Images not appearing in Google Images SERPS
-
Hi there
We pushed a new version of our website live more than 6 months ago.
So far, none of the images that are in the product gallery on this page http://www.ingleandrhode.co.uk/bespoke-rings/inspiration/ are appearing in the Google Images SERPS (I tested this by searching Google Images for "site:www.ingleandrhode.co.uk").
I understand that the gallery uses Javascript, so Googlebot doesn't see the image files in the HTML, but in Webmaster Tools, if I "fetch as Google" with rendering, this suggests that Googlebot does see the gallery images.
My website developer tried adding an image sitemap about two weeks ago, which is being indexed, but so far this hasn't made any difference.
Any suggestions on what needs to be done for these gallery images to start appearing in Google Images SERPS?
Many thanks!
-
Don't know. It probably depends on which images you fetched and rendered. I did some image searches and wasn't able to find many images on your site, only the ones whose actual file names were visible in the HTML.
-
Donna, many thanks for your response. I'll forward the link to our web developer.
So the fact that the images are visible when I "fetch as Google" with rendering in WMT is a red herring?
-
Looks like your images are being rendered dynamically and Google therefore can't see them. This Google Developers article might help, but can't say for sure as I haven't tried it.
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
-
Google Pagination Changes
What with Google recently coming out and saying they're basically ignoring paginated pages, I'm considering the link structure of our new, sooner to launch ecommerce site (moving from an old site to a new one with identical URL structure less a few 404s). Currently our new site shows 20 products per page but with this change by Google it means that any products on pages 2, 3 and so on will suffer because google treats it like an entirely separate page as opposed to an extension of the first. The way I see it I have one option: Show every product in each category on page 1. I have Lazy Load installed on our new website so it will only load the screen a user can see and as they scroll down it loads more products, but how will google interpret this? Will Google simply see all 50-300 products per category and give the site a bad page load score because it doesn't know the Lazy Load is in place? Or will it know and account for it? Is there anything I'm missing?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | moon-boots0 -
Missing Google verification
I just went to check my client sites in Google search console and noticed a whole bunch of them no longer 'verified'. They were all previously verified. Why would they suddenly change status to 'not verified'? Does this affect anything (eg. search analytics data flowing through to GA)? Does this mean I have to verify all over again?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | muzzmoz0 -
Google displaying SERP link in Japanese
A chamber of commerce site near me has Google displaying their link in japanese characters when they search for them by name. If you google Eastern monmouth chamber of commerce, you will see this. The site is emacc.org. Can anyone tell me what might cause this or how to resolve?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jeremyskillings0 -
Link from Google.com
Hi guys I've just seen a website get a link from Google's Webmaster Snippet testing tool. Basically, they've linked to a results page for their own website test. Here's an example of what this would look like for a result on my website. http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.impression.co.uk There's a meta nofollow, but I just wondered what everyone's take is on Trust, etc, passing down? (Don't worry, I'm not encouraging people to go out spamming links to results pages!) Looking forward to some interesting responses!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tomcraig860 -
Dropped from Google?
My website www.weddingphotojournalist.co.uk appears to have been penalised by Google. I ranked fairly well for a number of venue related searches from my blog posts. Generally I'd find myself somewhere on page one or towards the top of page two. However recently I found I am nowhere to be seen for these venue searches. I still appear if I search for my name, business name and keywords in my domain name. A quick check of Yahoo and I found I am ranking very well, it is only Google who seem to have dropped me. I looked at Google webmaster tools and there are no messages or clues as to what has happened. However it does show my traffic dropping off a cliff edge on the 19th July from 850 impressions to around 60 to 70 per day. I haven't made any changes to my website recently and hadn't added any new content in July. I haven't added any new inbound links either, a search for inbound links does not show anything suspicious. Can anyone shed any light on why this might happen?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | weddingphotojournalist0 -
Disadvantages of linking to uncompressed images?
Images are compressed and resized to fit into an article, but each image in the article links to the original file - which in some cases is around 5Mb. The large versions of the images are indexed in Google. Does this decrease the website's crawl budget due to the time spent downloading the large files? Does link equity disappear through the image links? Either way I don't think it's a very good user experience if people click on the article images to see the large images - there's no reason for the images to be so large. Any other thoughts? Thanks. 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford0 -
Quantity or quality in Google+ authorship?
Hi folks, here goes a (hopefully) easy one for the local authorship gurus. For our blog content strategy we currently have two inhouse contributors. Both have decent Google+ profiles and one is in the process of really establishing authorship/influence by submitting guest posts to several industry sites, sharing content in Google+, engaging in conversations in twitter, etc. Posts by this latter contributor already rank page 1 for the main keywords. We now have a new content contributor who is a retired employee from the company and a good friend. He has written excellent content that will be published in our blog in the coming few months. He does not have a Google+ profile but he can have one if we ask him to, but he is not going to use it for anything other than writting on our blog. He does not mind having his content published under any of our current Google+ profiles. Question: should we include this new content under our current profiles or should we create a new Google+ profile for this new contributor knowing that it will be an 'empty' profile? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TIBA0 -
Ranking Factors for Google
Yesterday a blog post appeared on SEOMOZ titled 'A Tale Of Two Studies' - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/a-tale-of-two-studies-google-vs-bing-clickthrough-rate It suggested some of the ranking factors Google and Bing take into account when ranking. A few of them I want to talk about: Social Signals, Age of Domain and H1 HTML Tag So I thought age of domain and H1 both had some weight in Google? I guess not! And social signals, now I know it gives some weight but its right up there in the list for both SE's, so should getting likes, tweets, plus1's now be part of my everyday link building? Bing-Google-CTR-Infographic-e1321978731479.png
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | activitysuper0