40 replies to this topic

[Drew-z]

quantifying it may be another matter.
You may have to consider the up to a hundred ranking factors that G is supposed to use ;-)

I am not really following? I didn't mean that one of us could quantify this but rather G has numerous patents for forumlas that quantify variables such as link reputation to use within an algorithm. I just tried to offer some seemingly obvious variables they presumably use.

The so-called evidence that first made me aware of the value of alt tags from linked images came from this G backlink checker I use often. It gives the link text from all links Google has on file for any given site.

Remove the alt, and it removes the link text.

The tool takes a while if you have dozens of links on file, but works fast if you have only a few so beware.

(This is not a G product and is only as good as the person who created it).

The other evidence in this thread seems pretty solid as well.

[glengara]

I meant the whole " link reputation" thing.
If the linking pages PR can be part of the equation, then what about the page content, theme etc, etc.
You could have to apply all the page ranking factors in determining the "reputation" of a single link.
<added> Will play with that tool over the W/E ;-)

[Drew-z]

I meant the whole " link reputation" thing. If the linking pages PR can be part of the equation,  then what about the page content, theme etc, etc.  You could have to apply all the page ranking factors in determining the "reputation" of a single link.

Exactly. That's what I meant by:

I am confident the reputation of a link is based on numerous factors such as page rank, # of links on the referring page, resemblence of the linking page to the linked page, etc.

The point being this is presumably a very complex formula that evolves frequently with the attributes mentioned plus others. The objective being if a very reputable site links to you and only you on a page that is much more of a qualification of a "reputable" site than a link from a page with 40 unrelated links (e.g., a links page).

This is a very astute variable G has developed to hone quality listings. You simply can't fake it because no one is willing to comprimise their reputation for something of little value.

[Jill]

I've got a little bit more news regarding my test. It's somewhat interesting and perhaps surprising, perhaps not.

The first thing I tested, which I mentioned earlier, was an image link with an alt attribute tag that pointed to another page. The page it points to is not yet indexed.

But get this, a few days later, on the same page that I put the image link, I also put a text link to another page. THAT landing page did get indexed already, before the first one!

Does this mean that Google is more apt to index a text link before an image link?

Maybe, maybe not. One thing that maybe blocking the image link from being indexed is that I used a pretty small graphic. In fact, it's the lightbulb smilie from this forum.

So, what this really might be telling us is that Google is slow to (or won't) index links that are wrapped around small graphics. I'll have to keep my eye on whether they eventually do index the page referenced in the graphic.

Next test would probably be to use a large graphic and point to a different page and see if that one gets indexed more quickly.

At any rate, from my text link I found out that Google doesn't appear to index the link title attribute, as neither the landing page, nor the page it's on is currently showing up for my keyword.

BUT...my landing page has a graphic on it, and I put an alt attribute on there and I'm also not seeing that page show up for the keywords in that alt.

Now that wouldn't surprise me much, except that I was able to find my other page through just the alt attribute. I'm guessing this could be because the page is new and not referenced anywhere else. My main test page is referenced elsewhere and Google visits it quite often.

Hard to come to conclusions when there are so many factors at play, but it's fun and interesting nonetheless!

Jill

[glengara]

Interesting, I can see why G might ignore very small gifs, but I'd have thought the size of that lightbulb would have passed muster.

[Scottie]

hmnn... I'm with glengara. I don't see that the size of the image should have any effect on whether or not Googlebot follows it, as long as it's bigger than 1x1.

Did you specify the height and width in the img attribute? Without that, Google wouldn't know how big it was. Try removing that.

Very interesting!

[Jill]

Nope, I don't believe I specified height and width. So it could just be a coincidence.

It could very well be that they prefer to index text links over image links. I'll keep my eyes peeled to see if/when they do index the page referenced by the image link.

J

[Jill]

I just thought of another factor that might be at play.

The page linked from the lightbulb gif has no Title tag. I gave the other page a Title tag. So it's possible that that has something to do with it to.

As you can see, I'm not all that experienced in creating a controlled environment. I probably should have made those other variables equal in order to understand what G is actually doing.

I could add another gif link to a page WITH a title tag and see if that makes a dif!

Jill

[Jill]

Chris, I think I'm blind this morning. I don't see the gif, alt text, or link to the scienceblog page on that weblogs page.

[Jill]

<a href="http://127.0.0.1:533...ty/backend.php" title="Click to subscribe to &quot;Science Blog&quot; in Radio UserLand."><img src="http://static.userla...lCoffeeMug.gif" width="10" height="10" border="0" valign="middle" alt="miniXmlCoffeeMug.gif" /></a>

Okay, I found the above code, but the link is redirected one, it appears. So couldn't this affect the test?

Plus, perhaps Google is smart enough to know now to index an alt tag that has .gif in it's name.

Just a thought.

Got any other real life examples that might be simpler? Just plain old links, plain old images, and a plain old alt tag?

This is why I like to create my own test page! It's faster than finding a good example!

Jill

[Jill]

That actually makes more sense, because I've seen the alt tag count numerous times in the past. It would really surprise me for them to discount it altogether for clickable links. But Google is always full of surprises, so you never know!

Thanks for the example, Chris!



J