Google, page one

[Da Food Dude]

So, if you could have your web page show up on the first page of Google, as opposed to where you are now, how much do you think that would change your yearly income?

Thanks

[David A. Goldfarb]

I just googled "food photography" and found your site on page 2--not bad, and a really nice site (spelling errors in the blog notwithstanding).

Page 1--I don't know. I think there's a difference between sites that get on page 1 by paying for it as "sponsored listings" and those that get there by having high-quality static content as you do, that isn't constantly being redesigned, and that gets cross linked on many other sites.

I'm an academic, and I'm not particularly trying to make money with my professional website, which I've had at the same place since about 1992. But still, because it's been there for a long time, and some of my articles are cross linked on other sites and show up pretty high on Google searches, I get a good amount of traffic for such a site, and every once in a while, it leads to a new publication or speaking invitation or contact that might not have happened otherwise. Print articles that I've posted on my website are definitely cited more often in other print articles and books than articles I've published and have not put up on my website [note to self: more free content].

I think it's more important to be well networked with lots of little connections--which will at the same time produce a high Google ranking--than just to be on page 1.

[Frank Petronio]

I don't know any higher end buyers who would start with Google. But they might do an image search for a particular type of image, in which case using good captions and alt text - in a modern text based website design - would be very helpful.

As for increasing sales, I don't think being Google friendly is so important for a upper end commercial photographer. However it is very important as a networking and credibility tool - usually the second or third step in the qualification/research process your clients will use.

Since it doesn't cost you anything to be Google friendly, why not?

I don't think AdWords makes much sense, unless you are going after something like the local wedding or school portrait market - and even then it is a challenge. But by doing AdWords on a limited amount ($10 per month) Google does seem to "favor" you more ;-)

[Da Food Dude]

You guys never answered the question...

[QT Luong]

What do you mean by "have your web page show up on the first page of Google" ?
Apart from the Google homepage (you didn't mean that, right ?), this all depends on the search words, and I am pretty sure if one used specific enough terms, *any* page could show up on the first page of search result.

[Frank Petronio]

Na, it really depends how many people link and talk about your page and other mysterious factors regarding relevance. Keywords no longer work as well as people think.

I answered your question - judging by your work - ZERO.

(That isn't meant as a dig against your work, which is excellent BTW)

Any small work you gained would be offset by jobs you'd loose from other togs ripping you off and ADs using your shots for reference for their togs.

[Da Food Dude]

Frank

Where do you appear on Google for a search on your key words? What are your key word phrases?

[Frank Petronio]

I no longer bother with keywords at all. What you write for content is what the search engines are looking for. Just write well and leave the content in html... and make online friends. That's what works.

Look at my site and "View Source"

Marko will chime in soon...

[David A. Goldfarb]

I no longer bother with keywords at all. What you write for content is what the search engines are looking for. Just write well and leave the content in html... and make online friends. That's what works.

I completely agree.

[Marko]

I no longer bother with keywords at all. What you write for content is what the search engines are looking for. Just write well and leave the content in html... and make online friends. That's what works.

Look at my site and "View Source"

Marko will chime in soon...

Why? I appreciate keywords even less than you do... ;)

You said it yourself - serious clients don't bother searching, they use referrals. Google position has become nothing more than marketing fluff for those who are already established in their respective fields - it's referrals by happy clients that really matter.

That being said, it is nice to have a decent web site to pass on as a reference and showcase.

"Decent" in contemporary terms means standards, accessibility, separation of style, structure and behaviour. The times when sites were meant to dazzle and mesmerize are long gone, web has become mature medium whose purpose is to provide content, reference and service.

[paulr]

i'm considering adding more text to my site just to make it more searchable. i have a redesign in the works with even less text than i have now, which might be a mistake.

if i do a search with the kinds of search phrases i think someone would be using to find work like mine, i end up burried dozens of pages down.

the funny thing is, when i look at my site statistics to see what google searches actually landed people at my site, it's usually bizarre ones. most of them look like mistakes. the most pompous couple of words used in a review on my site keep showing up in the search list. so does "robert adams." i'm sure no one looking for robert adams has been happy to settle on my work.

[Michael Gordon]

So, if you could have your web page show up on the first page of Google, as opposed to where you are now, how much do you think that would change your yearly income?

Based on what search terms? At the moment I'm showing up as #1 for "california landscape photography", but I can assure you that it has done only little for my income. Maybe my website isn't easy enough to buy from. Maybe an update and overhaul is sadly overdue. Just showing up on page 1 isn't good enough. All the pieces have to be in place.

[Frank Petronio]

I actually wrote a couple of posts about my current web design philosophy on my cleanpage.com website, you may like checking it out.

Ha, but I don't work cheap when I actually work ;-)

[Marko]

Maybe my website isn't easy enough to buy from. Maybe an update and overhaul is sadly overdue. Just showing up on page 1 isn't good enough. All the pieces have to be in place.

Michael, please don't get me wrong, but you are absolutely right. I just looked at your site - it is a nice, understated gallery, but it is a bit dated. And, more importantly, it does not make it clear that you are actually selling something.

The first time I looked, I saw a beautiful gallery and came back here to comment on how nice the pictures were, especially the front page one, but then I saw your comment about the site not generating enough sales. After going back to your site, I had to look carefully to notice the "Purchase" item, as well as "Services" and other menu choices. The entire menu is sort of blending into the background.

Honest opinion - you need to have your site redesigned in order to do justice to your images. And to improve your chances at making a sale there, of course.

[Marko]

Ha, but I don't work cheap when I actually work ;-)

Nobody will ever value your work more than you do.

Cheap means charging less than the market would bear.

Expensive means charging more than most clients would pay.

Whatever your rate may be.

:)

[JW Dewdney]

I found this quite useful... I just read the book and changed all my meta tags as a result.

http://philip.greenspun.com/panda/publicizing

[Marko]

I found this quite useful... I just read the book and changed all my meta tags as a result.

http://philip.greenspun.com/panda/publicizing

That was a great article at the time it was written. But now it is three years old, and search engines have moved into other directions, like social interraction models and such.

Search engines constantly evolve and change and time is really very, very compressed on the web. A year could be, and usually is a very long time.

Another thing is, they all tend to keep their criteria very secret and anything you can see described is already way obsolete.

That's why there exist entire sites (http://searchenginewatch.com/) devoted to watching the fenomenon.

[Frank Petronio]

Quality of your content is the single most important factor - of course it has to be "searchable" by being in a modern XHTML/CSS type website. Not under a Flash splash page...

[JW Dewdney]

That was a great article at the time it was written. But now it is three years old, and search engines have moved into other directions, like social interraction models and such.

Well - my point was that parts of it are still quite relevant. I don't mean all of it. I was specifically hoping people would understand I was referring to the section on the way the good search engines filter out common results in favor of the words that 'stick out' (the histogram section). I think this is very relevant to setting up proper content and title meta tags. But maybe I'm wrong. Hell. I can't even get myself to show up in the first 20 pages of google - so what do I know?

Anybody know how much the whole Google 'ad words' thing costs?

[Marko]

Well - my point was that parts of it are still quite relevant. I don't mean all of it. I was specifically hoping people would understand I was referring to the section on the way the good search engines filter out common results in favor of the words that 'stick out' (the histogram section). I think this is very relevant to setting up proper content and title meta tags. But maybe I'm wrong. Hell. I can't even get myself to show up in the first 20 pages of google - so what do I know?

Anybody know how much the whole Google 'ad words' thing costs?

And that was my point - metatags themselves are irrelevant. Useful content properly structured and laid out is what matters, because people will link to it and search engine will be able to find it and read it.

The best "ad package" won't be worth a damn if it does not lead to good content.

[Frank Petronio]

AdWords can cost whatever you want it to - any budget. A really good way to learn how to use it is to set up a $1 per day budget and use it for a month to experiment.

It does work for niche topics. Not general "photography" but "architectural interior photography for hotels, tourism in Chicago" actually can work.

[JW Dewdney]

And that was my point - metatags themselves are irrelevant. Useful content properly structured and laid out is what matters, because people will link to it and search engine will be able to find it and read it.

Well - from my understanding of the current situation (not from this article - but from talk on other forums elsewhere) - metatags are not irrelevant - though KEYWORD metatags ARE - and have fallen by the wayside a WHILE back. From what I UNDERSTAND, the only metatags that matter are title and content. And their content is still significant. I may be wrong, of course. If you have good reason to think so, perhaps you could direct me to a good WWW or book source to educate myself more thoroughly on the current state of affairs...!

Thanks.
Jonathan

[JW Dewdney]

AdWords can cost whatever you want it to - any budget. A really good way to learn how to use it is to set up a $1 per day budget and use it for a month to experiment.

Any idea where I can find out more about this, Frank? Guess I should google it, huh??? (LOL)

[Frank Petronio]

Title and Content tags are also depreciated.

Just sign up for AdWords on the Google website. It allows you to set the budget - just be cheap. But Google's info is the best place to start. Then watch the results (Google tracks it too).

[Marko]

Title and Content tags are also depreciated.

Acutally no, they are not deprecated, quite to the contrary.

Title is even required in the Head section. Meta Content can be used to specify language(s) and implicitly their character sets. But unlike Title, it is optional.

[Da Food Dude]

The trouble with providing content for us photograpehrs is that search engines can't decern quality of images. (not unlike some of my clients...)

How important do you guys think the Alt tag is for images? Is that what Google images use?

Thanks

[Marko]

Well - from my understanding of the current situation (not from this article - but from talk on other forums elsewhere) - metatags are not irrelevant - though KEYWORD metatags ARE - and have fallen by the wayside a WHILE back. From what I UNDERSTAND, the only metatags that matter are title and content. And their content is still significant. I may be wrong, of course. If you have good reason to think so, perhaps you could direct me to a good WWW or book source to educate myself more thoroughly on the current state of affairs...!

Thanks.
Jonathan

Johnatan, you are right - it is the KEYWORD metatags that have become irrelevant, more or less, and that's what I've been referring to in the context of this topic.

They are not deprecated, however. They are still considered valid (X)HTML tags.

Regards,

Marko

[Marko]

The trouble with providing content for us photograpehrs is that search engines can't decern quality of images. (not unlike some of my clients...)

How important do you guys think the Alt tag is for images? Is that what Google images use?

Thanks

Alt tags are a required part of an IMG tag. They can be left empty (alt=""), but they have to be present in order for the (X)HTML to be valid.

Alt tags are used in two major ways: If the image does not load for any reason, the browser will display an empty frame and the content of the Alt tag so that the user has an idea of what the context is. Last but not least, the alt tags are being parsed by screen readers, the software used by people with certain disabilities.

[QT Luong]

Based on what search terms? At the moment I'm showing up as #1 for "california landscape photography", but I can assure you that it has done only little for my income. Maybe my website isn't easy enough to buy from. Maybe an update and overhaul is sadly overdue. Just showing up on page 1 isn't good enough. All the pieces have to be in place.

I think it is easy enough to buy from. Most buyers of fine art prints do not require ecommerce transactions. I use them because it makes it easier for *me*.

As I said before, anyone can be #1 if the query is specific enough. Here is the relevant questions: How many people use the query "california landscape photography" ? Among them, how many are looking to buy prints ? What are the queries used by people looking to buy prints ?