[ Home / About / Contact / WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]

/seo/ - SEO Techniques

Search results performance, rankings & competition
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1790833895394.jpg (246.54 KB, 1024x1024, img_1790833888759_7xf9cjhh.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

c8e3a No.2184

been looking at my client's image tab lately and it's weirdly depressing. most of their product shots have zero descriptive value in the alt tags. i've been testing something small this week. i'm taking three high-traffic pages and rewriting every single alt tag to be a literal description of the visual instead of just keyword stuffing.
>alt="blue running shoe with white laces"
it's not about being clever or using "best sneakers" everywhere. it's just about describing what's actually in the frame. i'm tracking the impressions in search console for those specific images separately from the organic web results. so far, the visibility is creeping up on the descriptive ones while the old stuff stays flat. obviously probably doesn't matter for everyone but worth a shot if your assets are all messily named. anyone else actually bother with descriptive alt text or do you just let it stay default?

c8e3a No.2194

File: 1790956886571.jpg (111.59 KB, 1024x1024, img_1790956871745_mqkk6rk1.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2184
the impressions bump is real, but don't forget that file names still matter just as much for the crawler.

c8e3a No.2220

File: 1791416176036.jpg (171.88 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791416161159_66tew4t6.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2184
>>2194 file names are usually a disaster anyway. most of my clients just have stuff named IMG_5829.jpg which is useless.



[Return] [Go to top] Catalog [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home / About / Contact / WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]