-
Welcome to the Chevereto User Community!
Here, users from all over the world come together to learn, share, and collaborate on everything related to Chevereto. It's a place to exchange ideas, ask questions, and help improve the software.
Please keep in mind:
- This community is user-driven. Always be polite and respectful to others.
- Support development by purchasing a Chevereto license, which also gives you priority support.
- Go further by joining the Community Subscription for even faster response times and to help sustain this space
Google Index
- Thread starter Barry
- Start date
Oakley
💖 Chevereto Fan
Google openly admit that they don't always index all pages on websites.
By their own admission they don't do it:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/34441?hl=en
By their own admission they don't do it:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/34441?hl=en
Barry
💖 Chevereto Fan
Interesting! Thanks for this! Guess I learned something new today
Barry
💖 Chevereto Fan
Thanks for the kind words
M
magvai
Guest
Usually why Google not index all pages is poor content and duplicate content. For indexing pages on Google you must have good script which is prepared for SEO. Honestly this Chevereto script is not good for SEO,because usually title is rubbish and not have sense,and can be duplicate if someone submit same title. Script have great functions but,developer nothing do with SEO for this script.
Btw if you change every image with unique title then will be indexed,otherwise script is not good for Seo at all.
Revenue from click on ads you can only have when link is shared on other site,and that click is very low because not come from search engines
Btw if you change every image with unique title then will be indexed,otherwise script is not good for Seo at all.
Revenue from click on ads you can only have when link is shared on other site,and that click is very low because not come from search engines
http://imgur.com/a/qfnze
http://imgur.com/a/5ur96
Based on your argument then imgur sucks at SEO. They can handle 250M visits per month but they have same titles everywhere. So either SEO is not relevant to this business or you are wrong. I respectfully think that the second option is most likely.
I've already addressed your concerns when you used another account to ask about this same title stuff. There's no need to create another account to post about this stuff. As a matter of fact, I take it as an insult because you created a new account only to shake waters.
M
magvai
Guest
Sorry if you think like that for my post. I not shake waters at all,i just say how this scenario work. You know how Google is strict about SEO. And please do not compare Imgur with 250 million users and our sites. He is the first thing on internet for images,and who knows which campaign he has with Google and how he promote his site from 2009.
I not push you to you make seo firendly urls for search engines,you are developer and that is your project,i can't mess in that stuff. But i just say that script is not good for seo,that's all. The best script on internet till now is imagetize script with amazing SEO urls,but that script not have support anymore which is sad.
In other way your script with those functions is the best on the net number 1, but like i said not good for SEO and not good for CPC from Google. Thanks
I not push you to you make seo firendly urls for search engines,you are developer and that is your project,i can't mess in that stuff. But i just say that script is not good for seo,that's all. The best script on internet till now is imagetize script with amazing SEO urls,but that script not have support anymore which is sad.
In other way your script with those functions is the best on the net number 1, but like i said not good for SEO and not good for CPC from Google. Thanks
You have to consider the limitations in SEO praxis. There are optimizations that you can't get just because of the type of your website, in this case ask each upload with unique title will doom your website, no one will enjoy that upload experience. For Chevereto, you can get thousands of new URLs each day so you can't ask users to provide unique titles. The alternative is to append some string (even actually relevant info) but your website could get penalized because the algorithm may think that you want to sneak content.
There's no way to improve on duplicate titles without losing content or risking a penalty. Which sounds worse? Is like pick between natural dead or get in jail.
I'm always up to add anything that could make Chevereto better, but for this one I won't mind because I won't require unique titles and I don't want to risk a penalty and surely I won't expose Chevereto users to that.
By the way, maybe imagetize got better SEO or fits better the kind of website you want to run, but learn that to run an user-generated content website alive you need users and every annoying stuff that you add will make them look somewhere else. Chevereto dominates this stuff because I focus on the user experience and I build the system around that.
There's no way to improve on duplicate titles without losing content or risking a penalty. Which sounds worse? Is like pick between natural dead or get in jail.
I'm always up to add anything that could make Chevereto better, but for this one I won't mind because I won't require unique titles and I don't want to risk a penalty and surely I won't expose Chevereto users to that.
By the way, maybe imagetize got better SEO or fits better the kind of website you want to run, but learn that to run an user-generated content website alive you need users and every annoying stuff that you add will make them look somewhere else. Chevereto dominates this stuff because I focus on the user experience and I build the system around that.
M
magvai
Guest
Ok then you said that site:tinypic.com which have about 160,000 indexed pages, but i think he have more. That is not good for SEO? As you can see tinypic.com is based on tags and that will bring he in good position in SERPS and will high climb in particular keywords around the net. More SEO friendly indexed pages your site become more popular and on first place that is targeted traffic from search engines which Google like,and where cpc is more higher.
P.S. You can still use imagetize but now is question how long more,because developer not giving support and one first place lot of image hosting scripts users can use for free with better functions like Chevereto,but they not realize that Chevereto is not good for SEO.
P.S. You can still use imagetize but now is question how long more,because developer not giving support and one first place lot of image hosting scripts users can use for free with better functions like Chevereto,but they not realize that Chevereto is not good for SEO.
M
magvai
Guest
Just to remind you i said that your script is number 1 with functions, but not good in SEO which will not make more adsense revenue and more clicks from search engines. Will make only clicks from shared links on the sites but that click is very very low in revenue.
You have to put things in context, is quite easy to talk about SEO improvements if we skip the user experience. For the user, you making money via ads is not relevant so provide better content description requires another incentive, making it mandatory won't help. Things like gamification or rewards are more relevant here to get those boxes filled, force the user isn't a good idea.
CPC is low because the content generated by the users is poor and that won't improve with unique titles. If you want to get better content you will have to get better titles and longer descriptions, this requirement won't appeal to most of the users. Not if is just a mandatory field to fill.
The system and revenue must adapt to what users does, not the opposite. Maybe in your case you need posts or stories rather than plain image hosting, in any case, I will appreciate if you take this conversation into an actual constructive discussion. Just demand for a feature arguing that some dead script have it won't appeal that much.
Also, you keep saying that the script is bad at SEO. It will help a lot if you tell me which are the other SEO pitfalls.
CPC is low because the content generated by the users is poor and that won't improve with unique titles. If you want to get better content you will have to get better titles and longer descriptions, this requirement won't appeal to most of the users. Not if is just a mandatory field to fill.
The system and revenue must adapt to what users does, not the opposite. Maybe in your case you need posts or stories rather than plain image hosting, in any case, I will appreciate if you take this conversation into an actual constructive discussion. Just demand for a feature arguing that some dead script have it won't appeal that much.
Also, you keep saying that the script is bad at SEO. It will help a lot if you tell me which are the other SEO pitfalls.
I've made a little research and this is what some websites do:
500px
<Image title> by <User name> - Photo <id> / <Sitename>
(Interesting stuff is that this title is generated only when you access directly. If you access via internal listings they use <Image title> / <Sitename>).
If you search for "Sunset above the Wadden Sea" you will notice that 500px doesn't appear in results. Even if you "search for "Sunset above the Wadden Sea 500px" or "Sunset above the Wadden Sea by Marcel Otto" you won't get that page result. That's odd isn't? It seems that Google missed that from indexing even with that title which of course isn't duplicated. Check this link, it has a similar title but the content is different. Still, Google isn't displaying results for that one either.
Flickr
<Image title> | <User name> | <Sitename>
If you search for "El Gato Saiko" you will find that it appears on the second page of results. That's better than nothing, so maybe that title is better? Actually, the result is another image with the same name and from the same user. Google just indexed one of them and skipped the "dupe".
Imgur
<Image title> - Album on <Sitename>
If you search for "Same title - Album on Imgur" you will notice that there are no results. I uploaded that image like one month ago and is not indexed, so Google picks whatever something worths be indexed or not based on content quality, that one has zero quality so it gets zero index.
All of these are losing index and probably you will say that those are top sites, that they can handle missing links, etc. Well, Google does the same for everybody. It values content, not titles. At the end, Google picks what to index or not and if an image is sitting alone without a description it won't even mind in index most of those.
Most important here, is that Google detects when the content has bad quality and that won't improve with unique titles.
500px
<Image title> by <User name> - Photo <id> / <Sitename>
(Interesting stuff is that this title is generated only when you access directly. If you access via internal listings they use <Image title> / <Sitename>).
If you search for "Sunset above the Wadden Sea" you will notice that 500px doesn't appear in results. Even if you "search for "Sunset above the Wadden Sea 500px" or "Sunset above the Wadden Sea by Marcel Otto" you won't get that page result. That's odd isn't? It seems that Google missed that from indexing even with that title which of course isn't duplicated. Check this link, it has a similar title but the content is different. Still, Google isn't displaying results for that one either.
Flickr
<Image title> | <User name> | <Sitename>
If you search for "El Gato Saiko" you will find that it appears on the second page of results. That's better than nothing, so maybe that title is better? Actually, the result is another image with the same name and from the same user. Google just indexed one of them and skipped the "dupe".
Imgur
<Image title> - Album on <Sitename>
If you search for "Same title - Album on Imgur" you will notice that there are no results. I uploaded that image like one month ago and is not indexed, so Google picks whatever something worths be indexed or not based on content quality, that one has zero quality so it gets zero index.
All of these are losing index and probably you will say that those are top sites, that they can handle missing links, etc. Well, Google does the same for everybody. It values content, not titles. At the end, Google picks what to index or not and if an image is sitting alone without a description it won't even mind in index most of those.
Most important here, is that Google detects when the content has bad quality and that won't improve with unique titles.