Is Creating Good URL Structure for Your Images Still True?

Selected answers from the Dumb SEO Questions Facebook & G+ community.

• 
  Perry Bernard: Yes, probably a factor, it makes sense, but that doesn`t mean it`s universally considered. I still assume context, ALT and file-size/type are the strongest signals, although I imagine image content recognition is coming...
• 
  Brenda Michelin: Right, and what does that say for WordPress sites, whose folders are Years and Numbers?
• 
  Perry Bernard: Brenda Michelin WP doesn`t have to work like that. It`s a choice. I know, foldering isn`t a thing for WP media directory
• 
  Brenda Michelin: Perry Bernard True, tyranny of the default.
• 
  Perry Bernard: Brenda Michelin I have avoided WP default media foldering for a while now, and one of the reasons is that I hate the URL path.
• 
  Brenda Michelin: Perry Bernard I get it for products and posts but how do you structure folders for the pages, use the silo structures? Interesting. This is something that I never knew Google cared about.
  What about sites with image feeds from other sources? I don`t know that this metric is quite fair.
• 
  Perry Bernard: Brenda Michelin I don’t think you should read too much into it. I think the path will only help confirm context rather than reinforce rank.
• 
  Sophie Wegat: Raoul Wegat
• 
  Michael Martinez: First of all, I haven`t seen anything from Google (by way of Googler discussion or presentation, research paper, or patent filing) that contradicts it so there is no reason to assume that has changed.
  
  On the other hand, just because they say they use one signal doesn`t mean they don`t use other signals.
  
  I use Google image search quite often and find many images from WordPress and other CMS platforms that don`t conform to this naming convention. The images are still relevant to my queries.
• 
  Roger Montti: That`s just one of several signals (or hints) that Google shared. There`s also surrounding text, captions, etc.
  
  I think what he meant about url structure was to give the image a meaningful name.
  
  I wrote that article and I was very happy about the quality and usefulness of the article.
• 
  Brenda Michelin: Roger Montti Thank you very much.
• 
  Richard Hearne: Interesting. I always thought they talked about filenames rather than paths, so I hadn`t considered the folder structure. But, in reality, using folder structures for images is going to be a royal PITA, and unlikely to be worth the associated costs. Just my €0.02.
• 
  Perry Bernard: Roger Montti so basically the same best practice that has always existed. Surely SEO peeps have been doing this for years?
• 
  Roger Montti: Perry Bernard No. Nowhere near the same.
  
  If there was nothing new then I would have said so.
  
  I have been keeping up with image SEO for around 15 years and that Google developer page discusses a lot of new factors to consider.
  
  The file path info wasn`t previously a consideration. The idea of segregating adult/mature images in their own folder is not something people commonly have considered doing.
  
  Nor was the consideration of the meta tag. Title tag wasn`t a consideration either. There`s a lot in that page that was not previously understood as a factor.
  
  No way, not the same best practices as always.
  
  The new Image SEO developer page has more actionable advice than the previous one, which I link to in the article via the Archive dot org archive. So if you look at what that page previously looked like, it`s clear that there is way more actionable advice.
• 
  Richard Hearne: Check this timely article out - excellent reading on this topic: https://www.iloveseo.net/how-to-optimize-your-ecommerce.../
• 
  Brenda Michelin: Well, that was all I ever needed to know about images and Google. I need a drink.