Philosophical: Does Google know when a photo isn't what your meta data says it is? And could you be downgraded for that?
-
Not something I've ever heard discussed before, probably still a bit too esoteric for present day, but I've always been one to be guided by where I see Google headed rather than trying to game the system as it exists now. So think about it:
- Most stock and public domain photos are used repeatedly throughout the internet.
- Google's reverse image search proves that Google can recognize when the same photo is used across dozens of sites.
- Many of those photos will have alt and/or title text that Google also has crawled. If not it has the content of the page on which the photo exists to consider for context.
So if Google has a TON of clues about what a photo is likely to be about, and can in theory aggregate those clues about a single photo from the dozens of sites using it, how might Google treat a site that mislabels it, old school "one of these things is not like the others" style?
Would a single site hosting that photo be bolstered by the additional context that the known repeated photo brings in, essentially from other sites?
If 10 sites about widgets are using the same widget photo, but the 11th uses an entirely new, never before published photo, would the 11th site then be rated better for bringing something new to the table? (I think this would be almost certainly true, drives home the importance of creating your own graphics content.)
Anyway, like I said, all theoretical and philosophical and probably not currently in play, especially since an image can be used in so many different contexts, but it's New Years and things are slow and my brain is running, so I'm curious what other folks might think about that as the future of image optimization.
-
Thought provoking discussion Rebecca!
I'm with you in thinking there is potential for Google to start using misleadingly labeled images in it's ranking algorithm. Alt tags in particular. They're supposed to be used, in part, to help visually impaired search engines and people understand what's being shown on the page. If they don't do that, if they're just stuffed with keywords, they lessen the value of the page. In that context "Hawaiian sunset" has more value that "church", "travel site" or "inspirational quote", even if dozens or hundreds or thousands of other sites use the same descriptor.
I also agree with Egol's opinion that unique content derives value from its perceived popularity; its ability to earn repeat and lengthy visits as well as exposure, links, and shares.
I consider it a best practice to use unique images accurately named and described (using alt tags) with a brief and accurate description of the image that incorporates keywords. Not easy or even possible all of the time, but a good target to aim for.
-
I believe that popularity in image search has an impact upon rankings in websearch. So, if you have produced a unique image that is more popular, then you will benefit from it. But, if your unique image is not popular then the effect will be neutral.
-
Good call on the reCaptcha stuff, I hadn't even thought about that. Google is teaching its algo image recognition by asking real humans "so, what exactly is this?" in a sort of backhanded way. And what would that do with that?
I do see a case to make for unique images being more highly valued. If duplicate content is devalued, and images are content, well... ¯_(ツ)_/¯
-
I agree with you about naming convention. I'm thinking more about alt text, title attributes, on-page context.
But I think it would be difficult to figure out if an image is being used in an unusual way. Say you have a photo of a Hawaiian sunset. What are you using that for? Maybe a travel site. Maybe a page of inspirational quotes. Maybe a church. Maybe a massage therapist. Maybe a Hawaii-themed restaurant in Oslo. Maybe a funeral home. The appropriate context could vary so much that it would be a tall order.
-
Certainly an interesting question. It's becoming more and more evident that image recognition software (more specifically, subject recognition) is gaining traction within big names including Facebook and Google. The software (still in development) can recognize subjects, objects, settings, etc. - to the point where they can "name" an image based on these factors. Which, of course, is extremely relevant to this conversation.
That said, I disagree with the notion that incongruities between an image name, alt-text, or title and the recognized subject of that image will have any factor at any point in time. I have two main points on why I suspect this will never become practice:
- Naming an image based directly on its contents has never been a suggestible convention. Historically, naming an image has been more about the "message" or intended use of that image than about its direct, visual content. To push content creators to start doing this would be overly heavy-handed (yes, even for Google).
- The web would be utterly polluted by images with the exact same name, all over the place. As you'd brought up stock photography and its proliferation across the web, I'd counter that this is exactly why it won't happen. The amount of images by this convention that would be named "man in suit at laptop" alone is staggering. More to the point, Google and other curators prefer specificity; so much so that it would be impossible for them to accurately define more than the visual assets - which often don't make up the bulk of a pictures meaning.
TL;DR version: Do I think what you're suggesting is possible? Absolutely. Do I think it will happen? No; this would go against naming conventions and Google's own desire for specificity.
-
Hi Rebecca,
I can see this happening in the future for sure, if not already. The new Google reCaptcha already kind of does this, "Select the pictures with tacos", which is kind of like Google saying hey we already know which of these pictures have tacos lets see if you do. They could of course expand the reCaptcha to help identify more pictures if they wanted to.Though that may diverge from the original purpose of captcha which was designed to tackle 2 problems. OCR readers having trouble with certain words / scripts in books, and spammers.
Nice thoughts,
Don
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
-
Changing / editing street view picture of premiss without drop in Google places ranking
Ive finally got a site quite high in the relevant Google places listings, after a year or so of trying. What ive noticed is that the auto generated street view image of the business is showing a row of garages round the back of the building, rather than the building entrance. Is there a way i can update the auto generated street view images of the business without risking the google places ranking / need to submit a move of address. Has any one had any experience with doing this in the past ?
Image & Video Optimization | | Sam-P0 -
Viral SlideShare = Google Penalty?
We recently published a slideshow on SlideShare.net and it ended up doing pretty well. It was featured on their homepage for 3 days, and we got quite a few embeds. Unfortunately, a few days later, our rankings in Google tumbled. I'm wondering if this killed our link velocity, which I suppose would have potentially got us a temporary, automated penalty? If you look at slide #4 and beyond, you'll notice that the logo links back to our homepage, and there's also a "View Quote" button that navigates to that specific quote, so users can find out more information, share it, or view any associated pictures. So, in total, there are quite a few backlinks in that slideshow (88 to be exact). Is this what likely caused our drop in rankings? Or is it more likely to be a coincidence? We haven't done anything else in the past couple of months, other than publish an infographic and a press release. And if this is a problem, how would we fix it? I can edit the slideshare and remove some of the links... but it seems sort of silly considering we haven't done anything blackhat. And, it would actually devalue our slideshow, because users would no longer be able to click through to the quotes. Thoughts?
Image & Video Optimization | | JABacchetta0 -
Meta Tags for Images in Multiple Galleries
For a while now we've had an outside SEO consultant as well as having me in-house doing a variety of work. One of the things our consultant would do was writing up optimized alt & title tags for the image galleries on our ecommerce sites. Recently what came up was what to do when a image appears in multiple galleries (e.g. an image of a bedroom could appear in both the bedrooms gallery & the accent wall gallery). We're not sure whether it would be best practices to use the same exact alt & title tags for an image in all the galleries it appears in or whether that would be too much duplication and each gallery should have different tags despite being the same image. None of it is being done in a deceptive manner, we're just been tailoring how we explain the image based on the specific gallery, landing page, etc. Our consultant is saying that an image should always have the same tags across the entirety of the site but I'm more of the mind that varying them by specific page would help images more readily rank for multiple relevant terms. Any advice?
Image & Video Optimization | | MikeRoberts0 -
Should I be submitting to Google Places AND Google + Local?
I hear there is a merging between Google Places and Google + but I still see a sign up page for Google Places is live? Could anyone tell me if I should be submitting to both Google + Local and Places please?
Image & Video Optimization | | Clicksjim1 -
Google Places: Multiple Entries
Hi there I'm doing some SEO for a restaurant/bar/night club. Now I'm wondering whether I should create multiple entries on Google Places or one for all. I had in mind: one for the bar/night club and one for the restaurant, as the target audiences for those can be rather different. We have only one address (and one website), but several phone numbers, so it would be possible to have several entries. What's your opinion: One or several entries?
Image & Video Optimization | | zeepartner0 -
Schema or Google Video Sitemap
Hey. I have a few hundred pages with videos on them. I want to have rich snippets with the thumbnail and such in the search results. Should I focus my time on Schema or building out a solid sitemap? Your feedback is appreciated! Tommy Swanson
Image & Video Optimization | | TommySwanson520 -
What drives the position of the local pack in a google SERP?
I have noticed that sometimes search results appear above the local pack, and sometimes the local pack is right at the top. What causes this? is there a way to induce it?
Image & Video Optimization | | adriandg2 -
Google Places - Different NAP on various directories...
My client's veterinary clinic uses a service called Localvets.com which is a division of Yext.com. This service updates listings and sponsors them across various directories. Since this is a referral service (they get paid for new clients) they use a custom phone number and custom website address for these listings. Question: Is this hurting the SEO potential of the Google Places listing since the N.A.P. are not the same? Thoughts?
Image & Video Optimization | | PMC-3120870