Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> __/ [David Dyer-Bennet] on Monday 17 October 2005 01:49 \__
>
> > Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >> I am not entirely sure, but I have enough evidence (based on several
> >> sites) to justify posting it:
> >>
> >> Google Images indices have just been updated, which is rare (updates are
> >> several months apart, used to be 5ish). If your site relies on graphics
> >> for some of its traffic, expect an improvement. Having said that, all
> >> sites expand in terms of graphical content, so if you have not added
> >> anything new, you might lag behind.
> >
> > No change in number of images indexed at the two sites I currently
> > track by numbers, but that may simply mean they haven't chosen to pick
> > up any of the (numerous) images they don't index at those sites.
>
> There is some level of flexibity, but not much:
>
> http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcia.gov+filetype%3Agif&btnG=Search
Amusing (though of course the CIA *intends* that stuff to be public).
<http://images.google.com/images?q=site%3Awww.dd-b.net&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images>
finds only 49 of the images on my site, and doesn't for example index
*any* of the thumbnails or images linked through the thumbnails at
<http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2000/Mostly%20Cats/>.
I've been fighting this for years (and thought I'd made a breakthrough
fairly recently when I first came to this group; doesn't look like it
on further examination).
Just to complicate things, those pages *are* indexed by web google;
just not by image google.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
|
|
