Hello @qwik3r,
We haven’t changed the way images are rendered yet, but improving this is a priority for us and something we plan to address in the future.
Thank you for your patience!
Warm regards,
Cristina
Thread Starter
qwik3r
(@qwik3r)
Gotcha. So that the post I linked to still accurate in that it can affect SEO?
It is not an issue, as per my reply in the topic you linked above.
Image indexing doesn’t happen just because an image url can be found and usually images are indexed next to text, not standalone.
Thread Starter
qwik3r
(@qwik3r)
Not to belabor this, but you mentioned that the way the images are rendered by the plugin are the reason why they may not be indexed, admitting there is a potential SEO issue, but here you’re saying that it’s not an issue? Sorry, just a little confused. This will impact whether I purchase the plugin so a definitive answer would be appreciated.
Gotcha – at that point in time, I fairly believed that to be true, but it’s definitely not. My knowledge at that point in time was lacking.
Think of the multitude of CMSs that output in JS on the frontend and/or use JS completely to render any part of a website. Or, an even simpler example, websites that rely on JS to perform a lazyLoad operation on an image.
The definitive answer is – in no way should the way we handle image loading interfere with the ability to have said images indexed.
I really hope this helps and I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer in my previous reply.
All the best,
/Cristian.
Thread Starter
qwik3r
(@qwik3r)
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. Do you know of a good way to test this? Just in general?
Thanks.
@qwik3r – the only (good) tutorial I’ve found and I’ve bookmarked myself for this topic is: https://brodieclark.com/foot-locker-image-seo/
I hope this helps!
/Cristian.
