Nevermind.... it seems like its some stupid hardcoding in the template I bought.
Printable View
Nevermind.... it seems like its some stupid hardcoding in the template I bought.
Just a quick question - IH works great and the caching speeds up a website dramtically BUT is there a way of changing the horrible random filenames so that they are the same as the original image? SEO wise it's quite important to have good keywords in image names... At the moment the filenames are all "/bmz_cache/dfhkfh8y770FBDFD F.jpg" etc
Please take an opportunity to peruse this forum back even a few pages. Will see that there is a version on gihtub that incorporates the above request. It has not fully gone through testing, so the use is at your own risk (beta version last time I checked).Quote:
Originally Posted by twdhosting
I don't think the image file name matters squat for SEO and if anyone tells you otherwise they're spouting out more than they can possibly know since the search engines NEVER publish their ranking criteria.
Sometimes evidence is... well... the best evidence.
Seaching for "ball", the #1 hit has a file name called 751_multi.jpg. Too abstract? The number one hit for "Britney Spears" is an image named NUw8J0T5.jpg.
I know I hate more than anyone when someone posts a bad answer to my question, so officially my answer is "don't know"... but my advice, which you didn't ask for, is to not worry about it. SEO as a whole is strange in my opinion as Google has always done the same thing which is to ignore or even punish attempts to manipulate rankings in favor of delivering viewers the best CONTENT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twdhosting
Quote:
Originally Posted by mc12345678
I agree with s_mack.. Let me add something.. The changes to image naming in the beta version of Image Handler available on Github wasn't done for SEO at all.. As IH has been around for a LONG time, I think that this longevity alone has more than disproved any SEO file naming myths.. The change to the naming convention in the beta version of IH4 (on Github) was done simply to help shop owners identify CLEARLY images in the cache.. SEO wasn't even a consideration..Quote:
Originally Posted by s_mack
Woah, twdhosting!!! Easy with the salty language, buddy. Using words like 'SEO' or 'keywords' up here??? :shocking:
Keep it up and somebody is likely to wash that filthy mouth out with soap! :D
So… I'm guessing you create subdirectories in your image folder. And the names of the sub-directories not only help you track which images are where, but those subfolder names are excellent descriptions of the images below. And you wish SE's would notice them. So it bothers you that IH removes them from the image's url?
That used to bother me, too. But then I noticed that my images do very well on SE searches, often appearing at the top of google image searches.
My *guess* is that this happens for 3 reasons:
- SE automatically associates my image w/ keywords from content on page where image exists (i.e. prod/category page).
- I use the mod Sitemap XML. When it lists a page, it automatically adds the associated image.
- Content, content, content! If your content is good, the SE bot will find it's own keywords and associate them with your image.
I get that you wish your folder names would also show up, as they would if IH used the 'natural' structure to create URL (/images/cars/sedans/honda/accord.jpeg = keywords: "cars, sedans, honda, accord"). I would like that, too. Perhaps it wouldn't help, but it certainly wouldn't hurt.
Honestly though, I don't think it matters much. Not enough to warrant using the Beta version (unless you plan to help test that version).
To optimize your site for SE, first give them what the want. The following is a list *no one* will argue with (maybe?):
- XML Sitemap
- Provide a good user experience
- Valid code
- Fast site <--- IH is awesome for this!
- Excellent, well organized content, content, CONTENT!
To load your URL's, focus on pages other than your images by installing a rewrite mod (I favor CEON).
Bottom line, IH rocks! It's my second favorite mod (first being DrByte's Backup MySQL)! Benefits gained using IH and bmz_cache far, far outweighs any minor keyword opportunity loss.
+++
NOTE TO MOD: I know SEO is not pertinent to IH4 support. I just wanted to point out that even though IH4 has no intention to effect SEO, it inadvertently does. And in a very positive way, primarily by slimming files and decreasing load time.
You may not know this, but the "beta" version has been being "tested" for a few years now.. (in use on ALL of my client's websites) It's only labeled "beta" because this version only exists in my Github repo and I have not yet submitted it to the downloads yet.. (just haven't had time) If the OP really wants his IH4 image cache files to be based on the uploaded image name and to NOT use the MD5 hash code, I ENCOURAGE him to install the "beta" version of IH4..Quote:
Originally Posted by Feznizzle
https://github.com/DivaVocals/zen_Image-Handler
No, I did not know that.
Cool beans! I'll follow your link and poke around for a changelog, figure out benefits of the latest version. I imagine I'll find incentive to upgrade two sites I'm currently working on.
Thanks Diva!
Why'd you have to go an issue a challenge like that? Now I *have* to argue it! :) The only nit picky thing I would suggest is the order... content is far more important than a site map, from my understanding. I recall from various sources that a site map is more important for YOUR server and resources as it, perhaps, speeds up the traversal of the bot and (sometimes) sends it on its way before it "wastes time" looking for things that aren't there, but I don't think it actually helps with ranking. Google makes changes all the time. Attempts at "SEO" (if such a thing even exists any more) are certainly always trumped by having content the user actually wants to find. That's the point of Google... to get the RIGHT site to the searcher's eyes, not necessarily YOUR site.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feznizzle
Ha!
Well... yep, content is indeed king. That was an intentionally unordered list, though I did let it flow from least to most important. The only point emphasized (with CAPS) was content. That tiny list (compared to the zillion factors that go into googles magical formula) was chosen specifically to be 100% noncontroversial. I ~only~ pointed to things that everyone knows for a fact are important because SE's have told us so.
:yes:
And I then intentionally did not offer any indication on how important I felt any particular factor was, except content (which, again, is undeniably the most important ingredient to SEO).
My list had two main parts:
- XML Sitemap - does not effect user experience, but is requested be SE's
- User Experience
I pointed to sitemap because you can use it to attach keywords to your bmz_cache image link.
Then I pointed out three things that undeniably effect User Experience and SEO. The first two (less important) specifically relate to why you should use IH4:
smart coding (effects user and is weighed by SE - https://validator.w3.org/)
reduced load times (effects user and is weighed by SE - https://developers.google.com/speed/).
And finally, I added the most important one (as you point out!): content.
Anywho, I'm dropping out of this discussion now. I've learned the hard way never to discuss SEO in these forums (I had to pay an attorney to help me craft this entire comment!). And SEO isn't really an IH4 support issue (what this thread is about), so we will both get spankings if we don't shut up in a hurry!
:D
I'm off to DL the beta version of IH4, peace!