And those who are at Portfolio or Business and which would be able to use a smaller sizes, believe their image are better presented for selling, when showed at least at X3 or as planed at X4, not realizing they open the door widely for abuse
Smugmug's advice has always been to watermark your images to prevent this sort of abuse.
I'm also not sure that Smugmug's advice was ever really to manually link all of your images and certainly I never found that necessary but linking some definitely did help
WATERMARKING - by watermarking your images, will we run into the same kind of issue as right-click protecting where Google will not find the image 'cause it only sees the empty gif? Will the search engines simply find the "watermark overlay" if that is what it is?
Will the search engines simply find the "watermark overlay" if that is what it is?
It's not an overlay but rather a version of your image with the watermark replacing part of the image. Google will see that image with the watermark in it. So, for example, our image below has got our name at the bottom slightly transparent but it is part of the image - not a seperate image on top. Hope that makes sense. The full size original doesn't have the watermark of course but that isn't available to anyone unless they buy it assuming that you have limited your maximum available image size to something other than the original image. Smumug deal with the business of adding the watermark to your scaled down images. All you have to do is to upload the watermark that you want - see here
Thanks! Just checking since just turning right-click on stops the Google in its tracks (even thought your original image is there just like for watermarks) for Google Images - (apparently - on other threads and on Google's own forum related to SmugMug).
Thanks! Just checking since just turning right-click on stops the Google in its tracks (even thought your original image is there just like for watermarks) for Google Images - (apparently - on other threads and on Google's own forum related to SmugMug).
This was supposed to have been fixed, or remedied, or whatever you wanna call it, a couple years ago. ( I mean the problem where having RCP stopped images from coming up in Google's Image Search) We went through a big harangue here all about that... not sure where you'd find the threads, but they're there. At some point, the result was that RCP was no longer hampering Google Image Search. You know, I looked up some photos recently and saw they were no longer showin up in Image Search. Mostly it's just my family photos that have no RCP, and they come up right away in Image Search. I don't know when this changed.... It's very frustrating though, as RCP is much more fool-proof than watermarking. (I do both).
I understand the frustration with Google Image Search (the number of my images there is falling every day) but RCP is really not more fool-proof than watermarking. It only takes a couple of seconds to get by RCP with Chrome/IE (and probably with others) but it is much more difficult to remove a watermark. RCP is only a minor block really
This was supposed to have been fixed, or remedied, or whatever you wanna call it, a couple years ago. ( I mean the problem where having RCP stopped images from coming up in Google's Image Search) We went through a big harangue here all about that... not sure where you'd find the threads, but they're there. At some point, the result was that RCP was no longer hampering Google Image Search. You know, I looked up some photos recently and saw they were no longer showin up in Image Search. Mostly it's just my family photos that have no RCP, and they come up right away in Image Search. I don't know when this changed.... It's very frustrating though, as RCP is much more fool-proof than watermarking. (I do both).
Frustrating yes, how many people out there use smugmug as their image search engine???
Thanks! Just checking since just turning right-click on stops the Google in its tracks (even thought your original image is there just like for watermarks) for Google Images - (apparently - on other threads and on Google's own forum related to SmugMug).
Since SM official tells that linking from blogs and other sites is an appropriate procedure to get our images into GIS (and not mentioning any other), I fear it doesn't matter if there is a watermark or not - they won't appear easy in there.
Also I doubt they will fill the <alt> tag soon (it's empty in gallery view)
But wait! My first (and only) image from "SM" is to find in GIS this week! It is my attachment in post #19 of this thread.
Seems by this I am doing a bit of an advertising for your site
It's very frustrating though, as RCP is much more fool-proof than watermarking. (I do both).
Fool prove for whom, the supplier or the consumer? >>;-)
You have watermarked yours but than you shouldn't show them as originals (whatever you call originals, talking about at least 3.049 x 2.254px here) Watermarks are not showing on "O"s.
10 seconds to bypass RCP and another 10 to download the original(s) (BuddhaOnRedSilkOpenEyes)
Jörg, thanks for the free advertising! And yes, so frustrating. If SM "fixed" the RCP once before, then can't they "fix" it again. I still do not understand why a search engine cannot find my "original" images as they are there in the database or whatever. The file can be printed, downloaded, etc. SmugMug is for photographers. We come here to have a photographic website for the public to see and to buy images (we hope). They even call one option a BUSINESS account. Many people use Google to search for images. What good is it to us if Google (and probably other search engines) cannot find our images? Is RCP implemented the same way by all hosts? Or are there multiple ways to provide this (granted limited) protection. Just looked - Zenfolio gives folks a screen of options if right click is used. Does this mean they don't have that "empty.gif" which is what fools Google robots? Anyone know if Zenfolio users have or don't have the Google Image Search problem we have? If not, SM please CHANGE your method of RCP!
Jörg, thanks for the free advertising! And yes, so frustrating. If SM "fixed" the RCP once before, then can't they "fix" it again. I still do not understand why a search engine cannot find my "original" images as they are there in the database or whatever. The file can be printed, downloaded, etc. SmugMug is for photographers. We come here to have a photographic website for the public to see and to buy images (we hope). They even call one option a BUSINESS account. Many people use Google to search for images. What good is it to us if Google (and probably other search engines) cannot find our images? Is RCP implemented the same way by all hosts? Or are there multiple ways to provide this (granted limited) protection. Just looked - Zenfolio gives folks a screen of options if right click is used. Does this mean they don't have that "empty.gif" which is what fools Google robots? Anyone know if Zenfolio users have or don't have the Google Image Search problem we have? If not, SM please CHANGE your method of RCP!
This screenshot has nothing to do with Google Images finding these images. They are still not being found.
This screenshot has nothing to do with Google Images finding these images. They are still not being found.
I should have put [cynicism:off] in my post. It's the only one found when searching for my name and "smugmug" - it's from dgrin and linked to my own server
Am I right, when I interpret your last sentence as there is no other chance to get them indexed by GIS, than linking them somewhere else (blogs, etc.) ?
Jörg, thanks for the free advertising! And yes, so frustrating. If SM "fixed" the RCP once before, then can't they "fix" it again. I still do not understand why a search engine cannot find my "original" images as they are there in the database or whatever. The file can be printed, downloaded, etc. SmugMug is for photographers.
Guess it is the case if you show them to us If we can see them, google will, otherwise they are hidden in a locked folder.
Just looked - Zenfolio gives folks a screen of options if right click is used. Does this mean they don't have that "empty.gif" which is what fools Google robots? Anyone know if Zenfolio users have or don't have the Google Image Search problem we have? If not, SM please CHANGE your method of RCP!
Same, same but different. spacer.gif is called null.gif. The text box "owner-protection" is replaced by a context menu and images are switched to background-images as well. GIS does no take background images. Even embedded keywords are not read and their front-end is horrible. IMHO.
Am I right, when I interpret your last sentence as there is no other chance to get them indexed by GIS, than linking them somewhere else (blogs, etc.) ?
I think it is possible that you are misunderstanding how this works. GIS can find your images on Smugmug without them being externally linked. When I last looked I have 4110 images in GIS and I definitely haven't linked those all by hand. What the external linking does is raise your profile with Google which improves your chances of them including your images and raises them up the search list. So, for example, if someone just types in something like 'landscape' into GIS then Google will show what it considers the most important landscape photos first. One of the clues that Google uses to determine if a photo or site is important is how many people have linked to it. They use other signals as well but external links are important. You can't control if other people link to your photos but you can at least get the ball rolling by doing it yourself where possible. This will improve the rating of your site in general, not just of that one particular photo.
But the process is slow and seems even slower since the rollout. The most recent image I have included is from last week but that is only one and is one that I haven't externally linked. I'm sure it used to work much faster though
I may of course be wrong but I don't believe so in this case
edit:if you haven't done so already make sure you sign up for Google Webmaster tools and make sure that it can see your sitemap. As I understand this should happen automatically but I found that it wasn't in Webmaster Tools so I added it by hand (the file is generated automatically byt Smugmug though)
[QUOTE=
edit:if you haven't done so already make sure you sign up for Google Webmaster tools and make sure that it can see your sitemap. As I understand this should happen automatically but I found that it wasn't in Webmaster Tools so I added it by hand (the file is generated automatically by Smugmug though)[/QUOTE]
Seems to me that under the New SMugMug, folks are finding they have no sitemap (anymore?). Earlier in this thread I think, a method was given to see your sitemap. Mine was either not there or empty. I am still in PREVIEW mode, so maybe that is why - PREVIEW site being hidden from the world - makes sense. But what about the folks who are now live? Also, there is a key field not being populated that search engines look for. SEO should be as important to SmugMug as it is to our own sites and SM really needs to step up to the plate for us.
People who have had SM for years and have gone live are complaining that they are "losing" images daily from GIS...:cry
GREAT idea about joining Google Webmaster! Thanks!
Looks like you have to add sitemap www.yoursite.com/sitemap-base.xml to Google Webmaster Tools Site map area for indexing if it is not already there. I get over 5000 "somethings" (keywords and page urls. It would be most interesting to run that again at Google Webmaster Tools just before going live and then run it after going live and see what the difference is. And save that data so it can be presented to SM for investigation. And yeah, the data in that file has nothing to do with images. You are still alive Jorg, so guess the Hero's haven't given you that data yet!
I just used the Screaming Frog Spider (http://www.screamingfrog.co.uk/seo-spider/) to look at my site. It is free, but is limited as free. Gives alot of detail. Just have to go back to school to figure out what all it means. You might try it and see if it sees something glaring. It DOES find images...only not that many - probably because of the limitations of the "free" software. Real version costs around 99pounds (EU?).
Looks like you have to add sitemap www.yoursite.com/sitemap-base.xml to Google Webmaster Tools Site map area for indexing if it is not already there. I get over 5000 "somethings" (keywords and page urls. It would be most interesting to run that again at Google Webmaster Tools just before going live and then run it after going live and see what the difference is. And save that data so it can be presented to SM for investigation. And yeah, the data in that file has nothing to do with images. You are still alive Jorg, so guess the Hero's haven't given you that data yet!
I don't have an own domain and SM does not allow to add something to the <head> element of the site, which is needed to verify my site in webmaster tools before I can add a sitemap to it.
Right, because its not there yet. Check sitename/sitemap-base.xml and if there are two .gz files listed, you have both. For now download the other, unzip it and have a look to your 1.001 keywords
I just used the Screaming Frog Spider (http://www.screamingfrog.co.uk/seo-spider/) to look at my site. It is free, but is limited as free. Gives alot of detail. Just have to go back to school to figure out what all it means. You might try it and see if it sees something glaring. It DOES find images...only not that many - probably because of the limitations of the "free" software. Real version costs around 99pounds (EU?).
No, you should add www.yoursite.com/sitemap-index.xml. That contains the link to sitemap-base.xml but also to the famous sitemap-galleryimages that Jörg is hunting for (if the sitemap-galleryimages files exists for your site). If you just link to sitemap-base.xml then you will miss any further link to sitemap-galleryimages or anything else that gets created in the future
Rich
edit: and get your site in your signature for this forum. Inbound links to your site really help and this forum is at least one source of those
I think it is possible that you are misunderstanding how this works.
Which always is possible
GIS can find your images on Smugmug without them being externally linked. When I last looked I have 4110 images in GIS and I definitely haven't linked those all by hand.
How? I mean how did you look? What were the search patterns? And do you have 4.110 images or are some of them hits in GIS, means including the links by third parties?
Guess you talking about http://photos.miseast.org/ ? If so, you usually have lots of description / caption for a single image. Others might have not such long descriptions, but only e.g. "Tockay Gecko" instead telling "this little guy was dehydrated and almost dead, which allowed me to make this wonderful nice close up on Bohol, the Phillipines, of which btw Manila is the capitol. Which is flooded at time I am writing this and needs our help"
Hope you get the picture. I don't want to write such stories just to be found in GIS.
Anyway. If I search for "Boy receiving therapy in day care centre, on the picture together with his mother. The centre has been set up with support of Mission East." of course I get your image as the first one.
Try "Nogle af de mange fremmødte tilhørere." (some of the many listening participants?) Here it's getting difficult to find a particular image. Page ten or so, but I guess it is at least there.
But latest here its time for an reality check: who in hell searches like this?
What the external linking does is raise your profile with Google which improves your chances of them including your images and raises them up the search list. So, for example, if someone just types in something like 'landscape' into GIS then Google will show what it considers the most important landscape photos first.
I guess you didn't find your 4.110 images by using a very selective search like 'landscapes'... being curious: how have you found yours?
One of the clues that Google uses to determine if a photo or site is important is how many people have linked to it. They use other signals as well but external links are important. You can't control if other people link to your photos but you can at least get the ball rolling by doing it yourself where possible. This will improve the rating of your site in general, not just of that one particular photo.
Nope. This is different from web search. Here the surrounding context (text) counts as well as the <alt> tag, caption, title, file name and keywords do.
But the process is slow and seems even slower since the rollout. The most recent image I have included is from last week but that is only one and is one that I haven't externally linked. I'm sure it used to work much faster though
I may of course be wrong but I don't believe so in this case
In a way you are right here. But as said crawling and indexing images is different from crawling and indexing links in Google Web. In web search, crawlers will find structured data like title, body content (and other keywords here), headings and sub-headings, back-links and anchor text.
When we complain about "my images are not to find in GIS" we of course have to consider different search pattens.
Will say: I don't expect my images to be seen on the first pages when searching for a string like e.g. "insect mantodea germany", but surprisingly when I add "lingnau" to it, I get some hits (but from Fineart or DeviantArt)
When searching for "joerg lingnau smugmug" or "joerglingnau smugmug" I strongly expect at least some hits to show up.
Nada, respectively there is still only one image, as there was yesterday - but today its another image. Guess which? The image you used in your post #65. ROFLMAO. Horray!
Do me a favor and search for "joerg lingnau" or "joerg lingnau fineart" or "joerg lingnau 500px" -> most images you will see are mine and they for sure are not linked by others. And there was nothing I had to do in order to show them up in GIS.
Why it works with all the others but not with SM? Can you (some) explain?
edit:if you haven't done so already make sure you sign up for Google Webmaster tools and make sure that it can see your sitemap. As I understand this should happen automatically but I found that it wasn't in Webmaster Tools so I added it by hand (the file is generated automatically byt Smugmug though)
I have the sites from my own web-server in there - but I am not able to add and verify my SM site in webmaster tools, because we can't edit the <head> element or upload a file.
No, you should add www.yoursite.com/sitemap-index.xml. That contains the link to sitemap-base.xml but also to the famous sitemap-galleryimages that Jörg is hunting for (if the sitemap-galleryimages files exists for your site). If you just link to sitemap-base.xml then you will miss any further link to sitemap-galleryimages or anything else that gets created in the future
[QUOTE=
Right, because its not there yet. Check sitename/sitemap-base.xml and if there are two .gz files listed, you have both. For now download the other, unzip it and have a look to your 1.001 keywords
[/QUOTE]
ummmm check where? I can type http://www.mysite.com/sitemap-base.xml and it sends me the code on THAT browser window for the one file. Using http://www.mysite.com/sitemap-base.xml.qz I get the zipped file and unzipping it I only get the one xml file. I understand the image one is not there 'cause I guess SM has not created it.huh
So many questions - let's see what I can manage...
How? I mean how did you look? What were the search patterns? And do you have 4.110 images or are some of them hits in GIS, means including the links by third parties?
Go to images.google.com and type in
site:photos.miseast.org
(or for you
site:joerglingnau.smugmug.com
). Then if you get any images scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and click on 'Switch to basic version'. Then you will see the number of images that GIS has stored for you. Note that many of them are unfortunately the thumbnails but that sees to be improving daily.
But latest here its time for an reality check: who in hell searches like this?
Not quite as detailed as you example but we do get many detailed searches (got a hit on 'afghan carrot jam recipe' this week ). Remember that in a world where you are competing with lots of other photographs that will match the search term 'Tockay Gecko' you have to give yourself a slightly tighter niche. e.g. use 'Tockay Gecko on stone' or 'Tockay Gecko on leaf'. You will still match 'Tockay Gecko' (eventually) but you are much more likely to get picked up by the more specific search. Remember that Google can't see the picture, you have to help.
Do me a favor and search for "joerg lingnau" or "joerg lingnau fineart" or "joerg lingnau 500px" -> most images you will see are mine and they for sure are not linked by others. And there was nothing I had to do in order to show them up in GIS.
Why it works with all the others but not with SM? Can you (some) explain?
Well I'm going to do some guesswork here but I think it is because on those sites you don't have your own url (joerglingnau.smugmug.com) but rather you are in the same space as everyone else. This means that you will show up for very specific searches such as 'joerg lingnau' but for more generic stuff you are in amongst everyone elses photos and there is nothing you can do to change that. With joerglingnau.smugmug.com if you can boost the rating of your site (inbound links amongst other things) then you can make it more likely that your site will come up top in a more generic search.
So, for example, if I start a new incognito browser window (to avoid any history biasing google towards our site) and type 'tajikistan earthquake' into GIS then we are the 6th image which isn't bad for that search really. That is only possible because we can boost the rating of our site by working on inbound links (we don't link to that photo anywhere that I know of)
I strongly expect at least some hits to show up.
Nada, respectively there is still only one image, as there was yesterday - but today its another image. Guess which? The image you used in your post #65. ROFLMAO. Horray!
Yep that's why it so important to get your URL in your signature on this forum as well as any others that you are on. It's not just that photo that gets boosted but your whole site. If I google the very specific "help for north korea" that I use in my sig at the moment then it comes up almost at the top - almost certainly due to posts on here. Somewhat amusingly I see that the link is broken now - that will teach me. It's also why if you write a blog (which is a very useful way to get incoming links) you should always embed your images rather than uploading them again.
I have the sites from my own web-server in there - but I am not able to add and verify my SM site in webmaster tools, because we can't edit the <head> element or upload a file.
Yep - that's hugely annoying. You should even be able to authorise it if you already have google analytics running which Smugmug supports but when you try that Google says there is a problem with the code - wish that would get fixed
Nope. This is different from web search. Here the surrounding context (text) counts as well as the <alt> tag, caption, title, file name and keywords do.
I completely agree and that is why I said ONE of the clues that Google uses is incoming links. They use all the other things that you mention as well but a lot of it is outside your control. Incoming links aren't
Good luck and remember that once you have it going it tends to take off. Apart from the links I put up myself I can see a couple of hundred from people who have found a picture and then linked to it from their site. That makes it more likely that our pictures will appear in the future and be linked to etc. It takes a while to get going but it is worth it.
@ richpepp - thanks for that, too. I just went back to Google Tools and found that I do already have that in there - maybe I did it sometime earlier. I removed the sitemap for /sitemap-base.xml. It said it was pending from hours ago. However, I was showing the same number of items for both (a little over 5000) with a combined total of 11K+. Most of those are keywords and then looks like gallery names. Obviously, it is not getting the images here as I have over 20,000 individual images. So, can anyone explain why smugmug is NOT providing the sitemap-image thingie?(oh yeah, they have to shoot you after telling you). Ummmm kinda thought images was the main idea of SmugMug - tongue in cheek smiley. How can that SEO be so far down their list of things to do?
Now I gotta figure out how to get rid of those wonderful junk keyword numbers old SM graciously added to my key word list for me by parsing my filenames.
QUOTE thingie: Go to images.google.com and type in sites.miseast.org (or for you site:joerglingnau.smugmug.com). Then if you get any images scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and click on 'Switch to basic version'. Then you will see the number of images that GIS has stored for you. Note that many of them are unfortunately the thumbnails but that sees to be improving daily. UNQUOTE thingie
I just did this and for the searchstring I entered (without the quotation marks) "www.southeasternphotography.com". Ok, lots of my images there. Lots that were not mine, too!!!!! Why would it be doing that when I have given it a specific url? It seems to be parsing the search term into many different combinations. In basic, said there were 2,200 images. Not all mine and far below the 20,000+ images in my site. Yep, I understand I gotta get more links to my site. Actually, have quite a few from many different sites. But linking to the site, not the images. I have my site pretty well shut down to external stuff with SmugMug "protections"...so maybe that is part of it. Trying to protect my images. Maybe I should just not give a dump about protection.
I just did this and for the searchstring I entered (without the quotation marks) "www.southeasternphotography.com". Ok, lots of my images there. Lots that were not mine, too!!!!!
You need to enter site:www.southeasternphotography.com to get results for your page only.
Comments
Smugmug's advice has always been to watermark your images to prevent this sort of abuse.
I'm also not sure that Smugmug's advice was ever really to manually link all of your images and certainly I never found that necessary but linking some definitely did help
It's not an overlay but rather a version of your image with the watermark replacing part of the image. Google will see that image with the watermark in it. So, for example, our image below has got our name at the bottom slightly transparent but it is part of the image - not a seperate image on top. Hope that makes sense. The full size original doesn't have the watermark of course but that isn't available to anyone unless they buy it assuming that you have limited your maximum available image size to something other than the original image. Smumug deal with the business of adding the watermark to your scaled down images. All you have to do is to upload the watermark that you want - see here
[IMG]http://photos.miseast.org/NorthKorea/Genopbygning-af-ødelagte-hjem/i-JFwN9DV/0/M/1-M.jpg[/IMG]
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
I understand the frustration with Google Image Search (the number of my images there is falling every day) but RCP is really not more fool-proof than watermarking. It only takes a couple of seconds to get by RCP with Chrome/IE (and probably with others) but it is much more difficult to remove a watermark. RCP is only a minor block really
Frustrating yes, how many people out there use smugmug as their image search engine???
Instagram
Twitter
Also I doubt they will fill the <alt> tag soon (it's empty in gallery view)
But wait! My first (and only) image from "SM" is to find in GIS this week! It is my attachment in post #19 of this thread.
Seems by this I am doing a bit of an advertising for your site
You have watermarked yours but than you shouldn't show them as originals (whatever you call originals, talking about at least 3.049 x 2.254px here) Watermarks are not showing on "O"s.
10 seconds to bypass RCP and another 10 to download the original(s) (BuddhaOnRedSilkOpenEyes)
This screenshot has nothing to do with Google Images finding these images. They are still not being found.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
Photo Blog
Am I right, when I interpret your last sentence as there is no other chance to get them indexed by GIS, than linking them somewhere else (blogs, etc.) ?
I think it is possible that you are misunderstanding how this works. GIS can find your images on Smugmug without them being externally linked. When I last looked I have 4110 images in GIS and I definitely haven't linked those all by hand. What the external linking does is raise your profile with Google which improves your chances of them including your images and raises them up the search list. So, for example, if someone just types in something like 'landscape' into GIS then Google will show what it considers the most important landscape photos first. One of the clues that Google uses to determine if a photo or site is important is how many people have linked to it. They use other signals as well but external links are important. You can't control if other people link to your photos but you can at least get the ball rolling by doing it yourself where possible. This will improve the rating of your site in general, not just of that one particular photo.
But the process is slow and seems even slower since the rollout. The most recent image I have included is from last week but that is only one and is one that I haven't externally linked. I'm sure it used to work much faster though
I may of course be wrong but I don't believe so in this case
edit:if you haven't done so already make sure you sign up for Google Webmaster tools and make sure that it can see your sitemap. As I understand this should happen automatically but I found that it wasn't in Webmaster Tools so I added it by hand (the file is generated automatically byt Smugmug though)
edit:if you haven't done so already make sure you sign up for Google Webmaster tools and make sure that it can see your sitemap. As I understand this should happen automatically but I found that it wasn't in Webmaster Tools so I added it by hand (the file is generated automatically by Smugmug though)[/QUOTE]
Seems to me that under the New SMugMug, folks are finding they have no sitemap (anymore?). Earlier in this thread I think, a method was given to see your sitemap. Mine was either not there or empty. I am still in PREVIEW mode, so maybe that is why - PREVIEW site being hidden from the world - makes sense. But what about the folks who are now live? Also, there is a key field not being populated that search engines look for. SEO should be as important to SmugMug as it is to our own sites and SM really needs to step up to the plate for us.
People who have had SM for years and have gone live are complaining that they are "losing" images daily from GIS...:cry
GREAT idea about joining Google Webmaster! Thanks!
But as said this is only good for web search.
Seems the heroes have to kill me, when telling me the secret of how to get a "sitemap-galleryimages.xml.gz" like Andy got one.
Did you just ask him directly?
For kicks tried doing a http://www.southeasternphotography.com/sitemap-galleryimages.xml.gz and just had a blank screen...nothing happens.
I just used the Screaming Frog Spider (http://www.screamingfrog.co.uk/seo-spider/) to look at my site. It is free, but is limited as free. Gives alot of detail. Just have to go back to school to figure out what all it means. You might try it and see if it sees something glaring. It DOES find images...only not that many - probably because of the limitations of the "free" software. Real version costs around 99pounds (EU?).
Right, because its not there yet. Check sitename/sitemap-base.xml and if there are two .gz files listed, you have both. For now download the other, unzip it and have a look to your 1.001 keywords
I will check that out in deep later. Thanks. At the first attempt I got "Connection refused" <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/rolleyes1.gif" border="0" alt="" >
No, you should add www.yoursite.com/sitemap-index.xml. That contains the link to sitemap-base.xml but also to the famous sitemap-galleryimages that Jörg is hunting for (if the sitemap-galleryimages files exists for your site). If you just link to sitemap-base.xml then you will miss any further link to sitemap-galleryimages or anything else that gets created in the future
Rich
edit: and get your site in your signature for this forum. Inbound links to your site really help and this forum is at least one source of those
Guess you talking about http://photos.miseast.org/ ? If so, you usually have lots of description / caption for a single image. Others might have not such long descriptions, but only e.g. "Tockay Gecko" instead telling "this little guy was dehydrated and almost dead, which allowed me to make this wonderful nice close up on Bohol, the Phillipines, of which btw Manila is the capitol. Which is flooded at time I am writing this and needs our help"
Hope you get the picture. I don't want to write such stories just to be found in GIS.
Anyway. If I search for "Boy receiving therapy in day care centre, on the picture together with his mother. The centre has been set up with support of Mission East." of course I get your image as the first one.
Try "Nogle af de mange fremmødte tilhørere." (some of the many listening participants?) Here it's getting difficult to find a particular image. Page ten or so, but I guess it is at least there.
But latest here its time for an reality check: who in hell searches like this?
I guess you didn't find your 4.110 images by using a very selective search like 'landscapes'... being curious: how have you found yours? Nope. This is different from web search. Here the surrounding context (text) counts as well as the <alt> tag, caption, title, file name and keywords do.
In a way you are right here. But as said crawling and indexing images is different from crawling and indexing links in Google Web. In web search, crawlers will find structured data like title, body content (and other keywords here), headings and sub-headings, back-links and anchor text.
When we complain about "my images are not to find in GIS" we of course have to consider different search pattens.
Will say: I don't expect my images to be seen on the first pages when searching for a string like e.g. "insect mantodea germany", but surprisingly when I add "lingnau" to it, I get some hits (but from Fineart or DeviantArt)
When searching for "joerg lingnau smugmug" or "joerglingnau smugmug" I strongly expect at least some hits to show up.
Nada, respectively there is still only one image, as there was yesterday - but today its another image. Guess which? The image you used in your post #65. ROFLMAO. Horray!
Do me a favor and search for "joerg lingnau" or "joerg lingnau fineart" or "joerg lingnau 500px" -> most images you will see are mine and they for sure are not linked by others. And there was nothing I had to do in order to show them up in GIS.
Why it works with all the others but not with SM? Can you (some) explain?
I have the sites from my own web-server in there - but I am not able to add and verify my SM site in webmaster tools, because we can't edit the <head> element or upload a file.
Right, because its not there yet. Check sitename/sitemap-base.xml and if there are two .gz files listed, you have both. For now download the other, unzip it and have a look to your 1.001 keywords
[/QUOTE]
ummmm check where?
Your Connection Refused - are we having fun yet:D
Go to images.google.com and type in (or for you ). Then if you get any images scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and click on 'Switch to basic version'. Then you will see the number of images that GIS has stored for you. Note that many of them are unfortunately the thumbnails but that sees to be improving daily.
Not quite as detailed as you example but we do get many detailed searches (got a hit on 'afghan carrot jam recipe' this week
Well I'm going to do some guesswork here but I think it is because on those sites you don't have your own url (joerglingnau.smugmug.com) but rather you are in the same space as everyone else. This means that you will show up for very specific searches such as 'joerg lingnau' but for more generic stuff you are in amongst everyone elses photos and there is nothing you can do to change that. With joerglingnau.smugmug.com if you can boost the rating of your site (inbound links amongst other things) then you can make it more likely that your site will come up top in a more generic search.
So, for example, if I start a new incognito browser window (to avoid any history biasing google towards our site) and type 'tajikistan earthquake' into GIS then we are the 6th image which isn't bad for that search really. That is only possible because we can boost the rating of our site by working on inbound links (we don't link to that photo anywhere that I know of)
Yep that's why it so important to get your URL in your signature on this forum as well as any others that you are on. It's not just that photo that gets boosted but your whole site. If I google the very specific "help for north korea" that I use in my sig at the moment then it comes up almost at the top - almost certainly due to posts on here. Somewhat amusingly I see that the link is broken now
Yep - that's hugely annoying. You should even be able to authorise it if you already have google analytics running which Smugmug supports but when you try that Google says there is a problem with the code
I completely agree and that is why I said ONE of the clues that Google uses is incoming links. They use all the other things that you mention as well but a lot of it is outside your control. Incoming links aren't
Good luck and remember that once you have it going it tends to take off. Apart from the links I put up myself I can see a couple of hundred from people who have found a picture and then linked to it from their site. That makes it more likely that our pictures will appear in the future and be linked to etc. It takes a while to get going but it is worth it.
Rich
Now I gotta figure out how to get rid of those wonderful junk keyword numbers old SM graciously added to my key word list for me by parsing my filenames.
I just did this and for the searchstring I entered (without the quotation marks) "www.southeasternphotography.com". Ok, lots of my images there. Lots that were not mine, too!!!!! Why would it be doing that when I have given it a specific url? It seems to be parsing the search term into many different combinations. In basic, said there were 2,200 images. Not all mine and far below the 20,000+ images in my site. Yep, I understand I gotta get more links to my site. Actually, have quite a few from many different sites. But linking to the site, not the images. I have my site pretty well shut down to external stuff with SmugMug "protections"...so maybe that is part of it. Trying to protect my images. Maybe I should just not give a dump about protection.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com