HAhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Yeah, probably cause Preview is hidden...makes sense. Soooooooooooo, they would not have this method in legacy. Guess I shouldn't mess with that in leagacy even if they had it since I will be unveiling soon or soon or soon! Plus, I gotta go find passworded galleries and capture those passwords. Not many.
Did a little home work on the Hero's and other SM company websites getting their sitemap-index file (which anyone can do - not being sneaky). The results seem eye opening to me. Most do not have a galleryimage.xml file. Some have multiple galleryimage files. A few index's are just blank even though they have a website. One person's last update was in 2011. One has the file structure names that I am thinking were previous to 2011. Many of the updates to the files that ARE there are months old at best. A few I noticed were updated yesterday and today. Quite frankly, I don't see how we have a prayer. I am listing this data here hoping that some smart Hero will pick it up and figure out exactly what is going on. I would expect ALL our files to be consistent if the proper data is in our Header for our sitemap-index file or whereever that stuff is suppose to be. Here is the data I found:
Do you know if this has anything to do with RCP? I.e. if some hero's have RCP enabled, there is no "image" sitemap and vice versa?
In addition, if I have no "image" sitemap when checking webmaster, does this mean that none of my images are indexed?
Sorry if dumb questions, they are coming from someone who doesn't know much about this stuff.
Do you know if this has anything to do with RCP? I.e. if some hero's have RCP enabled, there is no "image" sitemap and vice versa?
Nope. There is no direct connection. But if you have RCP enabled GIS wouldn't be able to crawl the images in there, even when listed in an "image" sitemap.
This is because the primary image a crawler "see" is a transparent image called spacer.gif and the real image is switched by the code to a background image, which crawler do not index.
In addition, if I have no "image" sitemap when checking webmaster, does this mean that none of my images are indexed?
Nope. They might get indexed by "accident" or because crawler follow other links. But when there would be a map, a crawler would exactly know where to look at. But an "image" sitemap IMHO only makes sense, when it is not older than a month.
And you don't check in Webmaster if its there (because there you see what you have told Google is your sitemap), but first at your site. Crawler will read the robots.txt of your site and at its end is the pointer to you sitemaps.
If there is no "image" sitemap yet, you can try to generate one (there are some free sitemap-generators out there - but I am not sure if SM will allow that, means if they allow a generator to parse all directories and images) and than you would apply it in webmaster tools in order to tell Google where your images are and that it should index them.
I will try that tom.
Sorry if dumb questions, they are coming from someone who doesn't know much about this stuff.
Nope. There is no direct connection. But if you have RCP enabled GIS wouldn't be able to crawl the images in there, even when listed in an "image" sitemap.
I saw this while browsing the earlier pages of this thread and have removed RCP from all my galleries....shame because as stated above most people will scroll through google images not the web links.
If I remove RCP, can I assume that the images will be picked up by google next time my site is crawled?
Saw this the other day. Didn't post it here, because didn't want to scare people in here.
As one of the commentators stated: we might have lesser traffic from GI but hopefully some with better quality.
The article highlighted by Djm3006 about January changes to Google Image Search http://www.definemg.com/how-googles-image-search-update-killed-image-seo/ is very disturbing, and I guess the jury is still out on whether there's much we can do besides de-prioritizing Image SEO and working harder at the others. However, I'm hearing conflicting info. between here and our SEO thread about Right Click Protection. I have RCP turned on for almost all of my "artistic" (non-family, non-"snapshot" galleries. In that SEO thread the more recent assurance from above (except for a rogue comment that was, according to earlier discussion, incorrect....) was that RCP does not affect GIS results. So I'm confused... which is it currently (in both Old Smug and New Smug). Does RCP truly affect GIS, or not? If so, is that a change since January, or has that been the case for a long time? I do know for a fact that for a long time while that other thread was in place, even my RCP-protected images were coming up well in Image Search after SmugMug itself made some changes. Now I don't know how they fare. And I'd still like to see them come up quickly, even if that result doesn't necessarily result in Click-through.
The article highlighted by Djm3006 about January changes to Google Image Search http://www.definemg.com/how-googles-image-search-update-killed-image-seo/ is very disturbing, and I guess the jury is still out on whether there's much we can do besides de-prioritizing Image SEO and working harder at the others. However, I'm hearing conflicting info. between here and our SEO thread about Right Click Protection.
? Isn't this the "Right Click Protection" thread?
In the past I assumed that images won't be indexed by GIS, because there is this spacer.gif overlay and because the original image is switched to a background-image (within a <div> element, of which some developers saying images will be indexed, some say they the might). Aside that there is no title nor a <alt>tag when on new design. So even when GIS accidentally finds the image, what should do GIS with it, when there is no description? -> dev/null
I have RCP turned on for almost all of my "artistic" (non-family, non-"snapshot" galleries. In that SEO thread the more recent assurance from above (except for a rogue comment that was, according to earlier discussion, incorrect....) was that RCP does not affect GIS results. So I'm confused... which is it currently (in both Old Smug and New Smug). Does RCP truly affect GIS, or not?
I do know for a fact that for a long time while that other thread was in place, even my RCP-protected images were coming up well in Image Search after SmugMug itself made some changes. Now I don't know how they fare. And I'd still like to see them come up quickly, even if that result doesn't necessarily result in Click-through.
Your images (old design) surprisingly have a filled title and <alt> tag.
Not sure if GIS has been able to fetch them or if they show up in Google images, because of the 32.000+ links you have in normal search.
My images never showed up in GIS in the four weeks I am back here now, until I removed RCP a week ago. Might be intended behavior or by coincidence.
And don't expect any further official answer. It seems a "yes" or "no" is all they we are good for. No further explaination why it is so. Maybe they don't know theirself.
I asked if other settings might avoid GIS to index images, like "external embedding". No answer.
But it is not to tell for sure; I also only can assume - because we suffer by a huge lack of information/transparency.
Even when GIS would be able to crawl (y)our images, it depends IMHO to the gallery style which size would be indexed.
Have a look to your galleries - as long you don't asked a Heroe to apply an image sitemap to your site, GIS might index a gallery as you/we see it: when some has a traditional (Smugmug) style, only the first image is indexed "large" (800px longest side) and all the other images in a gallery are indexed at their thumbnail size (100x100px IMHO).
When for example "Collage Landscape" is used (which I do), max image sizes might be 300x300px (square) or 400px on the longest side (for landscapes) for all images. See attachment.
Which is better than nothing.
Hey, the images on you entry page are not clickable. Not so good IMHO. Would IMHO be better when a click would lead to the gallery when clicked.
And you have a fancy IE favicon
Actually Jorg, on her home page, after the first image of the foot (that is always the first image you see) the following (which are now random each time to go to home) images ARE clickable. Only they take you to a Portfolio page of thumbs & images. Not so good IMHO is that the image you clicked on from the homepage slideshow is not necessarily one of the images in the thumbs! So, then, you have to try and figure out where that image you clicked on REALLY is.
Created my favicon and replaced the smugmug face (with a camera) YAAAAAAHOOOO!
Actually Jorg, on her home page, after the first image of the foot (that is always the first image you see) the following (which are now random each time to go to home) images ARE clickable.
Hey, the images on you entry page are not clickable. Not so good IMHO. Would IMHO be better when a click would lead to the gallery when clicked.
And you have a fancy IE favicon
Yea, I just created a separate gallery for my homepage pics since I don't want the homepage pics to have watermarks so I have that turned off. And since I don't want to allow people to view the larger sizes without a watermark I made it non-clickable.
All in all, I just want to ensure my gallery pages are indexed in GIS.
Yea, I just created a separate gallery for my homepage pics since I don't want the homepage pics to have watermarks so I have that turned off. And since I don't want to allow people to view the larger sizes without a watermark I made it non-clickable.
I see, but they are only M size.
All in all, I just want to ensure my gallery pages are indexed in GIS.
Okay. You might consider to RCPing this gallery, because otherwise it might be indexed and by this the images are clickable via GIS.
Yea, I just created a separate gallery for my homepage pics since I don't want the homepage pics to have watermarks so I have that turned off. And since I don't want to allow people to view the larger sizes without a watermark I made it non-clickable.
All in all, I just want to ensure my gallery pages are indexed in GIS.
I have the same reasons as you for my homepage slideshow, although I went about it slightly differently. Yes, I really dislike having watermarks in the slideshow. So my slideshow comes from an unlisted gallery. If someone clicks on an image from the slideshow, they're taken to one of my portfolio galleries. (many of the homepage images are in that gallery, but not in a panoramic format) However, this discussion made me think about this a bit-- I also have a panoramic Portfolio gallery that has the identical images in my homepage slideshow. I was somehow thinking I couldn't link the show to that, but really I could. Perhaps I'll switch it. Thanks for getting me thinking.
My images never showed up in GIS in the four weeks I am back here now, until I removed RCP a week ago. Might be intended behavior or by coincidence.
And don't expect any further official answer. It seems a "yes" or "no" is all they we are good for. No further explaination why it is so. Maybe they don't know theirself.
I asked if other settings might avoid GIS to index images, like "external embedding". No answer.
Aargh, I feel I'm getting more & more confused by all this GIS & Google Images stuff. First of all, it's sounding like those 2 are 2 different things. Are they? (I mean, GIS and Google Images). I thought it was one & the same.
Next, what is a "filled title". It sounds like this is a good thing? But I don't know what it is. Thanks!
I see, but they are only M size.
Okay. You might consider to RCPing this gallery, because otherwise it might be indexed and by this the images are clickable via GIS.
I specifically made this M as I don't want viewers to see this gallery without watermarks. It is an unlisted gallery, does google pick up unlisted galleries?
I have the same reasons as you for my homepage slideshow, although I went about it slightly differently. Yes, I really dislike having watermarks in the slideshow. So my slideshow comes from an unlisted gallery. If someone clicks on an image from the slideshow, they're taken to one of my portfolio galleries. (many of the homepage images are in that gallery, but not in a panoramic format) However, this discussion made me think about this a bit-- I also have a panoramic Portfolio gallery that has the identical images in my homepage slideshow. I was somehow thinking I couldn't link the show to that, but really I could. Perhaps I'll switch it. Thanks for getting me thinking.
I wanted to do this. Have each homepage image clickable back to the correct respective gallery but I didn't know how to do this since I don't want watermarks on the homepage....thus a totally separate gallery setup for my homepage w/o watermarks.
I specifically made this M as I don't want viewers to see this gallery without watermarks. It is an unlisted gallery, does google pick up unlisted galleries?
Right, good point. And I get the idea behind making them M.
But their links on Home or any other page you put them, appear as normal links to Google.
I can launch them, so it would be strange if Google would not follow them.
I specifically made this M as I don't want viewers to see this gallery without watermarks. It is an unlisted gallery, does google pick up unlisted galleries?
I wanted to do this. Have each homepage image clickable back to the correct respective gallery but I didn't know how to do this since I don't want watermarks on the homepage....thus a totally separate gallery setup for my homepage w/o watermarks.
I just remembered that that Panoramic Slideshow gallery I have set up with the identical images that are in my homepage slideshow isn't watermarked either: http://www.winsomeworks.com/Portfolio/Panoramic-Portfolio-Slideshow/13953507_6cR9Jg Because it forces the viewer to slideshow and also has no "Download" button, I left watermarks off. The problem is, it's a Virtual gallery running off the other unlisted one that feeds my slideshow. Virtual galleries have to inherit the watermarking settings of the original gallery, so if I watermark these, my homepage images would end up watermarked. So yeah, I guess ideally, if I start to worry too much about theft, I'd simply re-upload those images into another non-virtual gallery and watermark them.
Incidentally, all of these things we've been talking about such as running a homepage slideshow off an unlisted gallery... are they available in the New SmugMug? ( Please say "yes" !!!) :smooch
Aargh, I feel I'm getting more & more confused by all this GIS & Google Images stuff. First of all, it's sounding like those 2 are 2 different things. Are they? (I mean, GIS and Google Images). I thought it was one & the same.
It is used as the same in here, and I believe all are talking about the same.
There is a new feature in Google Image Search "the reverse image search" (search similar images by uploading an image or an image URL) and some might refer to this. But for reverse search I use TinyEye which is better f.e. to find copies of images on other websites.
Next, what is a "filled title". It sounds like this is a good thing? But I don't know what it is. Thanks!
Aehm, blame my english. A non-empty Title tag. Filled? Filled in Title?
Not sure if there is a Title field you active can fill when on old design, but your's are set, but not sure if it was done automatically, by alt -> title:
It is used as the same in here, and I believe all are talking about the same.... Filled? Filled in Title?
Not sure if there is a Title field you active can fill when on old design, but your's are set, but not sure if it was done automatically, by alt -> title:
Ahh, Ok, I think I mis-read this statement, thinking you were talking about two different entities: "Not sure if GIS has been able to fetch them or if they show up in Google images, because of the 32.000+ links you have in normal search" Frankly, your English is marvelous and I can only be filled with envy that I'm not even a fraction as fluent in another language. A bit of French, a bit of Haitian Creole, a fair amount of Mandarin... but no current fluency to claim. When you're able to converse so thoroughly about these technical matters... wow. I mean, you may have had a comma slightly out of place in that sentence! Actually, there's some German swearing that I learned from my Dad who worked with mechanics for a year or so in Heiligensee which could probably come in handy right now with the New Smug roll-out! Oh, and one of my favorite words is "Zeitgeist". Wouldn't it be great if SmugMug were that.
Anyway, about the "alt" tags-- I have a vague memory of having the choice to be sure they were set... but when, where, how... I don't know. I'm pretty sure Denise told us how to do that when we link photos in our Blogs, in her thread about matching up SmugMug sites with Blogger, etc. I think that's the first I was aware of the reasons for it, and how to display titles/descriptions on hover so that a blind person using a certain program could have access to them...
As to "filled title", yep, I see what you mean now-- I guess we'd say the title is filled in, or a "filled-in title". But who am I to say? I'm just a "PA Dutch" (i.e. Pennsylvania Deitsch, i.e. Pennsylvania German) - descendent who every day says weird stuff like "throw the horse over the fence some hay".... so I'm probably a very bad person to ask!! And I even have a good German name besides, right?! (yeah, I know, I should spell it "Anneliese"...)
update
Removed RCP ~12 days ago and 1/4 of my images are to find in GIS now, increasing every day. In a pretty good size 600x400px or 800x600px and not only the 100x100px previews. -> Google -> site:http://joerglingnau.smugmug.com -> images
I get it now. I was clicking on the url which didn't have the "site:" attached. Cool for you! Guess I should go to legacy and get rid of the protection. Guess if they get stolen, then, that's the way it is. Oh yeah, I should shut down the "view original" first.
Removed RCP ~12 days ago and 1/4 of my images are to find in GIS now, increasing every day. In a pretty good size 600x400px or 800x600px and not only the 100x100px previews. -> Google -> site:http://joerglingnau.smugmug.com -> images
Interesting...I'll have to monitor this and see if more of mine start showing up.
Does sitemaps have anything to do with GIS? I noticed once I converted to the new smugmug, my sitemaps dropped from like 31 to 9. However, I did change the layout of my site as well so that may have had something to do with it....who knows:bash
Comments
Not sure if verification can work before.
Do you know if this has anything to do with RCP? I.e. if some hero's have RCP enabled, there is no "image" sitemap and vice versa?
In addition, if I have no "image" sitemap when checking webmaster, does this mean that none of my images are indexed?
Sorry if dumb questions, they are coming from someone who doesn't know much about this stuff.
site - http://www.bay-photography.com/
blog - http://bayphotos.blogspot.com/
This is because the primary image a crawler "see" is a transparent image called spacer.gif and the real image is switched by the code to a background image, which crawler do not index. Nope. They might get indexed by "accident" or because crawler follow other links. But when there would be a map, a crawler would exactly know where to look at. But an "image" sitemap IMHO only makes sense, when it is not older than a month.
And you don't check in Webmaster if its there (because there you see what you have told Google is your sitemap), but first at your site. Crawler will read the robots.txt of your site and at its end is the pointer to you sitemaps.
If there is no "image" sitemap yet, you can try to generate one (there are some free sitemap-generators out there - but I am not sure if SM will allow that, means if they allow a generator to parse all directories and images) and than you would apply it in webmaster tools in order to tell Google where your images are and that it should index them.
I will try that tom. Don' worry, it's okay.
I saw this while browsing the earlier pages of this thread and have removed RCP from all my galleries....shame because as stated above most people will scroll through google images not the web links.
If I remove RCP, can I assume that the images will be picked up by google next time my site is crawled?
Thanks!
site - http://www.bay-photography.com/
blog - http://bayphotos.blogspot.com/
http://www.definemg.com/how-googles-image-search-update-killed-image-seo/
Instagram
Twitter
As one of the commentators stated: we might have lesser traffic from GI but hopefully some with better quality.
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
In the past I assumed that images won't be indexed by GIS, because there is this spacer.gif overlay and because the original image is switched to a background-image (within a <div> element, of which some developers saying images will be indexed, some say they the might). Aside that there is no title nor a <alt>tag when on new design. So even when GIS accidentally finds the image, what should do GIS with it, when there is no description? -> dev/null
We already have a statement by Michael for this -> http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=238329&page=7
I believe GIS never was able to index RCPed images.
Your images (old design) surprisingly have a filled title and <alt> tag.
Not sure if GIS has been able to fetch them or if they show up in Google images, because of the 32.000+ links you have in normal search.
My images never showed up in GIS in the four weeks I am back here now, until I removed RCP a week ago. Might be intended behavior or by coincidence.
And don't expect any further official answer. It seems a "yes" or "no" is all they we are good for. No further explaination why it is so. Maybe they don't know theirself.
I asked if other settings might avoid GIS to index images, like "external embedding". No answer.
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1894906&postcount=22
But it is not to tell for sure; I also only can assume - because we suffer by a huge lack of information/transparency.
Even when GIS would be able to crawl (y)our images, it depends IMHO to the gallery style which size would be indexed.
Have a look to your galleries - as long you don't asked a Heroe to apply an image sitemap to your site, GIS might index a gallery as you/we see it: when some has a traditional (Smugmug) style, only the first image is indexed "large" (800px longest side) and all the other images in a gallery are indexed at their thumbnail size (100x100px IMHO).
When for example "Collage Landscape" is used (which I do), max image sizes might be 300x300px (square) or 400px on the longest side (for landscapes) for all images. See attachment.
Which is better than nothing.
Hey, the images on you entry page are not clickable. Not so good IMHO. Would IMHO be better when a click would lead to the gallery when clicked.
And you have a fancy IE favicon
Created my favicon and replaced the smugmug face (with a camera) YAAAAAAHOOOO!
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1902367&postcount=157
Yea, I just created a separate gallery for my homepage pics since I don't want the homepage pics to have watermarks so I have that turned off. And since I don't want to allow people to view the larger sizes without a watermark I made it non-clickable.
All in all, I just want to ensure my gallery pages are indexed in GIS.
site - http://www.bay-photography.com/
blog - http://bayphotos.blogspot.com/
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Aargh, I feel I'm getting more & more confused by all this GIS & Google Images stuff. First of all, it's sounding like those 2 are 2 different things. Are they? (I mean, GIS and Google Images). I thought it was one & the same.
Next, what is a "filled title". It sounds like this is a good thing? But I don't know what it is. Thanks!
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
I specifically made this M as I don't want viewers to see this gallery without watermarks. It is an unlisted gallery, does google pick up unlisted galleries?
I wanted to do this. Have each homepage image clickable back to the correct respective gallery but I didn't know how to do this since I don't want watermarks on the homepage....thus a totally separate gallery setup for my homepage w/o watermarks.
site - http://www.bay-photography.com/
blog - http://bayphotos.blogspot.com/
But their links on Home or any other page you put them, appear as normal links to Google.
I can launch them, so it would be strange if Google would not follow them.
I just remembered that that Panoramic Slideshow gallery I have set up with the identical images that are in my homepage slideshow isn't watermarked either: http://www.winsomeworks.com/Portfolio/Panoramic-Portfolio-Slideshow/13953507_6cR9Jg Because it forces the viewer to slideshow and also has no "Download" button, I left watermarks off. The problem is, it's a Virtual gallery running off the other unlisted one that feeds my slideshow. Virtual galleries have to inherit the watermarking settings of the original gallery, so if I watermark these, my homepage images would end up watermarked. So yeah, I guess ideally, if I start to worry too much about theft, I'd simply re-upload those images into another non-virtual gallery and watermark them.
Incidentally, all of these things we've been talking about such as running a homepage slideshow off an unlisted gallery... are they available in the New SmugMug? ( Please say "yes" !!!) :smooch
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
There is a new feature in Google Image Search "the reverse image search" (search similar images by uploading an image or an image URL) and some might refer to this. But for reverse search I use TinyEye which is better f.e. to find copies of images on other websites.
Aehm, blame my english. A non-empty Title tag. Filled? Filled in Title?
Not sure if there is a Title field you active can fill when on old design, but your's are set, but not sure if it was done automatically, by alt -> title:
Ahh, Ok, I think I mis-read this statement, thinking you were talking about two different entities: "Not sure if GIS has been able to fetch them or if they show up in Google images, because of the 32.000+ links you have in normal search" Frankly, your English is marvelous and I can only be filled with envy that I'm not even a fraction as fluent in another language. A bit of French, a bit of Haitian Creole, a fair amount of Mandarin... but no current fluency to claim. When you're able to converse so thoroughly about these technical matters... wow. I mean, you may have had a comma slightly out of place in that sentence!
Anyway, about the "alt" tags-- I have a vague memory of having the choice to be sure they were set... but when, where, how... I don't know. I'm pretty sure Denise told us how to do that when we link photos in our Blogs, in her thread about matching up SmugMug sites with Blogger, etc. I think that's the first I was aware of the reasons for it, and how to display titles/descriptions on hover so that a blind person using a certain program could have access to them...
As to "filled title", yep, I see what you mean now-- I guess we'd say the title is filled in, or a "filled-in title". But who am I to say? I'm just a "PA Dutch" (i.e. Pennsylvania Deitsch, i.e. Pennsylvania German) - descendent who every day says weird stuff like "throw the horse over the fence some hay".... so I'm probably a very bad person to ask!!
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Anna Lisa is far nicer.
Removed RCP ~12 days ago and 1/4 of my images are to find in GIS now, increasing every day. In a pretty good size 600x400px or 800x600px and not only the 100x100px previews. -> Google -> site:http://joerglingnau.smugmug.com -> images
Interesting...I'll have to monitor this and see if more of mine start showing up.
Does sitemaps have anything to do with GIS? I noticed once I converted to the new smugmug, my sitemaps dropped from like 31 to 9. However, I did change the layout of my site as well so that may have had something to do with it....who knows:bash
site - http://www.bay-photography.com/
blog - http://bayphotos.blogspot.com/