I *want* Google Images to Crawl my Blog

[ZachMatthews]

Hey guys -

I want Google Images to crawl my blog. A lot of the editors I sell images to have taken to looking there for pictures they need in a hurry. How do I make Google search the images? Which tags will it associate with the images? For instance, if someone does a search for "cutthroat trout," where would I want to include the term "cutthroat trout" in order to give my photo a chance of being included in the search?

Thanks,
Zach Matthews
www.itinerantangler.com

PS I am about to do a cool template rebuild.

[jaywilliams+]

I have found that Alt/Title tag on images is the most important factor.
Other than that, most other SEO techniques work the same, such as heading, page body text, etc.

[dakwegmo+]

If you're specifically targeting google, then you should generate a google sitemap using the addon found here: http://www.pixelpost.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3064. Then go submit the sitemap via google's webmasters tools: http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools.

The alt/title attributes are very important, but you can increase your chances of an image being found by including a description of the photo on the same page as the image.

I found that my photos that show up on the first page of google images are frequently hot linked in forums and social networking communities. If you haven't already done so, you should take steps to protect your photos and your bandwidth. You might also want to consider watermarking your photos too.

[ZachMatthews]

Thanks guys, I wasn't aware there was a sitemap add-on.

As far as watermarking goes, there's just a certain amount of theft that will naturally occur on the net. I am not worried about forum usage (bandwidth is a notable issue). I'm an attorney so if anyone with deep pockets is stupid enough to steal an image, I have other options. I'm also a part-time magazine editor and I know the watermarks I sometimes see have cost photographers sales. I'd rather let the photos stand.

Zach

[dakwegmo+]

All the advice I've read from photographers and lawyers alike is to watermark photos to protect them. Now you're saying watermarks cost some photographers sales. Was it just the fact that the images were watermarked that cost them sales, or was the watermark particularly obtrusive? I'm not at the point where I'm selling photos yet, but I'd like to be in the not to distant future, so expertise you have to share on the subject would be greatly appreciated.


Some of the addon developers prefer to release their addons through their own sites instead of through the official PixelPost extend section.

With an .htaccess file you can prevent most bandwidth theft. Example is in this post.
http://www.pixelpost.org/forum/showp...9&postcount=17

[ZachMatthews]

The watermarks that draw the most snide comments are the very obtrusive ones on photos taken by beginning photographers.

Look, from a legal perspective, yes, the safest course is to watermark and indeed copyright each image you take. But that's really not realistic in the day and age of digital cameras, when we might reel off 1,000 frames before lunch and have the 30 best on the net by supper.

From a SALES perspective, editors are people too. If you're a big-name photographer selling to major commercial and print outlets, no one is going to question your watermark. If you're just getting started, but you're blasting (using my own name as an example) "ZACH AND LAUREN MATTHEWS PHOTO COPYRIGHT 2008 ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE WILL BE TREATED AS CRIMINAL" across the frame, well then (a) it hides the image and (b) it immediately raises the question 'Who would want to steal this anyway?' in the editor's mind. In other words, the image better be GREAT, or you run the risk of looking presumptuous.

I do sell photos - I am not a full time shooter, but I've sold to a half dozen national magazines including titles on every newsstand. Not having a watermark has never affected my business. Because business is all about relationships, and because I try to present myself as a humble, reasonable and above-all professional-acting photographer, I just think the risk of looking foolish and missing sales is not worth the minimal protection a watermark offers.

Zach