I have handler, which have URL like this /imgrs.axd?w=300&file=2ce5a421-d71a-4dba-9d54-3103058e15b2.jpg, where

  • w is width for image
  • file is filename

Server's answer:

Cache-Control   public
Content-Length  9788
Content-Type    image/jpeg
Date    Sun, 05 Jan 2014 10:24:41 GMT
Expires Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:24:42 GMT
Server  Microsoft-IIS/7.5
X-AspNet-Version    4.0.30319
X-Powered-By    ASP.NET

But Google doesn't want to append these images in its index base. How can I improve accessibility these images for Google?

  • how long have has it been on these images? and are they unique? – Simon Hayter Jan 5 '14 at 10:59
  • 1
    Presumably this is not blocked by robots.txt? Perhaps a Content-Disposition header would help, that identifies the expected filename? – MrWhite Jan 5 '14 at 11:16
  • Where are you using these images? The pages the images are in have to be crawlable and have enough Pagerank. – Stephen Ostermiller Jan 5 '14 at 11:25
  • They is unique. I used these images 2-3 mounths in the main page and many other pages. – Konstantin Jan 5 '14 at 11:34
  • 1
    care to share the URL please? – Simon Hayter Jan 5 '14 at 21:35

When having using server side resizing I would recommend that you either create a URL rewrite or (since your are on the .NET platform) use a HTTP module (System.Web.IHttpModule) that handles image request.

The basic idea is that you can have your URLs like this in your HTML /2ce5a421-d71a-4dba-9d54-3103058e15b2.jpg?w=300, but actually serve a URL like this: imgrs.axd?w=300&file=2ce5a421-d71a-4dba-9d54-3103058e15b2.jpg

But for that to have decent effect on SEO, you should name your files to something meaningful - i.e. sunny_beach.jpg instead of 2ce5a421-d71a-4dba-9d54-3103058e15b2.jpg.

| improve this answer | |
  • Although it's not obvious in the question (there is a link in the comments), the URL mentioned would seem to be the served (rewritten ) URL, not the URL as it appears in the HTML document. The HTML already appears to contain more "regular-looking" image URLs of the form: /images/flat/800/f8b8b408-45d6-4bfe-87e1-d44e25a05728.jpg (although not descriptive, like you say.) – MrWhite Jan 16 '14 at 0:25

Looking at your site, I think your ranking issues have more to do with your watermarks than your URLs. Google likes to rank "high quality images". This generally means large, full color, clean images.

You have watermarks all over your images. This is detectable by the Google algorithms and makes it much less likely for your images to show up in image search.

| improve this answer | |
  • You are saying that watermarked images are detectable by Google algorithms but in this googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.in/2009/11/… post. Peter Linsley ( Product Manager of Image Search ) said that "The presence of a watermark doesn't itself cause an image to be ranked higher or lower. ". – Sathiya Kumar Jan 10 '14 at 11:47
  • 1
    Google detects quality via both algorithms and user feedback. Your link seems to indicate that they don't have a specific watermank algorithm but that the usability signals of in your face watermarks can be used by Google to lower rankings. – Stephen Ostermiller Jan 10 '14 at 11:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.