Quote:
|
My only disagreement is with people that post so called "facts" about Google when they could not possibly know the facts they are expounding, as they do not work for Google, and/or of no evidence to support that 'fact'
|
DangerDave, I don't believe anything I read no matter who said it unless I see some kind of proof, even if he/she works for Google. That said, in this thread I made an attempt to qualify what I wrote with "I heard it on the grapevine." In other words, I'm not speaking from experience, so its not something I can confirm.
Quote:
My point is that specific naming of individual images is unlikely to make any major difference to search results for the web or for images.
.. and there are many people that would offer the opinion that naming all your images for specific keyword on a page, could/would be 'over optimising' or 'spammy' in Googles eyes.
|
I advised scott not to rename his images and that URLs "doesn't really matter" because I also believe the amount of work people spend on on-page voodoo isn't worth inching up a couple of spots on page 10.
Still, I believe on-page optimization is more effective when ranking in Google Images than in the main index, simply becaue there are less ranking factors involved. For example, Google Images ignores anchor text. If Google doesn't use linkage data to figure out what images on a page are about, then it must rely more on on-page factors (i.e. keywords in h1, title, ALT, few words above/below an image, keywords in image url). That by itself should give much more weight to tweaks that usually have minimal effect when ranking in the main index.
The rest of what you wrote I completely agree with.