# Keywords to Filename



## rhbourbonnais (Nov 20, 2010)

Hi,
 It is my understanding that one way to get images picked up by search engines is to encode keywords into the file name in a dash delimited format. Currently for me this is a manual process. 
 It would be very cool, if lightroom would add support for allowing the filename to be changed to filename with the keywords in dash delimited format.   
Your friend,
Robert (Robin) Bourbonnais


----------



## jid9p80vph (Nov 21, 2010)

You can use keywords as part of your filename when you export (using the Filename Template Editor which you can find in the File Naming section of the export window). LR will however use commas to separate the keywords, and replaces spaces with underscores; using a simple rename utility such as Flexible Renamer (http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA'1483'/english/FlexRena/) will get you the filename you want.

Not exactly what you'd like, but perhaps it'll do for now?


----------



## dj_paige (Nov 21, 2010)

Comment: don't use Flexible Renamer on the photos in your LIghtroom catalog. Use it only on exported photos.

Or, back to the original question, why not just write the keywords to the photo files (instead of the file name), which should also be picked up by search engines (exactly what search engines do you mean, anyway?)


----------



## jid9p80vph (Nov 21, 2010)

[quote author=dj_paige link=topic=11651.msg78278#msg78278 date=129'34''23]
Comment: don't use Flexible Renamer on the photos in your LIghtroom catalog. Use it only on exported photos.
[/quote]

Yes, absolutely, only use the utility to rename your exported photos, never your originals :icon_exclaim:


----------



## johnbeardy (Nov 21, 2010)

[quote author=dj_paige link=topic=11651.msg78278#msg78278 date=129'34''23]
Or, back to the original question, why not just write the keywords to the photo files (instead of the file name), which should also be picked up by search engines....
[/quote]
That is a common misconception, but search engines do not actually read the keywords or other metadata that's embedded inside images. The main SEO value of embedding the metadata for web images is so that the web server can extract that information automatically and display it as text directly on the web page, or in some cases add it to the site's own database and search functions.

I suggest people read The Top 12 Myths about Embedded Photo Metadata and Why Embedded Photo Metadata Won’t Help Your SEO (at least without some help).

John


----------



## dj_paige (Nov 21, 2010)

And yet people use Google to search for things, and sometimes wind up at my pictures on Flickr. Not sure if it is keywords or captions or something else that Google finds, but it does happen.

Example: http://www.google.com/images?q=jose...&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1317&bih=894


----------



## johnbeardy (Nov 21, 2010)

Joseph Ellicott Complex is text on the page. That's what gets searched, not whatever happens to be embedded in the image.

John


----------



## dj_paige (Nov 21, 2010)

[quote author=johnbeardy link=topic=11651.msg783'3#msg783'3 date=129'363'63]
Joseph Ellicott Complex is text on the page. That's what gets searched, not whatever happens to be embedded in the image.
[/quote]

But that was the caption of the photo. Are you saying that Google searches the captions from Flickr (which used to be the metadata in the photo before upload)? Isn't that just a semantic difference between searching metadata and searching Flickr captions?


----------



## Mark Sirota (Nov 22, 2010)

Yes. The search engines are able to search text on the page. They generally do not search the metadata in the images (that may change someday, of course). In this example, Flickr translated embedded metadata into web page text, which made it searchable.


----------



## clee01l (Nov 22, 2010)

FWIW, Flickr does not preserve file names. Flickr renames every file you upload. 

The file in this link http://www.flickr.com/photos/cletuslee/48'5'42563/in/set-7215762453'33118'/ was named "48'5'42563_5db'cd'45a_m.jpg" It was named "K2'15335.Lr3.'.jpg" by me when I uploaded it. So no matter what you name a file it won't really matter once it is loaded to a site like Flickr. 
What webcrawlers do read is everything in the HTML code including metadata in the header, not just the text you see on a page. Flickr (and maybe other similar websites) read your uploaded file metadata and extract your keywords. They are kind to the Webcrawlers to include it in the &lt;HEAD&gt; section of the page before the &lt;BODY&gt;. So if you look at what the webcrawler sees, you'll find stuff like this:
	
	



```
&lt;meta name="keywords" content="insect, dragonfly, houston, odonata, wanderingglider, pantalaflavescens, willowwaterholegreenway, photography, photos, photo"&gt;
```
 
The "Tags" you see on the link above correspond to keywords, but only get rendered from the data in the meta tag in the &lt;HEAD&gt; section.

You are at the mercy of the Commercial websites like Flickr if you use them. If you are developing your own website, then you need to do the work of extracting the Keyword information like Flickr did.


----------

