ALT Tags

[hdtvtechno]

I am wondering
do search engines index the image alt tags ?

[JWJ]

I am guessing that if they do, they attach very little weight to them. I have some pages that are entirely images with ALT tags. These two links show the full cache, and the 'text only' cache.

*snip*

Although Google has these cached, I am unable to find them through a regular search, so I assume they are not being indexed.

[grbeneke]

I may be wrong but i think they are used very extensively when you do a google image search.
Often when i do image searchs the results that are returned usually have filenames that bear no relevance to the search criteria - my guess is that the bot gets its keywords from the ALT tages (don't really know were else it could possibly get it)
As for general text searches - like JWJ mentioned - i don't think they have a very big weighting on the end result.

[JWJ]

This set me wondering so I ran a simple test.

I image-searched for "Scarborough Castle". This is an image file with an ALT tag but is NOT mentioned anywhere within my text. Google found it, but it is way, way, way down the list.

I did another image-search for "Hazelrigg House". This is an image on the same page, and also with an ALT tag, HOWEVER, "Hazelrigg House" is also shown on another page, and is also referred to within the text. Google put it right at the top ... numero uno.

I repeated the test with "Restful River" (one page, no text) and "Althorpe House" (2 pages, with text), and got positions 55 and 1 respectively. Also "The Market Square, Northampton" (2 pages, with text) - 1st, and "The Stocks, Stow-on-the Wold" (one page, no text) - 19th out of 19.

So, are we to conclude that image ALT tags DO get indexed, but that the real weight comes from the text, or is this a consequence of it being on two separate (but linked) pages?

[Arne]

So, are we to conclude that image ALT tags DO get indexed, but that the real weight comes from the text, or is this a consequence of it being on two separate (but linked) pages?

The "simple" answer in my opinion is that the Google hit comes higher up if the keyword is found several times and on several pages within the same site. That makes Google guessing that the site can offer the visitor what (s)he is looking for by using that keyword. Of cause it must be in a "logical" maner, with a relevance to the content so it don't get considered as "SE spamming" :wink:

[JWJ]

Good point, so I image-searched for a picture that is on 2 pages but is not referred to in any text. It showed 9th out of a possible 2250.

So, image ALT tags ARE indexed and, as you suggested, the weighting depends on the number of instances.

I have a page about Northampton that includes paintings that are also shown in one of my galleries. To avoid duplication I had decided to remove the Northampton images from the Gallery page, however, these results are making me think again.

As a secondary issue, I am interested to see that all of these results are with images found on an old site that I have not used for a long time. It has been .htaccess redirected for about 6 weeks. None of the images on my new site are showing up in the searches. I am assuming the new site will get indexed eventually, but since text content is being found, could this also suggest that image tags are given less priority?

[Arne]

As a secondary issue, I am interested to see that all of these results are with images found on an old site that I have not used for a long time. It has been .htaccess redirected for about 6 weeks. None of the images on my new site are showing up in the searches. I am assuming the new site will get indexed eventually, but since text content is being found, could this also suggest that image tags are given less priority?

Assuming you did a correct permanent redirection in the .htaccess file, I still guess the redirection is for your pages (e.g. html files) and not for eatch image?

In that case I guess the SE's find your pages on the new site long before they find the images as "stand alone" hits. But since the pages (and their content) is more important for your visitors (and for SE's) to find, that's ok in my opinion. After all, when they find the pages they also see the images on the new site. If they are only image searching, the images has not disapeared if the old site is still there.

The images at the new site will be found gradually. I'm not sure, but eventually the images on the new site would be found faster if there is no old site left in the SE's data base?

[JWJ]

Yes, I'm not too concerned about this. Because of the permanent redirects, any attempt to view an image found on my old site, brings the visitor to the new site anyway. :)

Let's face it, I don't care where they come from, as long as they come. :lol: