Infinite Scrolling: how to index all pictures
-
By assigning a URL to each virtual "page", you allow Google to crawl the images, done correctly. What Google is suggesting is that you then set up rel=prev/next between those pages. This tells them to treat all of the image URLs as a paginated series (like a mutli-page article or search results).
My enterprise SEO friends have mixed feelings about rel=prev/next. The evidence of it's effectiveness is limited, but what it's supposed to do is allowing the individual pages (images, in this case) to rank while not looking like duplicate or near-duplicate content. The other options would be to rel=canonical these virtual pages, but then you'd essentially take the additional images out of ranking contention.
This infinite scroll + pagination approach is VERY technical and the implementation is well beyond Q&A's scope (it would take fairly in-depth knowledge of your site). Honestly, my gut reaction is that the time spent wouldn't be worth the gain. Most users won't know to scroll, and having 10-20 pictures vs. just a few may not add that much value. The SEO impact would be relatively small, I suspect. I think there may be easier solutions that would achieve 90% of your goals with a lot less complexity.
-
thank you very much. The idea was to move a lot of great pictures from a "gallery" to a page I want to rank for. Gallery page serves no purpose but for users to see beautiful pictures and obviously for Google to index a lot of unique pictures. I guess I will leave the gallery as is and simply from the gallery inter-link to the important page.
Implementation on your suggestion can be done (my web developers have already completed, just not implemented), however, it sounds to me, if I read between the lines correctly, that there is a risk Google may screw up on interpretation of such implementation and this could potentially even hurt my site with duplicate content issues…….
-
I don't think the risk of harm, done right, is high, but: (1) it's easy to do wrong, and (2) I suspect the benefits are small at best. I think your time/money is better spent elsewhere.
-
thx. 1 last slight different, but related question: What is your view in placing written content above other content in source code, but on webpage written content displays below other content? In my case: MLS thumb pictures and descriptions (same as other realtors' websites) show on top of page and as users scroll down they see a lot of written unique original content I have. Search engines like written content higher on page, so would it be a good idea to place written content above the MLS data in the source code, though on webpage it will still display below MLS data.
-
That's a trick that used to occasionally work, but there's no evidence for it in the past couple of years. Google has gotten pretty good at understand how pages are rendered and is no longer completely dependent on source-code order. In some cases, they may even view it as manipulative.
-
thx a lot. "Viewing it as manipulative" - it makes sense. I will certainly refrain from doing so.
I keep saying last question, but this should be: moving some written content from Page A to Page B (yet keeping Page A, just less content remaining on Page A) is OK and will after a while be viewing as Page B's original content and Page B will get the SEO credit. This is done without a 301 re-direct, since Page A is still a page with pictures that are original and unique and I want Google to index all those pictures. Just that a bunch of unique written content was moved from Page A to Page B. I have moved written content from about 200 different guide type pages to 200 MLS result pages, as it makes more sense to have it there. Would it be safer to include the 301 re-direct and simply lose the picture indexing to play it safe?
-
That depends on a lot of factors. Consolidating those to one page has advantages, SEO-wise, but you're losing the benefits of the photo page. I lean toward consolidation, but it really depends on how the pages are structured in the navigation, what sort of content and meta-data they have, etc. I'm not clear on what's left on Page A currently, but the biggest issue is probably dilution from the extra pages. Since there are "guide" pages, though, I'm not sure how they fit your site architecture. To remove 200 of them, you may need to also rethink your internal link structure.
-
thx, Pete. Guides are more for users who are curious about pictures and videos - not something I care about ranking for. Ex: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/waikiki-condos-real-estate/
MLS result pages is my life and I moved a lot of written content to MLS result pages to add unique content. Ex: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu/metro/waikiki-condos/ (you will see unique content below map and thumb MLS pictures).
I feel this layout is ideal long-term. I link from guide (as you can see above) to the corresponding MLS result page. Hope this makes sense
-
Yeah, I don't think the picture- and video-heavy pages are going to rank all that well by themselves. It's just a question of whether those additional pages are diluting your MLS listing pages (by using similar regional keywords, etc.).
At the scale of a large site, it's hard to tell without understanding the data, including where your traffic is coming from. If it's producing value (traffic, links, etc.), great. If not, then you may want to revisit whether those pages are worth having and/or can be combined somehow. I don't think "combined" means everything on both pages gets put onto one mega-page - you could pick and choose at that point.
-
Interesting, thx. Can I do following: Add "noindex, follow" to those guide pages? In this way they wont compete w MLS result pages, which they currently do. Issue is all that geeat unique picture and video content wont be indexed by Google.....maybe not a big issue?
-
I generally wouldn't NOINDEX something that's part of your navigation structure, unless it's a deep layer (and you want to cut off anything "below" it). If you're concerned that they don't have search value, I'd consider consolidating somehow, which I thought was the general plan from the original question. I just don't know that you need all of the content or to get too complicated with the consolidation.
-
Thats right. Zero search value. Maybe I can simply change Title tag, H1 etc. Get rid of keyword (ex "Honolulu") a d instead call ("Gallery 1"). In this way I can keep structure without diluting ranking potential for MLS result pages?
-
Hi Pete, I just wanted to confirm, based on what you wrote:
"I don't think the picture- and video-heavy pages are going to rank all that well by themselves. It's just a question of whether those additional pages are diluting your MLS listing pages (by using similar regional keywords, etc.)."I did following:
- Deleted words "Home" and "Condo" from the title tag and H1 so the neighborhood name is still in title tag and H1, but no mention of home, condo, real estate etc.
- all written content has been moved from "guides" (where pictures and videos are) to lower part of MLS result pages and I imagine over a 1-2 month period the MLS result pages will get the SEO credit for this unique written content (despite no 301 redirect)
- I interlink from picture / video pages to MLS result pages with "neighborhood homes for sale"
My hypothesis is that over the next few months as G gets a better idea of my website (as the site gets more popular - still only 5 months old) G will know what to rank for "neighborhood homes for sale" search terms.
Makes sense?
