They are searching for your products directly by their images, rather than searching words.
It means you have your site set up right!
It`s not the image name, it`s the alt tag.
Vincent ... I`m curious to know what the referrer is. In the string, it should say what they are looking for. I`m just wondering because I tried several of your tags and can`t find you in the searches, so what images are popping up? That is an unusual discrepancy.
That`s good to know! But my problem isn`t so much getting
indexed...that only demonstrated the problem. Instead, it`s the number
of times I`m finding a great image to use, but it doesn`t exist. The
thumbnail does, in Google`s database, but the underlying image has gone
away and Google is too stupid to know.
Vincent, another really weird thing, related. Kathy`s done a couple of
searches on signal flag banners on Images and found results that point
to her eBay ads. The thing is, they`re ads that expired months and
eBay doesn`t (I think?) allow Google bots to crawl their auctions
unless they`re in a store. That`s fair enough, but then how come those
dead and buried ads show up under both Images and regular search
results? Nobody knows. :-D Is it helpful? No....EXCEPT that those ads
now include a link to a live, online brochure.
I was speaking to Buddah about this, the other day. From his
perspective, along with the other gods and demigods, they`re using it
as a new Gameboy theme. For eons they`ve had that game, "Why do bad
things happen to good people?" It`s still a big seller, but the newest
hot item in Valhalla is, "How do search engine results correlate to
The first one came from a search of "flower decor".
The second from "artisans in Egypt" but it looks like it`s a foreign language?
I`m just reading the URL ... I didn`t click on them.
I went to your site, and your alt tags are working for them. I don`t know why you don`t think they are titled properly. What title are you referring to? I see the actual name in all the alt tags.
Hmm...I wonder if Google is getting more sophisticated now, and
indexing page text to the found images? In that case, "surrounding"
text would then be "captured" as something like a keyword field in the
That might explain how this is working. If that`s the case, it really
makes an argument for non-Flash sites, and perhaps even associating
content with images by how close that text is to the image on a page?
Just speculating at the moment.