Ok - so as far back as I can remember, I've been making it a point to give my images specific SEO friendly filenames. It is a well known fact that image file names have an impact on their rankings in the image search, and possibly some effect on the ranking for the page itself.
I only just now noticed, that HubPages CHANGES that file name to some garbage like 43dcie42_ef.jpg
HP Staff - why is this the case?
Why can we not name images as we'd like?
And...consider this a feature suggestion. The only thing it can do is bring targeted traffic.
I vote for that change! My own blog gets traffic just because of image file searches. I try to set image file names which will get picked up because I know this works! Please make this change for HubPages.
But, give people a chance to opt out in the case where the image is one of their own which they do not want to be picked up and taken to be used by someone else 'borrowing' it.
Actually, could we have a feature where we license images if they are our own? This is what keeps me from adding my own images here. I don't want them considered available to anyone and everyone. I usually keep them with a Creative Commons license. So they have at least that much to say the images are not free for the taking.
That's been the case on HubPages for as long as I can remember, and this isn't the first time it's been suggested that we should be able to name our images.
I aim to put keywords in the jpeg file name and write a detailed caption with keywords, as well and do the same with the capsule header. and give the image a source and an url, too.
The important thing is to add a search-friendly caption- we add that as a metatag which still makes the image more likely to show up in Google Image Search results.
That should read "an" important thing. Filenames are important as well. Why is this not an option?
But if you don't want to use a caption (which can upset the layout), you have no other options. Whereas every SEO blogger tells you how vital it is to give a photo a SEO-friendly title and "alt" attribute , neither of which we can do.
I've never used a caption as an image title. It's a work around but why does HP use the current system of renaming the file? There must be a logical reason for the current method?
by Edweirdo6 years ago
I'm pretty new at this, so I can really only gauge my hubs' performance against one another!This one is one of my earliest hubs, yet it has fewer views than ones that I've published just a few days...
by Dorsi Diaz4 years ago
I am doing quite a bit of photography - and am wondering... when putting titles, captions and tags on your photography, what is the best way to use keywords for SEO? Like for example. since I am publishing these photos...
by soulfully3 years ago
First you find an image online you might like to use in an article. Save it to your computer and rename it using keywords. Upload it. Then add an image title and caption. Assuming you use keywords for all of that, would...
by Writer Fox2 years ago
The text inserted as a photo caption ends up being the Alt Tag, too. This is horrible. What it means is that viewers who cannot see the images (due to slow-load, device, or vision handicaps) end up reading...
by ologsinquito2 years ago
Over the last few days, I took Writer Fox's suggestion and began using Alt Tags on some of my photos. (I would have done this sooner, but I focused my efforts elsewhere when there were technical difficulties.) Very...
by Will Apse10 months ago
Picture captions, alt tags and image attribution are a mess on HP.Why not introduce a new capsule solely for captions and attribution, entirely separate from the picture and its alt tag?When a hubber uploads a picture,...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.