Google Images Index Just Been Updated

I am not entirely sure, but I have enough evidence (based on several sites)
to justify posting it:

Google Images indices have just been updated, which is rare (updates are
several months apart, used to be 5ish). If your site relies on graphics for
some of its traffic, expect an improvement. Having said that, all sites
expand in terms of graphical content, so if you have not added anything
new, you might lag behind.

I know that my labelled photos (yes, _I_ carefully took them) have led to
nearly 200-350 (referall-framed) visits per day. This might be a good SEO
aspect, which provides the users what they want (a relevant photo),
satisfies Google's infinite thirst for knowledge and may bring back to you
some visitors who merely sought a photo, but decided to hang about.

Cheers,

Roy

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> writes:

I am not entirely sure, but I have enough evidence (based on several sites)
to justify posting it:

Google Images indices have just been updated, which is rare (updates are
several months apart, used to be 5ish). If your site relies on graphics for
some of its traffic, expect an improvement. Having said that, all sites
expand in terms of graphical content, so if you have not added anything
new, you might lag behind.

No change in number of images indexed at the two sites I currently
track by numbers, but that may simply mean they haven't chosen to pick
up any of the (numerous) images they don't index at those sites.

I know that my labelled photos (yes, _I_ carefully took them) have
led to nearly 200-350 (referall-framed) visits per day. This might
be a good SEO aspect, which provides the users what they want (a
relevant photo), satisfies Google's infinite thirst for knowledge
and may bring back to you some visitors who merely sought a photo,
but decided to hang about.

Interesting additional angle on SEO there, actually.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b (AT) dd-b (DOT) net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

__/ [David Dyer-Bennet] on Monday 17 October 2005 01:49 \__

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> writes:

I am not entirely sure, but I have enough evidence (based on several
sites) to justify posting it:

Google Images indices have just been updated, which is rare (updates are
several months apart, used to be 5ish). If your site relies on graphics
for some of its traffic, expect an improvement. Having said that, all
sites expand in terms of graphical content, so if you have not added
anything new, you might lag behind.

No change in number of images indexed at the two sites I currently
track by numbers, but that may simply mean they haven't chosen to pick
up any of the (numerous) images they don't index at those sites.

There is some level of flexibity, but not much:

http://images.google.com/images?svnu...if&btnG=Search

(apologies about long URL)

Can also restrict by date < http://www.googleguide.com/favorite_dates.html >
, but not in a service that is provided by Google directly nor one that can
be applies to images index. You would be better off making a mental note of
the numbers.

I know that my labelled photos (yes, _I_ carefully took them) have
led to nearly 200-350 (referall-framed) visits per day. This might
be a good SEO aspect, which provides the users what they want (a
relevant photo), satisfies Google's infinite thirst for knowledge
and may bring back to you some visitors who merely sought a photo,
but decided to hang about.

Interesting additional angle on SEO there, actually.

Happy to hear you agree...

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Have you hugged your penguin today?
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
2:00am up 52 days 14:14, 5 users, load average: 0.74, 0.72, 0.66
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> writes:

__/ [David Dyer-Bennet] on Monday 17 October 2005 01:49 \__

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> writes:

I am not entirely sure, but I have enough evidence (based on several
sites) to justify posting it:

Google Images indices have just been updated, which is rare (updates are
several months apart, used to be 5ish). If your site relies on graphics
for some of its traffic, expect an improvement. Having said that, all
sites expand in terms of graphical content, so if you have not added
anything new, you might lag behind.

No change in number of images indexed at the two sites I currently
track by numbers, but that may simply mean they haven't chosen to pick
up any of the (numerous) images they don't index at those sites.

There is some level of flexibity, but not much:

http://images.google.com/images?svnu...if&btnG=Search

Amusing (though of course the CIA *intends* that stuff to be public).

<http://images.google.com/images?q=site%3Awww.dd-b.net&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images>
finds only 49 of the images on my site, and doesn't for example index
*any* of the thumbnails or images linked through the thumbnails at
<http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2000/Mostly%20Cats/>.
I've been fighting this for years (and thought I'd made a breakthrough
fairly recently when I first came to this group; doesn't look like it
on further examination).

Just to complicate things, those pages *are* indexed by web google;
just not by image google.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b (AT) dd-b (DOT) net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>