MG 1.1 Google not indexing

[Steff]

Ok I'm looking for guidance on this issue about potential settings within Xenforo Gallery rather than trying to beat up Google.
My situation is that I have about 30k images and about 6 months ago I migrated from... dare I say it (is this considered swearing around here?) PhotoPost (there I said it). Anyway anyone who has ever dealt with that software will sympathise with me for having a low Google rank despite a decade long domain.
Right, straight after the migration Google index the forum and also started to index the images. The forum is complete and up-to-date, but the images stopped at about 1200 and indexing for the images hasn't moved for 6 months now.
In the Webmasters it shows the correct amount of images to be indexed and no crawl errors. Also the site index is up to date.
Images are all set to public viewing on all resolutions so I'm a bit puzzled as to why Google just stopped indexing images.
My question is: is there any SEO in the gallery that I've missed or may be have changed to make this situation

 

[Chris D]

How are you ascertaining that it has only indexed 1200?

Aside from ensuring your sitemap is submitted to them there's not much you can do.

 

[Steff]

In sitemaps (within Google Webmaster) it shows the submitted images as 20,247 (although there is 30k on the site) and indexed images as 1,479
Could this be a legacy restriction, indexing with Photopost was near impossible.
I'm simply puzzled as to why Google indexed so many and then stopped

 

[Chris D]

That does seem unusual.

Unfortunately Google are going to be better placed to answer the question. I'm not sure if there's a way to reach out to them or not. But, certainly from a code point of view I'm fairly sure there's not much we can do, or test.

Certainly if you can contact them and they can give any insight that'd be extremely helpful. Likewise if anyone else has any similar stats that could be helpful too.

 

[Steff]

Ok thanks Chris. I'll try the Google route and see if there is something on my site they dislike.

 

[click here]

For further reference...

Images 15,922 Submitted
2,824 Indexed

I also came from PhotoPost a little over 6 months ago.

 

[Chris D]

Are you able to identify any images specifically that have been index vs ones that haven't?

 

[Steff]

Not immediately.
I'm willing to investigate the indexed version versus non indexed with a time line just in case this isn't a fluke. TBH I wouldn't be surprised if the images were banned and flags needed to be removed, there was nearly a decade of abuse ignored from the company.
In any case I'll do my best to see is there is any evidence to support a Photopost pattern for non indexing as that might well be the reason why.

 

[Steff]

Check this out... It's beginning to look like a Photopost ban by Google... Although I'm not slightly surprised.

https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/rTV_0SY6kmA/discussion

 

[moonfox]

I have same issue. I was on photopost vbgallery before conversion. About 17,000 images in sitemap, about 1,300 indexed.

Is it maybe something with redirects? How would google know I was using photopost? Why would it matter now? So many questions.

A few URLs - a newer one and two older ones.

http://www.mysite.com/forum/media/netnow.14252/full?d=1465061428

http://www.mysite.com/forum/media/storm.8480/full?d=0

http://www.mysite.com/forum/media/beach.8493/full?d=1246665050

 

[DragonFlames]

I have the same problem we all seem to have. Google used to list every one of our 30,000 plus images when we were on PhotoPost.

Now we see the same sort of problem as you all report, in our case zero of our large photos were indexed last time I checked, while all the normal .jpg images used around the site are in the index.

I did look into the cause a while back and everything I found on Google seemed to say that photos must be obvious photo files with .jpg or whatever extensions and with clearly associated descriptions. Obviously this is so Google can index them with the name of the photo and its description and the correct photo filename for the actual full size image. Photos on my system are now sadly not stored that way, XFMG seems to store them in this sort of format: 32492-f3d43f92b6896940401ba6f2c86a3022.data

I'm assuming that is the cause. It also means I have no real idea how to work with my photo collection these days, backing it up and sorting it and keeping it safe for other uses etc seems tricky at best.. I have no idea what the system is to get all these files back to being the original photos in our photo collection for backup and other uses.

As a last thought it used to also be that even all our thumbnails were listed by Google. They were real thumbnails though and so proper images with normal names and .jpg or whatever. The ones we have now are all 300x300 blocks cut from images and not real thumbnails with the real photo name and so on.

I'd like to see an option to turn on normal filenames for photos and thumbnails, and to be able to create normal thumbnails and large images that are simply the actual image. I suspect this would solve the problem. It would also help me greatly with backing up and safe keeping and other uses of our photo collection. Maybe we'll see all this sort of thing in v2 perhaps.

Steve