Flickr v. On-Site Images
-
My apologies in that I have searched for this, have seen discussions on it and haven't seen a definitive answer on the question of hosting & displaying on-domain images v. using a source like flickr to host all of your images.
I have a client that is mostly a local search play in a very tourism heavy area.
I'm investigating this option for a few reasons. 1. Ease of use. The new flickr app is brilliant. So if he's out giving a tour, takes a picture, it can be seamlessly integrated to his account & then shot off to all of his portals (website, facebook, twitter, etc.). It's a small client & he's not tech savvy, so this option suits him very well.
2. SEO. With all of the tagging, geo components, and it playing nice with Google Images search, I thought this was a viable option in hosting the majority of his on-site images.
I've seen opinions on this before. But I was wondering if there any further opinions on the subject. Not sure if there's anything 'definitive', but any help or insight would be appreciated.
-
For frequent posting this would be fine. For your main site images - you should focus on optimizing those separately and self host them.
Create a guide to using the Flickr app for your client so the client can generate and post these images when they want to with real content - their actual thoughts at the moment.
The goal of the guide would be not using the Flickr App, but using it to achieve the client's goal which you are facilitating. When your client takes pics, then they will be posted with useful parameters, metas, tags, and naming conventions. If you need to adjust them later you can always do that.
You can use a Flickr image or gallery to build content around on the site and link social posts to that page. This is what will help get your images ranked. You could self host a main category image on a category page about a spot and then build your content use Flickr images so the most relevant image will be your self hosted image if you optimize properly.
More benefits include ensuring fast loading images and good participation from your client which is what will matter in the end, with the pics being the same either way.
-
Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately this isn't the issue I'm having. We actually DO have capable images to use & it's really just a matter of whether we want to host them on-site or using flickr.
Thanks for your help!
-
Hi Brian,
I pride myself on my work and I'm sure you do as well stick with the small cost of stock photos. I recently found a companys similar to I stock photo for much less money. Give a look on Google for some of those. If I had the name which would just look for I would give you it but I can't seem to find it. However I stopped window has decent prices as well.
there are too many variables using Flickr images that are not taken by yourself, your client or a professional you hired for the job. My opinion is stick with stock and just so you know it's been proven that illustrations are far more effective than photographs. So you might want to throw some those things well.
I hope I was of help to you,
Thomas
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Why i my site not ranking
I have been building my website www.ubodo.com ( its a property portal ) I have feeds coming in from nearly 200 estate agents and I have just over 26k properties listed all over the world. I have tried to make the site fast, mobile friendly and followed several SEO tutorials but I am looky If I get 10 new visitors a day !!! I have managed to get 1st page ranking for terms like " Property for sale in Hambye" ( less competitve than " Property for Sale in France " ) Can any one see anything obvious I have done wrong, I feel like there is a switch to turn on the traffic and I cant find it. Any help would be greatly appreciated Barry
On-Page Optimization | | Bazconnolly10 -
Responsive site.com vs m.site.com
Hi All, My client's website have two urls like: site.com/a.html and **m.site.com/a.html. ** Will it hurt google rankings for this website because there are version of a website? Please help!
On-Page Optimization | | binhlai1 -
"Turning off" content to a site
One site I manage has a lot of low quality content. We are in the process of improving the overall site content but we have "turned off" a large portion of our content by setting 2/3 of the posts to draft. Has anyone done this before or had experience with doing something similar? This quote from Bruce Clay comes to mind: “Where a lot of people don’t understand content factoring to this is having 100 great pages and 100 terrible pages—they average, when the quality being viewed is your website,” he explained. “So, it isn’t enough to have 100 great pages if you still have 100 terrible ones, and if you add another 100 great pages, you still have the 100 terrible ones dragging down your average. In some cases we have found that it’s much better, to improve your ranking, to actually remove or rewrite the terrible ones than add more good ones.” What are your thoughts? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | ThridHour0 -
Does this site have a duplicate content issue?
Google WMT is showing me only 2 short meta descriptions under "HTML Improvements" but I believe http://www.customgia.com may have a content duplication issue. Numerous keywords are used repeatedly across many product descriptions. To make matters worse, every product page has a "Design It!" button that sends the user to a flash-based jewelry designer in which they can edit the product's appearance. I'm not sure if these "designer pages" are adding unnecessary and potentially damaging duplicate content but it's certainly a possibility. There are many items on this site that are similar to one another but not the same. The product description tend to use the same phrases over and over again - words like crystal, Swarovski, beaded, design it, customize, change, pearl, glass beads, iridescent, pearl, drop earrings are used a lot. What I'm stuck on is whether or not I should be focusing on a content duplication issue as the primary SEO problem or if there is something bigger. Thank you for any assistance you can provide!
On-Page Optimization | | rja2140 -
Does Archive pages help in indexation of the site?
Hello, we have an argue internally regarding if we should keep the archive pages on a news site or not. Pro Archive pages help indexation of the news. although not all of us are sure about this. Con archive pages receive from none to little traffic archive pages are source of duplicate content, duplicate titles - which we can manage some how but does it worth? What is your opinion on this topic, should we keep it or not? thanks, Irina
On-Page Optimization | | InformMedia0 -
How much SEO value does a fashion site get from bolting text onto the bottom of home page? Does the value compensate for cluttering up a page focused on an iconic image?
Getting ready to launch a completely redesigned site for a fashion designer. Since it is a fashion site, visitors do not need text to describe what the site is about., We are weighing three options: 1) clean design with no text (just images and navigational links), 2) bolting on a couple of sentences of text at the bottom of the page to signal keyword terms to the search engines, 3) following the lead of the top ranking site in the category and adding lots of text to the bottom of the page. Do the SEO benefits justify cluttering up the design by bolting text onto the bottom of the home page, and if so, how many characters of text seem to be the minimum to be effective?
On-Page Optimization | | RandyP0 -
Google images hits distorting my results. What to do.
Hit from google images seem to be distroting my results. I sell airport taxis so want rid of any hots that came through google images as there no buying intent Aanlytics shows (when i click in) Traffic Sources > Search Engine Optimisation > Quires 250 clicks All of which came from quires related to generic taxi terms which I do (unfortunately) rank for in search. I imagine these generated because I have a taxi cab image in page one of google images. So when people search for a picture of a taxi they click mine. However in SEO MOZ the traffic data tab shows: google = 219 clicks images.google = 3 clicks This should be the other way round shouldn't it?
On-Page Optimization | | smashseo0 -
Site: command and intitle: command in Google changed?
Hi Mozzers, I'm seeing some changes in Google when using certain commands I've used for ages. I'm trying to spot cananical issues by using this search site:www.mysite.com intitle:"keyword" This used to list all pages in the index on a certain site with the keyword in the title. Now I'm getting weird results and sometimes results from other sites - not the one specified in the site: command. Anyone else seeing this? Thanks B
On-Page Optimization | | Bush_JSM0