Infinite Scrolling: how to index all pictures
-
I have a page where I want to upload 20 pictures that are in a slideshow. Idea is that pictures will only load when users scroll down the page (otherwise too heavy loading). I see documentation on how to make this work and ensure search engines index all content. However, I do not see any documentation how to make this work for 20 pictures in a slideshow. It seems impossible to get a search engines to index all such pictures, when it shows only as users scroll down a page. This is documentation I am already familiar with, and which does not address my issue:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2014/02/infinite-scroll-search-friendly.html http://www.appelsiini.net/projects/lazyload http://luis-almeida.github.io/unveil/thank you
-
Hi Pete, I just wanted to confirm, based on what you wrote:
"I don't think the picture- and video-heavy pages are going to rank all that well by themselves. It's just a question of whether those additional pages are diluting your MLS listing pages (by using similar regional keywords, etc.)."I did following:
- Deleted words "Home" and "Condo" from the title tag and H1 so the neighborhood name is still in title tag and H1, but no mention of home, condo, real estate etc.
- all written content has been moved from "guides" (where pictures and videos are) to lower part of MLS result pages and I imagine over a 1-2 month period the MLS result pages will get the SEO credit for this unique written content (despite no 301 redirect)
- I interlink from picture / video pages to MLS result pages with "neighborhood homes for sale"
My hypothesis is that over the next few months as G gets a better idea of my website (as the site gets more popular - still only 5 months old) G will know what to rank for "neighborhood homes for sale" search terms.
Makes sense?
-
Thats right. Zero search value. Maybe I can simply change Title tag, H1 etc. Get rid of keyword (ex "Honolulu") a d instead call ("Gallery 1"). In this way I can keep structure without diluting ranking potential for MLS result pages?
-
I generally wouldn't NOINDEX something that's part of your navigation structure, unless it's a deep layer (and you want to cut off anything "below" it). If you're concerned that they don't have search value, I'd consider consolidating somehow, which I thought was the general plan from the original question. I just don't know that you need all of the content or to get too complicated with the consolidation.
-
Interesting, thx. Can I do following: Add "noindex, follow" to those guide pages? In this way they wont compete w MLS result pages, which they currently do. Issue is all that geeat unique picture and video content wont be indexed by Google.....maybe not a big issue?
-
Yeah, I don't think the picture- and video-heavy pages are going to rank all that well by themselves. It's just a question of whether those additional pages are diluting your MLS listing pages (by using similar regional keywords, etc.).
At the scale of a large site, it's hard to tell without understanding the data, including where your traffic is coming from. If it's producing value (traffic, links, etc.), great. If not, then you may want to revisit whether those pages are worth having and/or can be combined somehow. I don't think "combined" means everything on both pages gets put onto one mega-page - you could pick and choose at that point.
-
thx, Pete. Guides are more for users who are curious about pictures and videos - not something I care about ranking for. Ex: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/waikiki-condos-real-estate/
MLS result pages is my life and I moved a lot of written content to MLS result pages to add unique content. Ex: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/ (you will see unique content below map and thumb MLS pictures).
I feel this layout is ideal long-term. I link from guide (as you can see above) to the corresponding MLS result page. Hope this makes sense
-
That depends on a lot of factors. Consolidating those to one page has advantages, SEO-wise, but you're losing the benefits of the photo page. I lean toward consolidation, but it really depends on how the pages are structured in the navigation, what sort of content and meta-data they have, etc. I'm not clear on what's left on Page A currently, but the biggest issue is probably dilution from the extra pages. Since there are "guide" pages, though, I'm not sure how they fit your site architecture. To remove 200 of them, you may need to also rethink your internal link structure.
-
thx a lot. "Viewing it as manipulative" - it makes sense. I will certainly refrain from doing so.
I keep saying last question, but this should be: moving some written content from Page A to Page B (yet keeping Page A, just less content remaining on Page A) is OK and will after a while be viewing as Page B's original content and Page B will get the SEO credit. This is done without a 301 re-direct, since Page A is still a page with pictures that are original and unique and I want Google to index all those pictures. Just that a bunch of unique written content was moved from Page A to Page B. I have moved written content from about 200 different guide type pages to 200 MLS result pages, as it makes more sense to have it there. Would it be safer to include the 301 re-direct and simply lose the picture indexing to play it safe?
-
That's a trick that used to occasionally work, but there's no evidence for it in the past couple of years. Google has gotten pretty good at understand how pages are rendered and is no longer completely dependent on source-code order. In some cases, they may even view it as manipulative.
-
thx. 1 last slight different, but related question: What is your view in placing written content above other content in source code, but on webpage written content displays below other content? In my case: MLS thumb pictures and descriptions (same as other realtors' websites) show on top of page and as users scroll down they see a lot of written unique original content I have. Search engines like written content higher on page, so would it be a good idea to place written content above the MLS data in the source code, though on webpage it will still display below MLS data.
-
I don't think the risk of harm, done right, is high, but: (1) it's easy to do wrong, and (2) I suspect the benefits are small at best. I think your time/money is better spent elsewhere.
-
thank you very much. The idea was to move a lot of great pictures from a "gallery" to a page I want to rank for. Gallery page serves no purpose but for users to see beautiful pictures and obviously for Google to index a lot of unique pictures. I guess I will leave the gallery as is and simply from the gallery inter-link to the important page.
Implementation on your suggestion can be done (my web developers have already completed, just not implemented), however, it sounds to me, if I read between the lines correctly, that there is a risk Google may screw up on interpretation of such implementation and this could potentially even hurt my site with duplicate content issues…….
-
By assigning a URL to each virtual "page", you allow Google to crawl the images, done correctly. What Google is suggesting is that you then set up rel=prev/next between those pages. This tells them to treat all of the image URLs as a paginated series (like a mutli-page article or search results).
My enterprise SEO friends have mixed feelings about rel=prev/next. The evidence of it's effectiveness is limited, but what it's supposed to do is allowing the individual pages (images, in this case) to rank while not looking like duplicate or near-duplicate content. The other options would be to rel=canonical these virtual pages, but then you'd essentially take the additional images out of ranking contention.
This infinite scroll + pagination approach is VERY technical and the implementation is well beyond Q&A's scope (it would take fairly in-depth knowledge of your site). Honestly, my gut reaction is that the time spent wouldn't be worth the gain. Most users won't know to scroll, and having 10-20 pictures vs. just a few may not add that much value. The SEO impact would be relatively small, I suspect. I think there may be easier solutions that would achieve 90% of your goals with a lot less complexity.
-
Hi Pete,
There is no mechanisim that will allow a) Lots of different pictures in a slideshow only to load when users scroll to a certain part of a part yet not slowing page speed and all pictures being indexed by Google. If you can show me 1 example on the Internet that has a solution to this, I would love to see it.This is what is possible to create (not my website, just an example): http://diveintohtml5.info/examples/history/brandy.html - I can implement such picture slideshow - which loads when users scroll down on my page - and then notice how the URL will change for each picture (as you change picture), but rest of the content on the page will stay the same. Now, the big questions go:
- Will the main (important) URL get the SEO credit for all these other URL's where each picture is located?
- Since each picture is on a different URL, each URL will get SEO credit separately and main URL will gain nothing from these pictures from an SEO perspective
- Since written content is EXACTLY the same across each of these picture URL's it will look like duplicate content and it would be good to use a canonical to make sure main URL gets all SEO credit.
- How would you place 20 unique copyrighted pictures on a URL and make sure that URL gets the SEO credit, keeping in mind the pictures can ONLY load after users scroll to a certain point on the page, as the page will otherwise load too slowly.
Highly appreciate your thoughts on this, since experts say there is a solution, but I am yet to seeing 1 concrete piece of evidence.
-
There should be no real difference, in terms of Google's infinite scroll solution. If you can chunk the content into pages with corresponding URLs, you can put any source code on those pages - text and/or images, along with corresponding alt text, etc. Once you've got one solution implemented, it should work for any kind of HTML. Not sure why images would be different in this case.
There are also ways to create photo galleries that can be crawled, mostly using AJAX. It's complex, but here's one example/discussion:
-
CORRECTION: URL 1 and URL 2 are the opposite of what I described. In other words, I want to move pictures from 1) to 2). I already moved written content from 1) to 2).
-
On this URL 1) http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu-city-real-estate/ - you will see written content at lower part of the page. This written content was originally on this URL 2) http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu-homes/. I moved it because the URL 1) is the page I want to rank for and 2) served more as a guide. I want to move the pictures from 2) as well to 1) and then add a 301 redirect. However, this is NOT possible, because if I place pictures on 1) where users only see it after scrolling down to a certain place on the URL, Google is not able to index all those pictures. Only way to index those pictures is having them load when users land on the page, which would slow down the page and be a terrible user experience.
I am told there is a solution to get these pictures indexed, but so far no one has been able to present a concrete solution.
-
thank you, Pete.
- All images are my own and unique (ex: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu-city-real-estate/)
- Infinite scrolling is what I am to use, otherwise loading will be too slow. Issue: When user scrolls and the pictures load, how do I set it so those images are indexed by Google? For written content it is easy to get the content indexed by Google with infinite scrolling. However, with images there seems to be no solution. In other words: if a URL has 10 images that only show after users scroll down to lower part of a given page, then those 10 images will not be indexed by Google and the page will not get the SEO credit. Any solution to this? These sources deals with the infinite scrolling and indexing issues, but does not apply to images:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2014/02/infinite-scroll-search-friendly.html http://www.appelsiini.net/projects/lazyload http://luis-almeida.github.io/unveil/
-
Keep in mind that just adding 20 images/videos to this page isn't going to automatically increase the quality. Images have limited Google can crawl, and unless they're unique images that you own, they'll potentially be duplicated across the web. If adding those 20 images slows down the page a lot, that could actually harm your SEO and usability.
-
Unfortunately, it depends entirely on your implementation, but the short answer is that it depends if the images are loaded all at once and only displayed by scrolling or if they're loaded as you scroll. The latter is essentially what "infinite scrolling is" - it's generally not actually infinite, but scrolling will cause load events until there's nothing left to load.
The key is that the content has to be crawlable somehow and can't only be triggered by the event, or Google won't see it. So, if you're going to load as you go, the infinite scrolling posts should apply. If the images are pre-loaded, then you shouldn't have a problem, but I'd have to understand the implementation better.
-
I missed your point here. The page does not naturally suit for infinite scrolling in your opinion?
-
It's not an infinitely scrolling website. I'm going to drown myself now.
-
Travis: slight different, but related question: The written content you see at lower part of the URL I want to rank for, used to be on the other URL and I recently moved the content (no 301 redirect since I still have the pictures and video on the other URL). Will Google over time accept the unique content on the URL I want to rank for and credit that URL fully, OR will google notice the content originally was on the not important URL initially and therefore I risk the URL that now has the content will not get any credit for the content?
-
thx, Travis. The idea is not about being fancy: I do not want infinite scrolling. It comes down to me wanting to move a lot of great pictures and a video to this page that I want to rank for:
http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/
…and here are the pictures and video: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/waikiki-condos-real-estate/The ladder page means nothing to me, except being nice pictures and video for the user. However, if I placed it under the written content on the 1st URL that would add extra "juice" of quality content to that page and I would long-term rank that much better. However, those pictures would tremendously slow loading and that is the issue……
-
I would say don't use infinite scrolling, not yet. A designer doesn't understand. They want everything to be fancy. Google isn't terribly ready for fancy yet.
At this point, I think infinite scroll is a horrible thing that needs to be shot in the face.
"Hey guys, let's load the entire site - all of the bells and whistles at once!"
That can be really mess with page load speed. So what about time to first byte? It doesn't matter if the first byte appears at the speed of light, if you're loading 450 MB.
If the Webmaster Central Blog didn't answer your question, you're pretty well on your own.
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
-
Robots.txt Disallowed Pages and Still Indexed
Alright, I am pretty sure I know the answer is "Nothing more I can do here." but I just wanted to double check. It relates to the robots.txt file and that pesky "A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt". Typically people want the URL indexed and the normal Meta Description to be displayed but I don't want the link there at all. I purposefully am trying to robots that stuff outta there.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt
My question is, has anybody tried to get a page taken out of the Index and had this happen; URL still there but pesky robots.txt message for meta description? Were you able to get the URL to no longer show up or did you just live with this? Thanks folks, you are always great!0 -
Https & http urls in Google Index
Hi everyone, this question is a two parter: I am now working for a large website - over 500k monthly organic traffic. The site currently has both http and https urls in Google's index. The website has not formally converted to https. The https began with an error and has evolved unchecked over time. Both versions of the site (http & https) are registered in webmaster tools so I can clearly track and see that as time passes http indexation is decreasing and https has been increasing. The ratio is at about 3:1 in favor of https at this time. Traffic over the last year has slowly dipped, however, over the last two months there has been a steady decline in overall visits registered through analytics. No single page appears to be the culprit, this decline is occurring across most pages of the website, pages which traditionally draw heavy traffic - including the home page. Considering that Google is giving priority to https pages, could it be possible that the split is having a negative impact on traffic as rankings sway? Additionally, mobile activity for the site has steadily increased both from a traffic and a conversion standpoint. However that traffic has also dipped significantly over the last two months. Looking at Google's mobile usability error's page I see a significant number of errors (over 1k). I know Google has been testing and changing mobile ranking factors, is it safe to posit that this could be having an impact on mobile traffic? The traffic declines are 9-10% MOM. Thank you. ~Geo
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Geosem0 -
Google is indexing the wrong pages
I have been having problems with Google indexing my website since mid May. I haven't made any changes to my website which is wordpress. I have a page with the title 'Peterborough Cathedral wedding', I search Google for 'wedding Peteborough Cathedral', this is not a competitive search phrase and I'd expect to find my blog post on page one. Instead, half way down page 4 I find Google has indexed www.weddingphotojournalist.co.uk/blog with the title 'wedding photojournalist | Portfolio', what google has indexed is a link to the blog post and not the blog post itself. I repeated this for several other blog posts and keywords and found similar results, most of which don't make any sense at all - A search for 'Menorca wedding photography' used to bring up one of my posts at the top of page one. Now it brings up a post titled 'La Mare wedding photography Jersey" which happens to have a link to the Menorca post at the bottom of the page. A search for 'Broadoaks country house weddng photography' brings up 'weddingphotojournalist | portfolio' which has a link to the Broadoaks post. a search for 'Blake Hall wedding photography' does exactly the same. In this case Google is linking to www.weddingphotojournalist.blog again, this is a page of recent blog posts. Could this be a problem with my sitemap? Or the Yoast SEO plugin? or a problem with my wordpress theme? Or is Google just a bit confused?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | weddingphotojournalist0 -
Indexing of internal search results: canonicalization or noindex?
Hi Mozzers, First time poster here, enjoying the site and the tools very much. I'm doing SEO for a fairly big ecommerce brand and an issue regarding internal search results has come up. www.example.com/electronics/iphone/5s/ gives an overview of the the model-specific listings. For certain models there are also color listings, but these are not incorporated in the URL structure. Here's what Rand has to say in Inbound Marketing & SEO: Insights From The Moz Blog Search filters are used to narrow an internal search—it could be price, color, features, etc.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ClassicDriver
Filters are very common on e-commerce sites that sell a wide variety of products. Search filter
URLs look a lot like search sorts, in many cases:
www.example.com/search.php?category=laptop
www.example.com/search.php?category=laptop?price=1000
The solution here is similar to the preceding one—don’t index the filters. As long as Google
has a clear path to products, indexing every variant usually causes more harm than good. I believe using a noindex tag is meant here. Let's say you want to point users to an overview of listings for black 5s iphones. The URL is an internal search filter which looks as follows: www.example.com/electronics/apple/iphone/5s?search=black Which you wish to link with the anchor text "black iphone 5s". Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you no-index the black 5s search filters, you lose the equity passed through the link. Whereas if you canonicalize /electronics/apple/iphone/5s you would still leverage the link juice and help you rank for "black iphone 5s". Doesn't it then make more sense to use canonicalization?0 -
Recovering from index problem
Hi all. For a while, we've been working on http://thewilddeckcompany.co.uk/. Everything was going swimmingly, and we had a top 5 ranking for the term 'bird hides' for this page - http://thewilddeckcompany.co.uk/products/bird-hides. Then disaster struck! The client added a link with a faulty parameter in the Joomla back end that caused a bunch of duplicate content issues. Before this happened, all the site's 19 pages were indexed. Now it's just a handful, including the faulty URL (<cite>thewilddeckcompany.co.uk/index.php?id=13</cite>) This shows the issue pretty clearly. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Athewilddeckcompany.co.uk&oq=site%3Athewilddeckcompany.co.uk&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.2178j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 I've removed the link, redirected the bad URL, updated the site map and got some new links pointing at the site to resolve the problem. Yet almost two month later, the bad URL is still showing in the SERPs and the indexing problem is still there. Any ideas? I'm stumped!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Blink-SEO0 -
Can Google index PDFs with flash?
Does anyone know if Google can index PDF with Flash embedded? I would assume that the regular flash recommendations are still valid, even when embedded in another document. I would assume there is a list of the filetype and version which Google can index with the search appliance, but was not able to find any. Does anyone have a link or a list?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andreas.wpv0 -
To index or not to index search pages - (Panda related)
Hi Mozzers I have a WordPress site with Relevanssi the search engine plugin, free version. Questions: Should I let Google index my site's SERPS? I am scared the page quality is to thin, and then Panda bear will get angry. This plugin (or my previous search engine plugin) created many of these "no-results" uris: /?s=no-results%3Ano-results%3Ano-results%3Ano-results%3Ano-results%3Ano-results%3Ano-results%3Akids+wall&cat=no-results&pg=6 I have added a robots.txt rule to disallow these pages and did a GWT URL removal request. But links to these pages are still being displayed in Google's SERPS under "repeat the search with the omitted results included" results. So will this affect me negatively or are these results harmless? What exactly is an omitted result? As I understand it is that Google found a link to a page they but can't display it because I block GoogleBot. Thanx in advance guys.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ClassifiedsKing0 -
How to have pages re-indexed
Hi, my hosting company has blocked one my web site seeing it has performance problem. Result of that, it is now reactivated but my pages had to be reindexed. I have added my web site to Google Webmaster tool and I have submitted my site map. After few days it is saying: 103 number of URLs provided 39 URLs indexed I know Google doesn't promesse to index every page but do you know any way to increase my chance to get all my pages indexed? By the way, that site include pages and post (blog). Thanks for your help ! Nancy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EnigmaSolution0