before, when we were on legacy.
And I have been thinking about why my Google Indexing may have dropped off. I use Collage Landscape for all my galleries. I cannot see my keywords as they are not visible in Collage. When you open an image in lightbox, you cannot see the words. Can Google no longer find them?
Or is the Robot.txt that google has said is blocking over 3,000 URLs???
This might be anchors links (#), not sure what they are for, but it seems Facebooks is parsing them.
I believe it can. Check the page sources and you can see all keywords related to it, like this [shortend
When doing this for your site, I don't see similar results, but (as I believe) old(er) entries. Don't know why. While doing it, use "search tools" and filter by "past month" it shows 4 or 5 entries.
I don't think so - what is blocked is the ./date page (the date search you got) Don't ask me why they blocking it, but I guess its because of the enormous content crawlers would have to go through, when some has a huge keyword list and a date search (and by this double content)
I just check what images they are. They're all in sequential order. Whomever this viewer is just seems to be clicking the Right arrow key, and is scanning through images. I've seen lots of users do this sort of behavior. On the legacy site it wasn't as common. Mostly due to how the interface was divided up, with the one image on the right, and the thumbnails on the left. People used the thumbnails to click around. In this collage style it seems people mainly scroll the page, but occasionally I see how people are just clipping along, I'm assuming they're hitting that arrow to quickly move.
I still don't understand why it's counting each click as a new visitor in my total stats for the day. I never saw that happen before.
Edit Because the entry page IMHO was the Gallery itself? And all images in there were checked/parsed by facebook? Don't underestimate what facebook collects
As said: no one clicks that fast through a lightbox. IMVHO.
The keywords you listed are just the ones for the gallery, and not the ones used to tag each image. On the legacy site we had been told that we needed to keep the photo keywords visible or google wouldn't index them. I don't have them hidden, but they cannot be seen on any particular page other than in a search. This dramatic drop off in indexed pages makes me wonder if now that I am using collage, and a you can't see the keywords, if this is the cause. Or is it the robot.tx, which has blocked over 3000 urls?
I see it in Statcounter, not Google. The graph below shows inflated hits from yesterday due to two viewers who quickly clicked through entire wedding galleries. They both came via Google search. This graph was made today, before the user I have a screenshot of. Today's stats are inflated due to them clicking quickly along in lightbox, having come from Facebook.
As I mentioned, this was not something I'd seen before on the legacy site. I am wondering if there is a glitch in how Statcounter was incorporated into Smugmug?
If that were the case, wouldn't the rest of my visitors coming in from facebook today have the same behavior? This is the only instance today. Who knows why people do what they do?
About the 3.000 Urls: check your robot.txt and compare it with your sitemap. Only ./date is blocked.
You might point us/me to a specific image and tell us what the keywords on this image are.
If you see a hit every second the action maybe took place every 0.5 second.
It's not Google tracking. It's Statcounter.
Keywords: Tuchux; Charity; Tournement; fight; bearpit;
And here the question rises which one you are really analyzing in Webmaster tools/GA/Statcounter?
Your sitemap is pointing to http://www.ronlutzii-photographer.com/ and you better never would communicate http://Lutzr2.smugmug.com nor use it for analytic matters. Better forget this URL.
Try site:http://www.ronlutzii-photographer.com/ and you will see that you have hundreds of links.
But as said they are pretty old.
Regarding GIS: you have RCP activated. I thought it would be widely known already, that if RCP is enabled, GIS will not be able to grab them.
Anyway, doing a search for the keywords under that image had once resulted in the page it's hosted on appearing in google web search, not image search. Now it doesn't at all.
Out of curiosity I just checked your path through my site. I see a few places where it shows you jumping from on image to another with only a second in-between. I tried to take a screen shot, but Smug seems to be having trouble with uploads right now. You're still only counting as ONE visitor though. If you have Facebook, and want to do an experiment, add me. Then access my site via the latest image I posted today. Click through the gallery as fast as possible. We'll see if it counts you as ONE visitor, or many.
My facebook.
Ps
would like to suggest to switch to PM for not annoying the others in here.
Cool beans. Gut schlafen.
On top is the referring link he was on and below the target in SM to which it refers to.
According to this lines of the log, "Armstrong Utilities" has not visited your SM site directly. Check the "recent visitor activity" - for its browser might be shown "Google Web Preview" which points to a crawler.
Today over 12,296 pages were submitted, but only 57 were indexed. 12, 098 Images were submitted with ZERO being indexed.
On the Right-Click thread it was pointed out that images with RCP wouldn't be indexed in Google Image Searches. A couple of weeks ago I turned RCP off in a less traveled gallery, but one where the images had unique keywords. At least they should have appeared, right?
I have asked this repeatedly on this thread and in others; is the problem due to my choosing Collage Landscape over Smugmug style layout?
Here's a screenshot I took of an image in Smugmug style. (this was about a separate issue, so ignore the red circle) Note you can SEE the keywords.
In Collage style you cannot see them anywhere. You either have a wall of images, or a lightbox full screen image of the one you click. If you have a description it's on a transparent field.
Does choosing this style mean my image pages are not indexed because Google can't seen a specific photos keywords (not the gallery keywords)?
The reading should be: "Today a sitemap with 12.296 pages were submitted, but since I am unveiled Google only indexed 57 pages."
Be patient. Google does not jump in and index your site just because you submit a sitemap in webmaster tools.
We didn't even need to submit a sitemap, because at the end our robots.txt is an entry by which crawlers are pointed to the maps.
No, I use Cl myself and almost all my images are indexed already.
Its all good. Google will find your images without a sitemap, but now as we have a sitemap-galleryimages, it might find all and may index them faster. See the attachment - the first (larger) images are those 50 - 60 from a CL galleries.
Also check Google-Index -> Content Keywords for the keyword found for images.
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
I'm not sure about that. In the last month I had a viewer come to my site via Google using a unique search term. They were looking for "landschneckt," and according to Webmaster tools they found my keyword page on their 3rd search page at number 15. There is only ONE image on my site with that keyword, and it doesn't appear in any descriptions, or captions.
This is why I get alarmed when I hear they're robot blocking keyword pages. Over the summer I had thousands of 404 errors from Google trying to crawl them. Now I get 1/day.
Wow, I never thought of that. So does that mean SM has to generate a page for each keyword on my site? How does their system handle that? Just curious.
And don't fool yourself by listening to the rumors someone is launching not knowing how things work their self.
Don't only look on the first pages in webmaster tools or Statcounter - it helps to dig deeper and analyze why you get 404 where from.
Since I removed RCP my images show up. As said first time ever, because when I have been here before in 2009, I also RCP.
Since you a long time with SM already, lots of your images should be in Googles images, but I only can see four pages. Which is what I got after three week without RCP -> http://tinyurl.com/lyo8q7y
You easily can prove yourself -> click on the first image in here -> http://tinyurl.com/ldcdba8
This (1937 Auburn Cord with Supercharger Pipes) and its other display sizes are RCPed. Now click on the image to the right - you will be led to this image -> http://www.winsomeworks.com/Portfolio/AnnaLisaYoder-PhotoFavorites/i-NDZLT54/0/L/P6289650-L.jpg which is not RCped and the reason why it is to find in Google images.
Another one: in the first link provided scroll down to the last page (#4?), until the little image with the "little boy biting in a bread body" appears.
Same here: you will be led to this image -> http://www.winsomeworks.com/Family/Other-Holidays/Easter-Week-2009-with-Family/i-kNhcL9t/1/Ti/DSC_5886-Ti.jpg , which is not RCPed and the reason why this is to find in Google Images. And of course only this small size...
And once again: RCP is (ähm, is the right word dupery?) bullshit. Those who wants to steal your image in order to make their own prints, know exactly how to get the largest possible size.
The questions where the keywords come from is obsolete now, because we got our sitemap-galleryimages back, in which all keywords for every single image are listed.
I agree that a person with know how can steal your stuff. Heck, anyone who simply goes to get a link, and copies/pastes the direct image url in their browser can then right-click save. I've found that more folks are not so savvy, and simply try it once. I used this opportunity to point them to the share features. Only time will tell if this works.
There's an event I shoot annually. It gets a lot of traffic, and many of the folks who attend have added me on FB. I see a lot of my images that were snagged off my old site using right-click used on Facebook by them. I don't see any from my new site.
Hm, as I can see you have enabled the share thingy, so how do you know it was by right click? Or do you mean they snagged it without a link back to your site?
Just for clearing it up for me: the link in your signature points where to? New or old site?