Author Topic: 5 word minimum (Read 10246 times)

unnonimus · « **Reply #25 on:** May 19, 2019, 11:41 »

Quote from: ODesigns on May 03, 2019, 15:58

Good idea. Descriptions are used in searches, and adding relevant words in your descriptive sentence(s) gives you additional keywords if you hit the max of 50.

Plus, descriptions get placed in the page's title, which is good for search engine indexing.

I hardly think this new minimum should cause anyone any grief.

increasing the length of a title increases the length of the URL which is then penalized by search engines. this will have the opposite result of what was intended.

having more keywords reduces your keyword density which is also penalized by most search engines

minimum word length = bad idea

Tenebroso · « **Reply #26 on:** May 19, 2019, 20:38 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 19, 2019, 11:41

increasing the length of a title increases the length of the URL which is then penalized by search engines. this will have the opposite result of what was intended.

having more keywords reduces your keyword density which is also penalized by most search engines

minimum word length = bad idea

The search engines have a line of valuing the webs. But they are open to indexing anything that skips their values, if the public accesses a website. That is, the engines distinguish that certain errors can be corrected as slow access, or errors in the load. But they will always offer the user what they are looking for, even knowing that they are out of the correct line of optimal web. If the user mass visits a web, that we will always be available and in the first places of indexing, simply by the constant traffic, in spite of not respecting any of the scales of the optimal score of the search engines. Everything that links to the webs, everything that moves on the websites of stock files, will always be indexed with the highest priority, as requested by a large number of visitors, by years of constant presence and by the large number of files and links that leave the web and the link to the web.

Tenebroso · « **Reply #27 on:** May 19, 2019, 20:45 »

Another thing and a separate issue is, the engines loved Fotolia, and with Adobe they get worse. Well, surely yes.

marthamarks · « **Reply #28 on:** May 19, 2019, 20:59 »

Quote from: Tenebroso on May 19, 2019, 20:45

Another thing and a separate issue is, the engines loved Fotolia, and with Adobe they get worse. Well, surely yes.

Can you explain why "with Adobe they get worse"? I don't understand why.

Thanks.

Tenebroso · « **Reply #29 on:** May 19, 2019, 21:41 »

Quote from: marthamarks on May 19, 2019, 20:59

Can you explain why "with Adobe they get worse"? I don't understand why.

Thanks.

Yes. Being an opinion based on searches of similar images, of similar images. Similar images of Fotolia appear before Adobe. For example. But of course, it is about my experience, and based on concrete images sought by me, and in a specific sector and under my perception.

Therefore, it is likely that there is a possibility that certain search engines will more easily index images of Fotolia than of adobe, with the same image in the two agencies. It can be a coincidence, a perception of mine. In addition, you can influence the rejection and boycott of google to PDF files and Flash files.

Therefore, I said, surely. I am not in a position to affirm anything. There are shades of gray in my comments. They are not black and white. It may be that search engines are very comfortable accessing files stored on Fotolia and less comfortable accessing files stored in Adobe. It is a possible observation, without any reliable statistics.

Maybe, if you look for similar images, before you see the similar images, same photograph, in Adobe that the same image stored in Fotolia and you show me that I was wrong in my perception.

However, indexing deals with more topics than a search for similar images.

Each web gives access to the robots following some guidelines. There are metadata robots and other types of robots. Programmers give access to certain parts and eliminate or deny others.

Is there a possibility that the search engines find more comfortable Fotolia images and like something less Adobe? I would say, yes.

marthamarks · « **Reply #30 on:** May 19, 2019, 23:52 »

Quote from: Tenebroso on May 19, 2019, 21:41

Quote from: marthamarks on May 19, 2019, 20:59

Can you explain why "with Adobe they get worse"? I don't understand why.

Thanks.

Yes. Being an opinion based on searches of similar images, of similar images. Similar images of Fotolia appear before Adobe. For example. But of course, it is about my experience, and based on concrete images sought by me, and in a specific sector and under my perception.

Therefore, it is likely that there is a possibility that certain search engines will more easily index images of Fotolia than of adobe, with the same image in the two agencies. It can be a coincidence, a perception of mine. In addition, you can influence the rejection and boycott of google to PDF files and Flash files.

Therefore, I said, surely. I am not in a position to affirm anything. There are shades of gray in my comments. They are not black and white. It may be that search engines are very comfortable accessing files stored on Fotolia and less comfortable accessing files stored in Adobe. It is a possible observation, without any reliable statistics.

Maybe, if you look for similar images, before you see the similar images, same photograph, in Adobe that the same image stored in Fotolia and you show me that I was wrong in my perception.

However, indexing deals with more topics than a search for similar images.

Each web gives access to the robots following some guidelines. There are metadata robots and other types of robots. Programmers give access to certain parts and eliminate or deny others.

Is there a possibility that the search engines find more comfortable Fotolia images and like something less Adobe? I would say, yes.

OK. I do appreciate that. Thanks again!

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #31 on:** June 19, 2019, 15:50 »

Quote from: unnonimus on May 02, 2019, 23:47

shutterstock now requires 5 word minimum for all descriptions?

dumb idea

You can't come up with 5 words to describe your photos. Don't you want them found, SS uses the description for search, and that's what Google uses to find matches. SS is trying to make your pictures found and you are against that?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 5 word minimum (Read 10246 times)

unnonimus

Tenebroso

Tenebroso

marthamarks

Tenebroso

marthamarks

YadaYadaYada

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors