Creating useful, relevant, and original content through blog posts is one way to target specific keywords in the SERPs.
I think it's safe to assume that using relevant original images is more effective than relevant stock images, assuming similar quality and UX.
Let's say I am writing a post about a niche market that I don't have original images for however.
Would I be better served by using stock photos, or none at all?
In another scenario, would it be more effective to use one original image that was not as relevant, or 5 stock photos that were more helpful from a UX perspective?
I appreciate these are specific circumstances that would need testing to come to any sort of reasonable conclusion, but I'm interested in your opinion of stock images in general and any insight we might gather.
I've used scraped images in the past for niche markets and looking back I believe it's penalised me in certain SERPs. They were not licensed stock images however. Going forward, I wonder what the best approach would be.
[link] [comments]
from Search Engine Optimization: The Latest SEO News https://www.reddit.com/r/SEO/comments/axq8qe/the_value_of_stock_photos/>
No comments:
Post a Comment