RoR image_tag harmful for SEO?
We all know image_tag, but is it harmful for SEO? By default, it will add an alt tag consisting of the filename, without the extension, and capitalised.
How could this be bad? Well, the question comes down to : is an irelevent alt tag worse than a blank one?
The code in question is one line of the image_tag method in asset_tag_helper.rb.
options[:alt] ||= File.basename(options[:src], '.*').split('.').first.capitalize |
To answer this question, it depends. If your image names are not related to your content then it could be.
To be safe, always pass :alt => with your image_tag.
Update: I asked Matt Cutts his thoughts about this and here is the reply
If you have a picture of a monkey with filename like apple.jpg or dsc00001.jpg, you shouldn’t have any issues if the alt title is “apple” or “dsc00001”. However, if the image filename is cheap-viagra-debt-mortgages.jpg, then you could run into problems for sure. I’d look at image filenames to make sure that they couldn’t be viewed as keyword-stuffing or spammy. And it doesn’t hurt to preserve the extension (.jpg) in the alt title just so that people realize that the alt title comes from the image filename.
Like this article? Subscribe to the SEO on Rails feed.
