Timeline for Lazy loading images and effects on SEO
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 29, 2017 at 10:34 | comment | added | Stephen Ostermiller♦ | That is still the case, but you can still link to your images to get them indexed. | |
| Dec 29, 2017 at 6:37 | comment | added | I am the Most Stupid Person | Is this answer valid for 2017 also? Specially "Google will not be able to index lazy loaded images for image search. " part? So even we have 10 images in the post, Google think we have no images? | |
| Oct 8, 2014 at 14:58 | comment | added | dhaupin |
Using your tactic, you can try an <a> wrapper if your images are already surrounded by a link for products or something: <a href="/img_large/foo.jpg"><a href="www.example.com/page"><img data-lazy-load="/img_thumb/foo.jpg" src="/img/1x1_transparent.gif" /></a></a> The inner link takes the UI click, whereas the outer should still work for bots indexing images.
|
|
| Oct 8, 2014 at 13:12 | history | edited | Stephen Ostermiller♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| May 21, 2014 at 8:31 | comment | added | John Mueller | I wouldn't rely on "noscript" -- we see a lot of spam trying to use it, so we're not always confident enough to trust content placed there. I like the idea of using links to the images. In general, if an image is one of the primary elements on a page, I'd still tend towards just embedding it naturally (at least one version of it, if you're using different sizes) so that you're sure it's indexed normally. We're working on a better story for this, but I don't see it changing today or tomorrow. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 7:26 | vote | accept | bmenekl | ||
| May 15, 2014 at 13:31 | history | answered | Stephen Ostermiller♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |