Toggle sidebar

Do image file names make a difference to SEO?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 59730
  • Start date Start date
Sort by date Sort by votes
D

Deleted member 59730

I am preparing images which I want search engines to find. Assume I have all proper IPTC data in the file.

Does the image's file name make a difference? For instance will a file named Stonhenge-123.jpg perform better than 123.jpg?
 
I'll get straight to the point with this one.

1. No - image filenames don't make a massive difference.

2. Yes - It's worth naming them something relevance.

It won't instantly fire you up to the top 10 positions, but little tweaks can make a big difference as your site gets bigger and bigger.

Ideally you want every file on your site to be named something relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted member 59730
Upvote 0
I agree with above.

But don't forget image search.

People look for what they are looking for by images also.
So someone looking to show their children what Stonehenge looks like, may search via image search.
Google has a better understanding of the image if it has a file name and descriptive alt text.

However I never name non important images like menu buttons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldWelshGuy
Upvote 0
OldWelshGuy said:
I am going to disagree with Sam as filename is a big part of the image ranking algorithm. so by all means call your files dsn008679.jpg, and kiss bye bye to your traffic from image search :(
Click to expand...
Does the URL structure make a difference?

Is: mysite.com/products/gnomes/fishing-gnone.jpg
Better than: mysite.com/images/fishing-gnome.jpg
 
Upvote 0
I'm not sure if the URL structure makes a difference, but I imagine it too would play a very small role in Googles algorithm. With the two URLs you posted, I think your image would rank better with the first URL if the user searched for "fishing gnome products", because the URL contains the keyword products.
 
Upvote 0
atmosbob said:
I am preparing images which I want search engines to find.
Does the image's file name make a difference? For instance will a file named Stonhenge-123.jpg perform better than 123.jpg?
Click to expand...

It is important that your image has a file name that is related and this will tell the search engine what is your image is all about then positioning the image in the search results.
 
Upvote 0
They do make a difference, especially if you are trying to rank well in Google image search.
 
Upvote 0
I'm going to disagree that name is important to image search rank.

My experience of managing websites and their hosting and examining where all the bandwidth is getting eaten, its image size. If you want to rank highly just have a 2048x2048 image (and watch you bandwidth get eaten).

Example, number 1 in image search for 'scissor stone' is a file named 1.jpg and doesn't have any alt text but it is 1000x667 and 90% of its 'competition' is about 450x250

Google image search likes high res images
 
Upvote 0
llocally said:
I'm going to disagree that name is important to image search rank.

If you want to rank highly just have a 2048x2048 image (and watch you bandwidth get eaten).

Google image search likes high res images
Click to expand...

Ranking high in image results with this :eek: "2048x2048 image?" I don't think so. :confused:
We must help Google to find our image in the search results and by providing an information like the filename, it will be use as the snippet for the image file, which means the more descriptive the image is the more likely into the image search results. :D
 
Upvote 0
StevePoster said:
Ranking high in image results with this :eek: "2048x2048 image?" I don't think so. :confused:
Click to expand...

You may not think so. But look at the facts, do some research on what actually happens. Look at the random example I gave.

This first came to light when investigating why a Japanese Restaurant website bandwidth usage went sky high.

When I looked at the issue, they had posted a blog post 'merry christmas' and a stock image of a christmas tree. Except they had managed to upload a 4MB image. No alt tags, no title tags, and a random string file name. But is was ranking number 1 for christmas tree world wide in Google images and with all those kids making christmas cards for their mums ... well.

I then tested this by posting small and large images on some of my test sites, and the large images win, hands down.
 
Upvote 0
llocally said:
You may not think so. But look at the facts, do some research on what actually happens. This first came to light when investigating why a Japanese Restaurant website bandwidth usage went sky high. they had posted a blog post 'merry christmas' and a stock image of a christmas tree. No alt tags, no title tags, and a random string file name. But is was ranking number 1 for christmas tree world wide in Google images.
Click to expand...

The reason why this image ranks high in Google results is that the Japanese Restaurant website is well established from the users so the search engine trusted its source like the site's blog post. I'm not surprised if the specific blog post (with no external links) ranks high in searches as well as the image (with no alt tags, title tags) because Google consider home page websites that are well established and trusted by their users.
 
Upvote 0
So I changed the image size to 400x400 px and it dropped right off the Google Image search.

I guess just a coincidence.
 
Upvote 0
Image optimization plays a big role in SEO, although the effects are not as easy to see.

First off, images are probably the biggest portion of your website's size, after videos (if you have any)
Second, images are included in image search engines, including Google. This might not mean much, but it also might mean some relevant traffic to your website.
File name along alt and title attributes help search engines understand your image and rank it accordingly in image search. Also this helps tie the image to the text on the page and help crawlers ascertain your page's topic, which is a big signal for engines to link you to your desired keywords.
 
Upvote 0
llocally said:
I'm going to disagree that name is important to image search rank.

My experience of managing websites and their hosting and examining where all the bandwidth is getting eaten, its image size. If you want to rank highly just have a 2048x2048 image (and watch you bandwidth get eaten).

Example, number 1 in image search for 'scissor stone' is a file named 1.jpg and doesn't have any alt text but it is 1000x667 and 90% of its 'competition' is about 450x250

Google image search likes high res images
Click to expand...


With respect, you are not disagreeing with anything are you. Try this test for yourself (I have as part of SEO testing)

create 2 images, have them identical in every way format, size titles alt img attribute etc, put them up, name one image dfs0001.jpg name the other with a keyword rich filename.

Next once they are indexed do a keyword search and note the order they appear. I guarantee you the KW named domain will be higher,

The point I am making here is that the OP didn't ask 'what elements impact on image ranking in google', they simply asked 'does filename impact on SEO. and the absolute definitive answer is yes. So you weren't disagreeing were you, you were just talking about a different element of image ranking (of which there are a few). oh and you are right depending on the site type google likes larger images in general.

Also having files named properly (and linked) will help on page SEO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Simon.P
Upvote 0
Of course, you are right, in that respect.

What I was saying, is in my experience, image size is more important than file name or alt tag.

I'm sure if you set up an array ( can't be bothered to work out the permutation, but something like 16 ) all identical except big / small , alt tag / no alt tag, good file name / bad file name

Assuming there are zero other images in the test search term (as google likes to mix things)

Then the bigs will be first, the big, with alt , with file name very first ....


The size is very easy to see as important. Do a image search on anything popular,
e.g. cats
the first is 2580 x 1600 second is 512x349

obama
in the first 10, 7 are over 4mb and its not until you get to image 13 that you find an image that I would call web sized (640x480) - and that is on a site with domain authority of 88/100
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Articles

Top Bottom
Back