X3Photo Gallery Forums

anytime732 wrote:is anybody out there..............

I don't think anything out there will properly (entirely) map a flash site.

Until recently flash sites could not be crawled at all. Google has only recently begun to read text links within flash content, but they don't appear to map individual "pages" within flash. That's on Google though, not imagevue.

Google also appears to miss individual image pages within the HTML side of imagevue. Karl (mauj mauj) has recently said (in another thread) there is no reason the image pages shouldn't be indexed and doesn't know why they aren't (I'm paraphrasing).

I personally am proceeding with the knowledge that all folders on the HTML side are being indexed by search engines. If I want to get search results for a subject, I create an archived gallery (not on the menu) named accordingly with related content.

I hear what your saying. The subject has come up here often (and I'm often the one raising it).

I've tried many mapping programs and so far nothing seems to map flash properly (imagevue or otherwise). To date nothing apears to find the deep linked image, folder, or text URL's within flash.

My thought for x2 (given my limited knowledge of it's "mechanics") was to create one master .php page listing all folder, text page, and image URLs with thumbs and meta data deep linking to each respective URL within flash. Users could have the option of including thumbs or any meta data field for each URL in the listings.

Although not a proper mapping solution for search engines, I think it would be helpful as a general public map/listing.

Hopefully mauj mauj and pain will give the subject some more thought after launching the new x2 site -:)

And i think the key here, IMHO, would be to have a .php generated "sitemap" for users with limited meta data (thumbs only (optional), no large images) and that the URL's would deep link directly into flash.

The current HTML image pages are not being found by search engines anyway. My vote would be to use the same mechanics used to generate the HTML / .php pages and turn it into a simpler listing to feed the flash.

And because there would be no large images on this page, the images would be a little less vulnerable to theft.

Optimally this sitemap / .php page would be optional, just as the current HTML pages are optional.

Sorry for the late reply -

We could build a sitemap, but this would really only be a simplified version of what the HTML gallery already does. The HTML gallery already represents a basic structure of the structure inside the gallery.

We could build a simplistic sitemap which simply would be a single-page structural overview of folders/pages and images inside the imagevue gallery structure, with links. There is however no logic why google would handle this better than the HTML option. But maybe it does somehow?

It also has to be mentioned, building HTML sitemap structures may not provide the desired results in the search engine. For one, search engines will point to the HTML version of the folder or file being searched for. Some users may not appreciate this.

I think we will build a pure text/links sitemap for a forthcoming release, and see how it comes out ... It will simply be a structural representation of the folders and files, with links to separate items.

Any further suggestions? You mentioned something about XML?

Are we speaking about Google's SITEMAP.XML or Just some sitemap page?

HTML gallery could serve as a sitemap of sort. It has:

1. Same content pictures, titles, descriptions you have in SWF gallery,
2. Has a link from each page to the corresponding SWF image/folder.
3. Indexable and browsable.

mjau-mjau wrote:Sorry for the late reply -

We could build a sitemap, but this would really only be a simplified version of what the HTML gallery already does. The HTML gallery already represents a basic structure of the structure inside the gallery.

We could build a simplistic sitemap which simply would be a single-page structural overview of folders/pages and images inside the imagevue gallery structure, with links. There is however no logic why google would handle this better than the HTML option. But maybe it does somehow?

It also has to be mentioned, building HTML sitemap structures may not provide the desired results in the search engine. For one, search engines will point to the HTML version of the folder or file being searched for. Some users may not appreciate this.

I think we will build a pure text/links sitemap for a forthcoming release, and see how it comes out ... It will simply be a structural representation of the folders and files, with links to separate items.

Any further suggestions? You mentioned something about XML?

I initially liked the HTML pages as a way of getting google hits, thinking it worth leaving the images out in the open and freely accessible as a decent trade for the possiblilty of the extra traffic. When we first began discussing "V2", Google was not spidering flash at all.

Now that we see Google is not indexing the HTML image pages, and therefor not gathering image specific info, I'd rather not just leave the images hanging out in the open that way.

That's why I thought a 1 page HTML "sitemap" with folders, pages, and image thumbs with metadata (but no full sized images) might be a nice option.

Just my thoughts. If you think that will be detrimental to indexing by search engines, then so be it. I will digress to those who know more about these things than myself -;)

X2 is the best solution out there and I'm grateful for whatever improvements ya'll are able to make.

I remember reading someplace that google doesn't index URL's ending with .jpg (or whatever extension is used for various image formats) for display in text search results.

They DO index actual images for IMAGE searches, but that's a different issue.

If X2 "page" URLs end with an image file extension. Could this lead to Google (or other search engines) seeing x2 image pages as image files, and therefor not something to be indexed for text search results?

Doesn't this make sense?

On the HTML side, search engines DO index the imagevue HTML folders and text pages, just not the image pages. Have you checked your site via Google Webmaster Tools to see what's listed?

Or do you have HTML disabled? If HTML is disabled, don't count on much in terms of results beyond the flash front end.

Google only recently learned to crawl text in flash within the last year, and it is still very limited, mostly to following links to other non-flash pages which can then be indexed. This is true of all flash sites, not just Imagevue.

I wouldn't currently count on Flash to generate search results based on text or pages beyond home.

Anything that can be done by Imagevue to improve search results, will probably be HTML based.

The biggest current obstacle on the imagevue HTML side is image pages, and therefor the image specific meta data, are not being indexed. This is possibly because of the file extensions mentioned before (an observation based on my limited knowledge).

Best thing that could be done, IMHO, is to find a way for image specific meta data to be found by search images within HTML. How to do that is the question.

Altering image pages so they can be found by search engines would ne nice, but will only work for those with HTML enabled. I'm included in this group -;)

Another option is a simple HTML based site map which doesn't show full images (and possibly not thumbs, although I'd rather see them). The developers have hinted this method could have drawbacks compared to the full HTML, but would most likely be more agreeable to people wanting to run flash only sites.

Otherwise, I have hope that search engines will learn to better index flash, but that's a waiting game.

Hmm do you guys have any ideas how we can improve search-friendliness after all?