Image ALT Descriptions
-
Due to the way our system is and the way we want to do something. We have to make the description for each image in the ALT. Now this is not just a few words but is actually a few sentences. Is there going to be any negative disadvantage to doing it this way?
The positives I see is that it will help with accessibility and atleast the bots will be able to tell what the item is about.
The negatives is that maybe this description could be better used elsewhere?
-
What I think you're asking is whether having a decent-length ALT tag going to do you some harm?
The ALT tag is designed to be a** descriptive alternative to the image** and therefore** should** describe the image. You might want to make this short, or it might take a sentence or two. Make this useful to people who browse with images off and use a keyword/phrase if appropriate.
There should not be any disadvantage of a good descriptive ALT tag. Just be as concise as you can be without losing a quality description.
If the description has value elsewhere on the page then do that too, but you will want to put an ALT tag in any way, which must still be descriptive but not a duplication of something you've already said on the page.
Hope this helps.
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
-
Probably basic, but how to use image Title and Alt Text - and confusing advice from Moz!
I've been doing SEO on my business's site for years and have got good results. I've always used image Titles and Alt Text text. Our blog posts are image-intensive, often with 100-200 pictures (not surprising since we're photographers). For any given blog post, I've tended to have a uniform image Title for each image and then a more specialised Alt Text tag giving a description. A typical image on one of our blog posts would be like this: Image filename: wedding-photography-at-so-and-so-venue-001.jpg .... 002, 003 etc Image Title Attribute: Wedding Photography at So-And-So-Venue by Our-Company-Name - this would be the same for every image in the blog post. Alternative Text: Bride and groom exchanging vows during wedding ceremony at so-and-so-venue - this would be tailed for each image. So my question is - is this right? The Moz help page for image SEO is actually incorrect in one aspect: https://moz.com/ugc/10-tips-for-optimizing-your-images-for-search "Alt text (short for “alternative text”) is used to highlight the identity of an image when you hover over it with your mouse cursor. It also shows as text to all users when there are problems rendering the image." This is not the case. Hovering over the image in Firefox, Chrome, Edge and Opera ALL display the Image Title, NOT Alt Text. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | robandsarahgillespie0 -
Thought FRED penalty - Now see new spammy image backlinks what to do?
Hi, So starting about March 9 I started seeing huge losses in ranking for a client. These rankings continue to drop every week since and we changed nothing on the site. At first I thought it must be the FRED update, so we have started rewriting and adding product descriptions to our pages (which is a good thing regardless). I also checked our backlink profile using OSE on MOZ and still saw the few linking root domains we had. Another Odd thing on this is that webmasters tools showed many more domains. So today I bought a subscriptions to ahrefs and instantly saw that on the same timeline (starting March 1 2017) until now, we have literally doubled in inbound links from very spammy type sites. BUT the incoming links are not to content, people seem to be ripping off our images. So my question is, do spammy inbound image links count against us the same as if someone linked actual written content or non image urls? Is FRED something I should still be looking into? Should i disavow a list of inbound image links? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | plahpoy0 -
Broken images & Rankings
Hi I have seen a big drop in a keyword going from position 3 to out of the top 100. The only thing I can see that went wrong, was an issue with broken images - could this be the reason for the drop? Becky
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
508 compliance vs good SEO re: Image alt tags
I'm currently in debate with our 508 compliance team over the use of alt tags on images. For SEO, it is best practice to use alt tags so that readers can tell what the image represents. However, they are arguing that these images should NOT have alt text as it doesn't add anything to the disability screen reader as the image text would be repetitive with the text on the page. I feel they are taking the "decorative" image concept in 508 compliance too far. It's intention is for images for bullets, etc that truly are decorative in nature and add no benefit to the reader. What is the communities thoughts on this? Have you ever run into scenario where 508 is attempting to ruin SEO? Usually the 2 play nicely.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jpfleiderer0 -
Weirdist Meta Description I've Seen in a SERP
For one e-commerce website, in place of the proper meta description, Google is showing a 318-character-long mix of snippets from the homepage content for the domain search (e.g. [example.com]). A brand search returns the correct meta description - as do the keywords the homepage ranks for. I know Google changes the meta description if it doesn't think it's relevant, but this one (there is only one) is and has (as far as we know) shown until now, and I've never seen such a mix of text in the SERP, and so many characters - it's picking up random text from bits of anchor text e.g. "privacy policy", title attributes from links, labels from radio buttons and more. The home page W3C validates apart from a couple of basic things like missing alt text. The only things that might be related that don't are some custom meta name tags added by the CMS - but I wouldn't think this would make any difference to whether a meta description is displayed properly or not? I've recommended we wait until tomorrow to see if Google fixes this on recrawl, but does anyone have any ideas if it doesn't? The homepage doesn't feature much standalone text, so I was thinking if we add a few extra words it might encourage Google to pick from that if it doesn't want to use the meta description. The text would have to be useful for users and fit in with the design of course, which could be awkward...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford1 -
How to manage images
We have been using Google+ to load our images straight on to our site, we did this to make sure our site loaded fast. google+ delivers them to website at the size we specify, so even if original is say 4000px x 3000px we can ask for them at 100x100 and they send as resized scale. we dont have to manage sizes just the original images and their tagging If we wanted to improve our SEO opportunities should we be doing this another way? Our images show if you look in the image serp but they dont appear on the main serp. How much of a difference would having the images on our own domain rather than having them on Google+ I am working through the recommended list below, would love to hear guys who are doing well with images and have to manage 1000's of them. There are a number of ways to optimise your images to increase your visibility within Google image search, and the chance of being featured within the main search results (as seen in the 'tablet PC' example): Use a short descriptive piece of text featuring desired keywords within the image alt text attribute.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PottyScotty
Save the image using a descriptive file name
Create an Image XML sitemap
Ensure your images directory isn't blocked by robots.txt
Ideally host images on the same domain
And surround the image with related text content to build a stronger page context/association0 -
Problem with SEO for my Image based website.
My website focuses on movie posters. I'm having a little debate on what is the best way to have images linked to. The current image location is stored like this: /movie-name/poster-1.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | thedevilseeker
/movie-name/poster-2.jpg Is it best to leave it like that or change it to : /movie-name/movie-name-poster-1.jpg
/movie-name/movie-name-poster-1.jpg The reason I ask, is that I read today that Google uses the image name to help detect what the image is about. At the same time, if the movie name is the in folder structure, along with the image name... wouldn't it start to look like keyword stuffing?0 -
Convert keyword rich PDFs to web pages (text & images)
SteriPEN is a portable water purifier that kills viruses, protozoa, e-coli, etc. Because of the technical and safety requirements nature of the product, our website has much documentation of testing, organisms affected, and more. These are in pdf form and can often be found through google search (and through links on specific pages). Because of the keyword-richness of these documents pertaining to microbes SteriPEN kills, etc. does it make sense to convert these pdf's into html text and images? Then I was thinking perhaps writing a blog post AND generating key links on important landing pages to these documents (as html). Removing pdfs may be harmful? Not a clue as to the cost/benefit.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Timmmmy0