SitemapXML v.2

Is there any way that certain folders can be excluded?

I am using the Images4 plugin with SitemapXML. When the site is crawled it records the BMZ_Cache name instead of the actual image link.

This is what is generated by SitemapXML
http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/bmz_cache/7/754b2613804d5d3c8692ba7a803f558a.image.750x453.jpg

Google dosnt like the above link.

The actual image location is
http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/products/Mega%20Tying%20Pad.jpg

Is there any way to control which link Sitemap uses?

jodean:

I am using the Images4 plugin with SitemapXML. When the site is crawled it records the BMZ_Cache name instead of the actual image link.

This is what is generated by SitemapXML
http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/bmz_cache/7/754b2613804d5d3c8692ba7a803f558a.image.750x453.jpg

Google dosnt like the above link.

The actual image location is
http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/products/Mega%20Tying%20Pad.jpg

Is there any way to control which link Sitemap uses?Not sure why you say "Google dosnt like the above link". To my knowledge, there isn't any reason Google wouldn't "like" this link..

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.

jodean:

Google does not generate a index for file names which are not descriptive of the image file.
This is one of the myths. You can see https://www.google.ru/search?q=site:kizlyarextreme.ru&tbm=isch.

jodean:

The actual image location is
http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/products/Mega%20Tying%20Pad.jpg

Is there any way to control which link Sitemap uses?
File includes\modules\pages\sitemapxml\sitemapxml_products.php
Find

define('SITEMAPXML_PRODUCTS_IMAGES_FUNCTION', 'true');

replace by

define('SITEMAPXML_PRODUCTS_IMAGES_FUNCTION', 'false');

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

jodean:

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?

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:lochttp://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Caddis_Nymph.jpg</image:loc>
image:captionCaddis</image:caption>
</image:image>
image:image
image:lochttp://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Crustaceans.jpg</image:loc>
image:captionCrustaceans</image:caption>
</image:image>
image:image
image:lochttp://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Eggs_Worms.jpg</image:loc>
image:captionEggs 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.

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:laserdiscvault.com&lr=&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=rt7GUu-FEcTtoATiy4CwCg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=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..

jodean:

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.

a_berezin:

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

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

define('SITEMAPXML_PRODUCTS_IMAGES_FUNCTION', 'true');

> replace by
> ```php
define('SITEMAPXML_PRODUCTS_IMAGES_FUNCTION', 'false');

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:lochttp://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Caddis_Nymph.jpg</image:loc>
image:captionCaddis</image:caption>
</image:image>
image:image
image:lochttp://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Crustaceans.jpg</image:loc>
image:captionCrustaceans</image:caption>
</image:image>
image:image
image:lochttp://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Eggs_Worms.jpg</image:loc>
image:captionEggs 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.

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.

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

jodean:

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

image:image
image:lochttp://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Caddis_Nymph.jpg</image:loc>
image:captionCaddis</image:caption>
</image:image>
image:image
image:lochttp://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Crustaceans.jpg</image:loc>
image:captionCrustaceans</image:caption>
</image:image>
image:image
image:lochttp://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/images/categories/Eggs_Worms.jpg</image:loc>
image:captionEggs 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...

jodean:

This is what is generated by SitemapXML
http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/bmz_cache/7/754b2613804d5d3c8692ba7a803f558a.image.750x453.jpg
It doesn't?? are you SURE???

https://www.google.com/search?q=http://tennesseetraditionalflies.com/&client=firefox-a&hs=s2H&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=e2nHUrezMc31oATgtICQAg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1680&bih=776#imgdii=_

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

you also need to remember that the search engines do not (and do not want to or have to) index every page and every image on every site. They index a representative sample based on what the search engines perceive to be internet user interest, coupled with the "quality" and "relevance" of the image or page.

A tool like SitemapXML provides a list of URLs on your site so the search engine can reference that to check pages (and images) and see if there is content that the search engine believes is "quality" and "relevant" that it wants to index and list in search results. This tool is to help the search engines find content, but does not (and cannot) do anything to guarantee placement. In fact, the search engines often reiterate that there is NOT a way to guarantee placement in organic search. The process is automated to keep the system more fair.

The search engines are constantly updating, changing, and correcting the way they list results on their sites in order to better serve people searching (not site owners). Google admits that they make changes to their algorithms an average of twice a day.

All that said, having only 20 of 700 images indexed would indicate that Google is not finding these images relevant or beneficial to search users. In addition, if the number of images indexed has dramatically dropped recently, that would indicate that Google's system has found something in your site to bring your content into question. More important than the image search, I would look at how many pages on your site are indexed, and whether that has changed recently. If it has also dropped, you may want to look into what search engine optimization techniques you have used in the past, and whether any of those are considered "search engine spamming" or "key word stuffing" and maybe correct those issues to help your site.

None of this, however, is really relevant to SitemapXML, which only provides the search engines with the list of pages and images on your site so the search engines can check that they are seeing everything to better decide what to index and what not to index.

None of this, however, is really relevant to SitemapXML, which only provides the search engines with the list of pages and images on your site so the search engines can check that they are seeing everything to better decide what to index and what not to index.

weif,

great statement however I wish it were the case - I have 3 sites where ZERO images are being submitted (3 others that are ok) - I have posted about this 3 times in here and every time it has been ignored. I do not expect you to have the answer but maybe Andrew or Diva will read this - maybe if I post in Russian he may respond?

Zen 1.5.1

Hi quick question please,

I don't see search engine friendly urls Eg: index.php?main_page=featured_products or /index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=16034. When clicked it redirects to: /featured-products.

Is there a setting or action I need to take.

Thanks
Regards
Renz

Hi Renz,

Renz:

Zen 1.5.1

Hi quick question please,

I don't see search engine friendly urls Eg: index.php?main_page=featured_products or /index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=16034. When clicked it redirects to: /featured-products.

Is there a setting or action I need to take.

Thanks
Regards
What SEF URLs you use?

a_berezin:

Hi Renz,

What SEF URLs you use?

I have the M1 seo url rewriter.

Thanks
Regards
Renz