Good morning,
a customer of ours asked us if it was possible to change the image that Google shows next to his site in Google search results.
After several searches, we tried using different techniques all followed by re-indexing the page in order to instantly see the results.
We tried using structured data (both with ld+json and using microdata) and also of the attributes "og:image" and "og:title" in the "meta" tags, but none of these tests changed the image displayed on the right side next to the site in Google results.
We expected that with one of these methods would have changed the image, but nothing happened
Therefore, we wondered whether it was possible to change that image or whether Google chose the best image based on its search parameters.
Thank you for your valuable help,
Best regards
Related
I am trying to select all pictures that do not feature people using the following content filter
{
"filters": {
"contentFilter": {
"excludedContentCategories": [
"PEOPLE",
"SELFIES",
]
}
}
}
However, I am puzzled by the results. The selection includes a lot of photos that feature people. One of the example is passport like picture of a person face front which should unmistakably fall into PEOPLE category to my mind at least. I also realise that categorising pictures is a difficult task and there bound to be some miscategorisation, so I do not expect that picture with people not showing faces, or only occupying small part of the picture might appear. However, the results I am seeing when applying the above filter is so random and not selective that it makes me think that this functionality simply is not working.
Maybe I am doing something wrong? Perhaps someone can suggest a better way of selecting pictures without people on them?
Thank you.
P.S. I am aware that pictures recently uploaded to google might not have been categorised yet. However, I was applying the filter to my photo collection that was uploaded to Google photos about a month prior to my tests. So I would assume that categorisation would have happened by then.
I can confirm that there is currently an issue with the PEOPLE content category. Unfortunately, at the moment this category is somewhat inaccurate and does not correctly include most media items with people or persons. Our apologies!
Based on your report we identified the issue and will be addressing it in the next release of the Google Photos Library API. Thank you for reporting it!
I have filed an issue on the issue tracker here: https://issuetracker.google.com/111143493
(You can "star" the issue to be notified if there are any updates.)
I'm essentially trying to do a reverse image search, i.e. I want to pass in an image and get back a results list of instances on the web where that image is found. I know Google's old API that did this is depreciated, I see some answers on SO (e.g. Google custom search for images only) that talk about doing an image search with Google's Custom Search API, but every time I dig into the code they are retrieving images from a string rather than what I'm trying to do. Is there currently any API that will help me with what I'm trying to do?
I'm sorry. I cannot write comments yet. How about this? https://github.com/tanaikech/goris
Recently, I found this. I don't know whether this is what you want.
I noticed that a website like imgur.com displays ads on each page of the website.
This means each time you press "next" to view another funny picture, AdSense refreshes.
But a website where you can scroll to view more pages(such as 9gag.com),
Ajax handles loading of more funny pictures so it's illegal to refresh Adsense when a user scrolls for more funny pictures.
Does this means 50 users staying on 9gag.com for 3 hours scrolling and viewing 300 funny pictures would help 9gag.com generate revenue equal to ONE imgur.com user that views only 1 picture?
Does this also mean I should stay away from Ajax if I wanted revenue?
This was very confusing for me, please help me understand AdSense better.
Thank you!
WEll the problem with fully scripted ajax loaded content is that Adsense cannot read it. Therefore it has a hard time displaying relevant ads, because most advertisers have chosen to target the visitor location and the keywords on the pages. So if Adsense has no text, then most of the time it's not going to be able to serve an ad.
But I looked at 9gag.com and they are using what I think is the ajax version of Adsense, or perhaps the premium version of Adsense which allows for all sorts of things and is quite different from the core Adsense program in many ways that nobody seems to know about, and few are invited. All the big publishers I suppose.
Anyway, if you do end up clicking on one of the posts on 9gag.com you'll see other ads. Granted that the way that imgr.com has things set up should encourage more content viewing per visitor and thus also some more ad viewing, but I wouldn't say that one necessarily has more traffic overall than the other. There are too many unknown factors to determine that. Not something you can do just with looking at a site. That is where having good analytics of your traffic and visitor behavior comes in.
I have a website made to provide free web-based tools for making indie games. Currently, it only supports artists contributing to games. The features for helping artists consist of a set of artist community tools that allow artists to upload images based on a description, then we post that image in a gallery page. Other artists can upload their images and each image can have several revisions.
The way I chose to implement the image upload and display feature is by serializing uploaded images to a byte array and storing it in the database. When I need to display the image in the UI I just call a controller action I named "GetScaledGalleryImage" and pass in the image ID. That controller action takes the binary from the database and converts it back into an image, returning the requested image back.
This works very well functionally, but the problem I realized later is that the google crawler thinks all of my images are named "GetScaledGalleryImage" so if someone searches for "sylph" on google images, nothing comes up from my site, but if someone searches for site:watermintstudios.com getscaledgalleryimage, all of my images come up.
Here is an example of the URL that is being output in my HTML http://watermintstudios.com/EarnAMint/GetScaledMedia/68?scale=128
In the past, pre-MVC I would handle 404 errors and return content based on what was requested even if the page didn't actually exist. This would of course allow me to have the images pulled back by the image name (or description).
Is that the best way to do this? Or is there a better option? Something simpler would be better like if I could just do http://watermintstudios.com/EarnAMint/GetScaledMedia/Iris%20Doll?id=68&scale=128, but based on how google indexes images, would that give me what I need? Or do I need to provide image file extensions for maximum indexability?
Thanks all
It is important when doing Search Engine Optimization to always use alt="this is a crazy robot" for your images. This will help the crawler identify them. Note: always use alt, don't always name your images this is a crazy robot.
I know that search engines base part of the calculation of rankings on how many other sites point to a specific site, so I was just wondering, given the following situation:
http://siteA/page.aspx contains an iFrame.
This iFrame points to http://siteB/script.aspx?url=http://siteA/page.aspx.
http://siteB/script.aspx generates a list of 1 or more links based on the supplied URL.
http://siteA/page.aspx therefore displays a list of links.
1) Where would Google etc consider links to be based?
2) If it would consider the links to be based at siteB, is there another technique I could use to force search engines to read the links as being based at siteA? For example ajax.
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
Richard
First of all, if you're looking to build a link farm Google will block you faster than you can blink. I would seriously reconsider using iframes to links as in the situation you've described you've no reason to load another page on your first.
To answer your question, iframes load a page on another, so naturally Google will view them as separate entities.
ok think I may have the answer - http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=44155&st=0&gopid=312999&#entry312999