35
Your image tags must currently look like:
<img src="http://example.com/images/image.jpg">
That http in there means that the image is NOT served securely. An attacker could change the image in transit and thereby change how your otherwise secure page looks to your users.
Instead you could use any of the following to serve the images securely:
Link ...
answered Dec 16 '15 at 16:25
32
You can't prevent it, you can only stop people who don't understand coding.
Generally it is done with Javascript which is easy to disable. Further, it is a trivial matter to take a screenshot of an image.
If you are actually talking about hot linking (displaying images from your server on another site) that can be done via .htaccess.
24
By definition, if a visitor can view an image, it has already been downloaded. That's how a web page works. You can however use a variety of tactics to make it more difficult to do so.
As you've mentioned, using JavaScript to interfere with the normal contextual menu is an option. However, that won't work if the user has disabled JavaScript on their browser.
...
19
Schema.org neither requires nor recommends specific image dimensions. For an ImageObject, you may specify the image’s height and width with the height and width properties.
Consumers of the data would have their own rules, if any at all.
In case of Google Search
tl;dr:
For some Rich Snippets that use the image property, no dimensions are specified.
For ...
17
As the text is part of the logo, I would keep it in the image (saves on trying to match any non-standard fonts and having to position it exactly like it is in the logo) - you can always put it in the alt attribute or use microdata to to enhance your seo:
<div id="main-logo-holder" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Organization">
<meta ...
14
You can indicate to Google which image you'd like used for your property using Schema.org markup. Here's a quick company website example:
<script type="application/ld+json">
{"@context" : "http://schema.org",
"@type" : "Organization",
"name" : "Example Company",
"url" : "https://www.example.org",
"logo": "https://www.example.org/images/my-...
12
The base64 image option should be used where you would only have a very small number of images and you want to eliminate the network overhead of fetching a picture from the server. However from what you are indicating in the question I assume this could scale to a large number of images. In this case I would use a single 1px x 1px transparent image from the ...
12
There is a similar question on Stack Overflow.
What you are seeing is referred to as a data URI scheme but some just call it a base64 encoded image. The main benefit can be page speed but there are various reasons (shown below) as to when it's more appropriate.
According to Wikipedia:
Advantages:
HTTP request and header traffic is not required for embedded ...
11
I've never seen image lazy loading have any negative impact on web search rankings. Improving the perceived performance of your site for users can really help your rankings. When fewer people bounce back to the search results because of performance problems with your site, your rankings will improve.
Google will not be able to index lazy loaded images for ...
answered May 15 '14 at 13:31
11
Browsers download data in parallel and try to start rendering the page as soon as possible.
If you do not specify the size, the browser has no idea how large the image is going to be until after the image download is fully complete.
This delay forces the browser to repaint or reflow the layout - delaying the page load time.
The more images with this ...
10
In fact, you can, but in a little hack way.
As blogger considers the first image in a post as a thumbnail, and you want to add some other image as a thumbnail which should be not included in a post or something like that....follow these steps.
Add the thumbnail image at the top of the post.
Go in 'HTML'(you're in customise tab right now) and locate the ...
10
It is perfectly valid for the alt attribute to be blank, if the images are purely decorational.
Otherwise, if you are outputting the same image over and over then it makes sense that the alt attribute be the same for all of them. There is no negative SEO benefit to that, and your cross/tick images are unlikely to rank in image searches anyway.
One ...
10
First of all, use better alt attributes.
Seriously, "Cross" and "Checkmark" are horrible alt attributes. To see why, try viewing your page in a text-only browser. With your HTML as it is, you'll see something like:
Unregistered Basic Premium
-------------------------------------------------------------------
...
10
Not at all. A's PageRank is not improved. Links to website A (with <a> tag like <a href="http://www.asite.com"></a>) improve PageRank.
Moreover, there is a bad thing for website A because website B uses the bandwidth of website A and thus can slow down the browsing of website A's visitors.
10
Schema.org does not require any properties, so having a BlogPosting without an image property is totally fine. (And, other than omitting the property, there is no way to denote that you don’t have an image.)
(I’d even guess that not providing an image would be the norm, as the image property is not for just any image that is contained in the blog post, but ...
10
No, unless you do a search with the correct license.
When you do an image search, there is an option to select the license.
Go to Images. Enter a search term. You should see a Tools button toward the left side. Click on it. It becomes gray and a set of dropdowns appear toward the right side.
Click on Usage Rights and select your expected usage. "Labeled ...
9
No, you do not need an alt attribute on that meta tag. In fact, it is not even allowed as others have already said.
However, (today) Open Graph specifies and even suggests to provide the image alt text via an og:image:alt property. See http://ogp.me/#structured.
Note that the og:image meta tag is not an image tag, but rather a hint on which image should be ...
9
It is valid but highly not recommended, usually there is a structure you should follow to get the most of the SEO juice avaiable and it is :
For the alternative text you want to show info for the picture, and for title you want to focus on the content the picture associate to.
Example:
If you put an image of a local supermarket, the alt would be "...
9
Google likes company alt attribute
Both Google and Bing understand that a logo will often be repeated throughout in PNG, GIF and JPEG. Simply markup the logo using the alt description to inform search engines that it is LOGO for your business.
A basic example:
<img src="logo.png" alt="Company Name Logo">
A Schema example:
<div itemscope ...
9
One more trick to make it a little harder, which also works with Javascript disabled.
Use CSS to position a transparent element over the image, so that right clicking it does not show the image-related options.
Or, for added confusion, overlay a transparent image on top, so that right clicking downloads the wrong image.
Example: https://www.w3schools.com/...
8
Your example [http://example.com/image.jpg] is correct.
You will need to enable this by setting $wgAllowExternalImages to true in your configuration file. The default is false. Optionally, you can set $wgAllowExternalImagesFrom to allow exceptions while $wgAllowExternalImages remains set to false. You can also use $wgEnableImageWhitelist to allow exceptions ...
8
This feature of Apache is known as "MultiViews" and it is handled by the content negotiation module:
...if /some/dir has MultiViews enabled, and /some/dir/foo does not exist, then the server reads the directory looking for files named foo.*, and effectively fakes up a type map which names all those files, assigning them the same media types and content-...
answered Jan 27 '15 at 14:58
8
There is no use of title for image in terms of SEO. It is only used for providing extra information for that image element.
You can increase the SEO by adding ALT tag to your Images.
7
The good:
You like the way it looks.
It makes it easy to identify your blog (uniqueness).
The bad:
Check the file size. Large images can slow down the site. I'd try to limit it to 150KB.
It ends up being the branding for your website (what makes your website identifiable), but it looks rather generic. You probably want to brand your website more ...
answered Dec 10 '13 at 18:52
7
The intelligence of the blocker is down to whatever extension or software the user is using. Some will simply block adsense, while others may be configured to read a white list, or black list configuration.
Typically a site with its own ad-network shouldn't be a problem unless the site is used by hundreds of thousands of people, then you may have people ...
7
The issue you've cited is because Google is unable to determine which is your main image and that is why, it randomly pics an image on that page to show on the SERP result.
It is also dependent on which search query you've entered and which page (offer details page, offer listing page, seller's store front page etc) is displayed on the search result.
...
7
As I understand it, if your site is 100% SSL (and everything redirects to HTTPS, so there is essentially no plain HTTP) then you only need the og:image tag in which you specify the https://... URL. Although, must admit, this is not particularly clear from the OGP documentation (or Facebook Docs) - which seems to imply (by example) that the og:image URL is ...
6
In general, if a link only contains an image, the alt attribute of that image should not describe the image but the link target.
With image maps, it’s the same.
The alt attribute of the img element should describe the whole image (as the image itself is not linked).
The alt attribute of the area element should describe its purpose (as this image area is ...
6
You can remove the image from the td and just add it to the td instead. In your example you don't actually need the image, it has no content value, or SEO value. Because of that, you can do this:
<td class="center Crossed" title="Cross"></td>
.Cross{
background: url('/images/cross.png') no-repeat center center;
height: 15px;
}
This has ...
6
There is nothing wrong with having duplicate alt tags as its job is to describe the images for screen readers and users who have images disabled. So if you have the images on the page many times then it is likely you will have duplicate alt tags - it is semantically correct.
Saying all that you could however describe your images differently for each one e.g....
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible