Google Indexing of Images
-
Our site is experiencing an issue with indexation of images. The site is real estate oriented. It has 238 listings with about 1190 images. The site submits two version (different sizes) of each image to Google, so there are about 2,400 images. Only several hundred are indexed.
Can adding Microdata improve the indexation of the images?
Our site map is submitting images that are on no-index listing pages to Google. As a result more than 2000 images have been submitted but only a few hundred have been indexed. How should the site map deal with images that reside on no-index pages? Do images that are part of pages that are set up as "no-index" need a special "no-index" label or special treatment?
My concern is that so many images that not indexed could be a red flag showing poor quality content to Google.
Is it worth investing in correcting this issue, or will correcting it result in little to no improvement in SEO?
Thanks, Alan
-
I am chiming in a year late but there is just one thing I am not sure I understand. Why would you want to index images on no-index pages? What are these pages that you want to be no-indexed in the first place? If you do not want these pages to be found when searching in Google, why would you want some of the content, like images, be found instead?
I am with Michael and recommend that you fix the sitemap. I am also curious to know what has happened in the past year. Have your issues resolved? Have your SEO improved?
-
I would definitely update that sitemap. If your sitemap is telling Google one thing, and the pages themselves are contradicting the sitemap, AND it's happening thousands of times--that's a negative quality signal to Google, and could affect all sorts of things, from crawl budget to indexation to rankings.
ALT tags are worth fixing as well. That's really the #1 clue Google has to what the images are about. (Other clues: the image filename, and the page title, if it's the main image on the page). Here, I'm presuming that the images are ones you hope to have show up in image search results (otherwise why would you bother creating an image sitemap?)...in which case, you really, REALLY need to put the ALT text on them.
-
Apparently our site map submits images to Google even when they are on pages that are marked as no index.
The result is that only about 250 out of 2250 images are actually indexed by Google. Apparently Google (as you suggested) is not indexing images that are on pages that are marked "no-index".
Do you think it makes sense for my developers to modify the site map so it no longer submits images that are on pages that are marked as no-index? Is it worth investing resources in fixing this? If this is not going to cause SEO problems I would just as well leave it alone.
Also, the way images are set up, we do not have the ability to customize alt tags. Is this worth fixing? Could repairing these issues with images improve overall ranking?
Thanks, Alan
-
I've not seen instances where Google would index an image that's on a page that's marked noindex.
Be sure that you have consistency between your sitemap and your noindex/index tags on the pages, i.e. don't include a page or image in your sitemap where the page itself (or containing page) indicates noindex.
If you look at how Webmaster Tools OOPS I guess I mean "Search Console" (will Google EVER let a product keep the same name forever???) shows indexation of images in a image sitemap, you'll notice they pair the image indexation count with the web page indexation count. I take that as an indication that they're not interested in indexing images on noindexed pages (which I have to say makes sense to me).
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 did Google cache & index a different domain than my own?
We own www.homemenorca.com, a real estate website based in Spain. Pages from this domain are not being indexed: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.homemenorca.com&oq=site%3Awww.homemenorca.com&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58j69i59l2.3504j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8Please notice that the URLs are Home Menorca, but the titles are not Home Menorca, they are Fincas Mantolan, a completely different domain and company: http://www.fincasmantolan.com/. Furthermore, when we look at Google's cache of Home Menorca, we see a different website: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.homemenorca.com%2Fen&oq=cache%3Awww.homemenorca.com%2Fen&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58j69i59.1311j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8We reviewed Google Search Console, Google Fetch, the canonical tags, the XML sitemap, and many more items. Google Search Console accepted our XML sitemap, but is only indexing 5-10% of the pages. Google is fetching and rendering the pages properly. However, we are not seeing the correct content being indexed in Google. We have seen issues with page loading times, loading content longer than 4 seconds, but are unsure why Google would be indexing a different domain.If you have suggestions or thoughts, we would very much appreciate it.Additional Language Issue:When a user searches "Home Menorca" from America or the UK with "English" selected in their browser as their default language, they are given a Spanish result. It seems to have accurate hreflang annotations within the head section on the HTML pages, but it is not working properly. Furthermore, Fincas Mantolan's search result is listed immediately below Home Menorca's Spanish result. We believe that if we fix the issue above, we will also fix the language issue. Please let us know any thoughts or recommendations that can help us. Thank you very much!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CassG12340 -
Lately I have noticed Google indexing many files on the site without the .html extension
Hello, Our site, while we convert, remains in HTML 4.0. Fle names such as http://www.sample.com/samples/index.shtml are being picked up in the SERPS as http://www.sample.com/samples/ even when I use the "rel="canonical" tag and specify the full file name therein as recommended. The link to the truncated URL (http://www.sample.com/samples/) results in what MOZ shows as fewer incoming links than the full file name is shown as having incoming. I am not sure if this is causing a loss in placement (the MOZ stats are showing a decline of late), which I have seen recently (of course, I am aware of other possible reasons, such as not being in HTML5 yet). Any help with this would be great. Thank you in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gheh20130 -
Removing pages from index
My client is running 4 websites on ModX CMS and using the same database for all the sites. Roger has discovered that one of the sites has 2050 302 redirects pointing to the clients other sites. The Sitemap for the site in question includes 860 pages. Google Webmaster Tools has indexed 540 pages. Roger has discovered 5200 pages and a Site: query of Google reveals 7200 pages. Diving into the SERP results many of the pages indexed are pointing to the other 3 sites. I believe there is a configuration problem with the site because the other sites when crawled do not have a huge volume of redirects. My concern is how can we remove from Google's index the 2050 pages that are redirecting to the other sites via a 302 redirect?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tinbum0 -
URL Parameter Being Improperly Crawled & Indexed by Google
Hi All, We just discovered that Google is indexing a subset of our URL’s embedded with our analytics tracking parameter. For the search “dresses” we are appearing in position 11 (page 2, rank 1) with the following URL: www.anthropologie.com/anthro/category/dresses/clothes-dresses.jsp?cm_mmc=Email--Anthro_12--070612_Dress_Anthro-_-shop You’ll note that “cm_mmc=Email” is appended. This is causing our analytics (CoreMetrics) to mis-attribute this traffic and revenue to Email vs. SEO. A few questions: 1) Why is this happening? This is an email from June 2012 and we don’t have an email specific landing page embedded with this parameter. Somehow Google found and indexed this page with these tracking parameters. Has anyone else seen something similar happening?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kevin_reyes
2) What is the recommended method of “politely” telling Google to index the version without the tracking parameters? Some thoughts on this:
a. Implement a self-referencing canonical on the page.
- This is done, but we have some technical issues with the canonical due to our ecommerce platform (ATG). Even though page source code looks correct, Googlebot is seeing the canonical with a JSession ID.
b. Resubmit both URL’s in WMT Fetch feature hoping that Google recognizes the canonical.
- We did this, but given the canonical issue it won’t be effective until we can fix it.
c. URL handling change in WMT
- We made this change, but it didn’t seem to fix the problem
d. 301 or No Index the version with the email tracking parameters
- This seems drastic and I’m concerned that we’d lose ranking on this very strategic keyword Thoughts? Thanks in advance, Kevin0 -
Remove URLs that 301 Redirect from Google's Index
I'm working with a client who has 301 redirected thousands of URLs from their primary subdomain to a new subdomain (these are unimportant pages with regards to link equity). These URLs are still appearing in Google's results under the primary domain, rather than the new subdomain. This is problematic because it's creating an artificial index bloat issue. These URLs make up over 90% of the URLs indexed. My experience has been that URLs that have been 301 redirected are removed from the index over time and replaced by the new destination URL. But it has been several months, close to a year even, and they're still in the index. Any recommendations on how to speed up the process of removing the 301 redirected URLs from Google's index? Will Google, or any search engine for that matter, process a noindex meta tag if the URL's been redirected?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | trung.ngo0 -
Image optimization in 2013
hello post the google Image update ( http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2013/01/faster-image-search.html ) please could you let me know what the status of image optimization is and also what the best practices are? Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Vijay
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vijayvasu0 -
Google Indexing Feedburner Links???
I just noticed that for lots of the articles on my website, there are two results in Google's index. For instance: http://www.thewebhostinghero.com/articles/tools-for-creating-wordpress-plugins.html and http://www.thewebhostinghero.com/articles/tools-for-creating-wordpress-plugins.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thewebhostinghero+(TheWebHostingHero.com) Now my Feedburner feed is set to "noindex" and it's always been that way. The canonical tag on the webpage is set to: rel='canonical' href='http://www.thewebhostinghero.com/articles/tools-for-creating-wordpress-plugins.html' /> The robots tag is set to: name="robots" content="index,follow,noodp" /> I found out that there are scrapper sites that are linking to my content using the Feedburner link. So should the robots tag be set to "noindex" when the requested URL is different from the canonical URL? If so, is there an easy way to do this in Wordpress?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sbrault740 -
Link to Google Places, or Google Maps?
On our contact page, we offer a link to view Google Maps for directions. I'm wondering should we be linking to our Google Places page instead, or just stick with the Google Map link? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GravitateMCC0