SitemapXML v.2

[jodean]

I tried changing the image file names in the sitemap with sensible file names and within 12 hours my images started getting indexed.

[a_berezin]

I tried changing the image file names in the sitemap with sensible file names and within 12 hours my images started getting indexed.

You have changed the filenames 12:00 back, ie 10 hours before I answer your question?

[jodean]

I used XML-Sitemaps.com and just generated a images.xml file and Google like it. Below is some of the xml. For some reason Google just does not like image names that xml generateds by Sitemap XML. I think the probelm might also related to the plugin Images Handler4. Images Handler4 converts the master image into different sizes and places them inside the BMZ_Cache folder. The file names in the BMZ_Cache look like this.

322d8b022b177e2080cf0e54d78dcae1.image.750x500.jpg

The above filename is what Sitemap XML uses and the image is not indexed by Google.

XML-Sitemaps generates the XML using the master image name in the Images folder. Examples below

<image:image>
<image:loc>http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Caddis_Nymph.jpg</image:loc>
<image:caption>Caddis</image:caption>
</image:image>
<image:image>
<image:loc>http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Crustaceans.jpg</image:loc>
<image:caption>Crustaceans</image:caption>
</image:image>
<image:image>
<image:loc>http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Eggs_Worms.jpg</image:loc>
<image:caption>Eggs and Worms</image:caption>
</image:image>

If Sitemap XML had an option to gather images from a specific folder such as /Images/* and ignore the BMZ_Cache files. It would probably generate an acceptable xml for images.

[DivaVocals]

Right.. THOUSANDS of websites using IH4 are NOT having this issue (images not being indexed).. Google doesn't really care what you name your images.. As long as you submit a proper sitemap, they will find them.. Andrew PROVED that to you with the link he posted..

Let me add to that "proof" as well: https://www.google.com/search?q=site...w=1680&bih=776

As you can see Google has indexed both the WordPress and Zen Cart images (the ones with the watermarks are the Zen Cart images) This site has THOUSANDS of images, and they are ALL being indexed by Google including the IH4 images stored in the bmz_cached folder..

You however want to insist that Google doesn't index IH4 images from the bmz_cache folder.. Not sure what anyone can do to help you here if you truly believe something we know to NOT be true... You read something on a Google forum you say which backs your theory up?? What EXACTLY did you read????

You also might want to check whether or not you have some restriction in your robots.txt file that is stopping Google from indexing the bmz_cache folder, or if the .htaccess file inside the bmz_cache folder contains a directive which prevents Google from indexing the images in this folder..

Google does not generate a index for file names which are not descriptive of the image file. Have been waiting for three months for Google to index the images. I recently found blogs discussing problems with Google not generating image indexes with non-descriptive image file names.

This is one of the myths. You can see https://www.google.ru/search?q=site:...me.ru&tbm=isch.


File includes\modules\pages\sitemapxml\sitemapxml_products.php
Find

define('SITEMAPXML_PRODUCTS_IMAGES_FUNCTION', 'true'); 

replace by

define('SITEMAPXML_PRODUCTS_IMAGES_FUNCTION', 'false'); 

I used XML-Sitemaps.com and just generated a images.xml file and Google like it. Below is some of the xml. For some reason Google just does not like image names that xml generateds by Sitemap XML. I think the probelm might also related to the plugin Images Handler4. Images Handler4 converts the master image into different sizes and places them inside the BMZ_Cache folder. The file names in the BMZ_Cache look like this.

322d8b022b177e2080cf0e54d78dcae1.image.750x500.jpg

The above filename is what Sitemap XML uses and the image is not indexed by Google.

XML-Sitemaps generates the XML using the master image name in the Images folder. Examples below

<image:image>
<image:loc>http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Caddis_Nymph.jpg</image:loc>
<image:caption>Caddis</image:caption>
</image:image>
<image:image>
<image:loc>http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Crustaceans.jpg</image:loc>
<image:caption>Crustaceans</image:caption>
</image:image>
<image:image>
<image:loc>http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Eggs_Worms.jpg</image:loc>
<image:caption>Eggs and Worms</image:caption>
</image:image>

If Sitemap XML had an option to gather images from a specific folder such as /Images/* and ignore the BMZ_Cache files. It would probably generate an acceptable xml for images.

[weif]

I used XML-Sitemaps.com and just generated a images.xml file and Google like it. Below is some of the xml. For some reason Google just does not like image names that xml generateds by Sitemap XML. I think the probelm might also related to the plugin Images Handler4. Images Handler4 converts the master image into different sizes and places them inside the BMZ_Cache folder. The file names in the BMZ_Cache look like this.

322d8b022b177e2080cf0e54d78dcae1.image.750x500.jpg

The above filename is what Sitemap XML uses and the image is not indexed by Google.

Well, as has been shown a couple times, Google has no problems indexing images with file names like this.

XML-Sitemaps generates the XML using the master image name in the Images folder. Examples below

<image:image>
<image:loc>http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Caddis_Nymph.jpg</image:loc>
<image:caption>Caddis</image:caption>
</image:image>
<image:image>
<image:loc>http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Crustaceans.jpg</image:loc>
<image:caption>Crustaceans</image:caption>
</image:image>
<image:image>
<image:loc>http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Eggs_Worms.jpg</image:loc>
<image:caption>Eggs and Worms</image:caption>
</image:image>

If Sitemap XML had an option to gather images from a specific folder such as /Images/* and ignore the BMZ_Cache files. It would probably generate an acceptable xml for images.

Doing this gives you a big disadvantage. Since IH4 has renamed your images in the pages, and has relocated those renamed files to another directory on the server, Google cannot reliably associate the images in your new site map to any page or product on your shopping cart. People may see the images in search, but cannot see them in context unless they are pretty savvy about how browsers and sites work (and take the time to dig through your site to find the match). These images may be indexed, but they are likely not indexed in association to a particular product or page, so it may be difficult for someone who finds a picture of the product they want to buy it from your site... You'll be better off with the images in the BMZ_Cache folder, which are associated to pages on your site...

[DivaVocals]

This is what is generated by SitemapXML
http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com...ge.750x453.jpg

It doesn't?? are you SURE???


https://www.google.com/search?q=http...h=776#imgdii=_

I sure do see some of the bmz_cache files here..

[jodean]

While additional images were indexed with the files names change it still very low. Like 20 of about 700 images were indexed. I still have a problem and it maynot have anything to do with the file names. It has been very difficult trying to determine what the problem is. I had 700+ image links using the BMZ Cache names for more than three months I think says something is wrong with the images.

If anyone has any clues or suggestions please respond.

[shags38]

I have 6 sites all v1.3.9h all running SitemapXML and I get disparities in images being indexed - main issue is images on four (4) are "not being submitted for indexing" (the other 2 sites are fine), something I posted about in here a couple of times with no response hence commenting in here as there is some commonality of topic in respect to image indexing.

All sites are running the same version of SitemapXML (v 3.2.6 17.06.2012 16:13) - I would very much appreciate some assistance in ascertaining where the problem may be. I have even re-installed SitemapXML in case there was a file missing but that hasn't solved the issue.

thanks in advance, Mike

[a_berezin]

While additional images were indexed with the files names change it still very low. Like 20 of about 700 images were indexed. I still have a problem and it maynot have anything to do with the file names. It has been very difficult trying to determine what the problem is. I had 700+ image links using the BMZ Cache names for more than three months I think says something is wrong with the images.

If anyone has any clues or suggestions please respond.

Accessible version SitemapXML does not support additional images.
This means that they can be indexed only if the correct layout pages.
Provide a link to the page of the product with additional pictures.

[shags38]

why doesn't this add-on submit images to search engines???