Optimization of Multimedia files. Is it possible?

[nipplecharms1]

Hi Gang,

I know I can get some help from all the people here so here goes....

I have some multi media files, video etc. on my site. I have some video showing how to wear the jewelry. (careful if you look at it... lawyers make us say that!)

I was told that the best way to optimize my video and audio would be with "SMIL (Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language) or RT (RealText) optim." I have been told that this will get these files better search engine placement, increase accessibility and get them fully indexed.

Is this possible and can Gozizzle et. al really read this stuff. I cannot even pronounce some of these terms but hell, I do not know how to build a car but I can drive pretty damn good!

Thanks in advance for everyone's comments. If this is possible, next step is to implement.

Michael

[SemAdvance]

Post them to Youtube and then find people to rate the videos!

Videos are not likely to rank above websites at times but we do see them on occasion in Google SERPs ranking above Google Video oddly

Try using a stumble campaign to push the videos and perhaps any groups on myspace and facebook who would be more apt to wear your products.

Peace!

[davidredwine]

Seems like posting them on Google video, yahoo video and aol video, as well as linking to your business with Google local, myspace, facebook, and maximizing the posting of links back to your videos from other websites (backlinks) would be a good basic strategy.

[incrediblehelp]

Video pages (Youtube or not) can easily out rank web docs in Google. Check out a search for "shoes" on Google. It is all about the links baby!

[Webnauts]

Can someone answer the question of Nipplecharms? I am sure he already knows about YourTube, Facebook, back links, etc.

He did not ask how to promote the video. He asked how can he optimized it. Its exactly like asking how can he optimize a page for search engines, social media, etc.

So lets stay on topic.

[davidredwine]

P.S. I can't see any tagging, parameters attributes or elements in the SMIL reference that standout from an SEO perspective. Well, other than naming the file howtowearjewelry.mpg, I mean. Here is the SMIL reference for 1.0 SMIL Reference

Just a note, IE6 supports SMIL 1, 2 and 2.1, but IE7 does not. Here is the Language guide for SMIL 2. SMIL 2.1 Language Profile

You could always split your stuff onto two pages, SMIL one page, and use client players (real / MS MPlayer, QT, etc) with HTML on the other page, try to promote them evenly, then let us know what happens.......how about blazing the trail, eh?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by davidredwine

P.S. I can't see any tagging, parameters attributes or elements in the SMIL reference that standout from an SEO perspective. Well, other than naming the file howtowearjewelry.mpg, I mean. Here is the SMIL reference for 1.0 SMIL Reference

Just a note, IE6 supports SMIL 1, 2 and 2.1, but IE7 does not. Here is the Language guide for SMIL 2. SMIL 2.1 Language Profile

You could always split your stuff onto two pages, SMIL one page, and use client players (real / MS MPlayer, QT, etc) with HTML on the other page, try to promote them evenly, then let us know what happens.......how about blazing the trail, eh?

Great Davidredwine.

I would also like to add here that Google indexed SMIL and RT files.
Here is some very useful information about captioning gor all players and browsers:
WebAIM: Web Captioning Overview

[nipplecharms1]

First, thanks Rafael for thinking so highly of the post to add it to the newsletter.

I appreciate all the responses so far.

Jaan, do you mean the YouTube links in the middle of the Gozizzle page? I do not want to use YT per se. I have video on my site (soon to be reshot) that I want to rank.

DavidRedwine - ok that is appreicated but at the 30,000ft level. Can you give me ideas at say the 3 ft level for implementation?

SEM - working on some of that too but I would rather not use YouTube at the moment. Your video becomes their video. Nahhhh.

Webnauts.. as always, thanks.

Michael

[incrediblehelp]

Mike just click the link and you will see YouTube links in the middle of the SERPs for the query shoes.

[nipplecharms1]

Dear Jaan,

I did see that but that was for YT. Anything added to YT becomes their property. Not good!

I want my videos, on my site to rank also. Suggestions? Anyone, Bueller?

thanks again Jaan,

Michael

[Webnauts]

Maybe off-topic, maybe not? Video PageRank: Google Searches for The Holy Grail

[Peter (IMC)]

I'd follow incredible's advice. It's about links mostly. However, the page the video is in also needs to be optimized. I don't know (yet) how much it helps to use the bits of technical options to indicate the content of the video, but you can be pretty sure that information that´s not visible to the user gets little attention. (just think of meta keyword tags, stuff that´s not visible to the users gets abused and is for that reason not that useful to a search engine.)

So it is more likely that they use techniques similar to image search to figure out the content of a video and rank them accordingly.

But there's a problem in search engine land. The search engines don't really know (yet) how to rank videos, so they use the "old" techniques and apply them to this new type of content that they have to rank because it is way too popular to ignore (much different in case of flash for example). The result is that pretty much only video websites like YouTube show up in the video results.

If you use the -site:youtube.com operator you can filter out the youtube results. Then you need to do something like this: shoes -site:youtube.com -site:google.com -site:myspace.com -site:metacafe.com -site:yahoo.com -site:expotv.com in order to get to results that are not in video sites but in normal websites.

It's going to take time for the search engines to learn how to rank video properly. But they will get better at that, especially when there will be more video online in normal websites. Right now, probably 99.99999999% of online videos can be found in video websites like YouTube and those videos get most of the backlinks. But that´s normal PR logic. The Video Pagerank article that Webnauts linked to shows already that normal PR isn't very useful in video search.

So optimize your video pages, don't try to optimized the video itself through the use of some tags that can't be seen by the visitor. Then get links to it and see if you can get your video high up in the video SERP's.

Actually I don't think it is really that difficult. You´re in a niche and competition is small. The only real competition you have is YouTube and even though they´re very big and known, they´re not relevant in your niche.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

However, the page the video is in also needs to be optimized. I don't know (yet) how much it helps to use the bits of technical options to indicate the content of the video, but you can be pretty sure that information that´s not visible to the user gets little attention. (just think of meta keyword tags, stuff that´s not visible to the users gets abused and is for that reason not that useful to a search engine.)

Looks like Google indexes SMIL and RT files:

SMIL http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~kmiller/smil/examples/finalmove.smil - Google Search

and

RT http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~kmiller/smil/examples/text.rt - Google Search

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Looks like Google indexes SMIL and RT files:

SMIL http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~kmiller/smil/examples/finalmove.smil - Google Search

and

RT http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~kmiller/smil/examples/text.rt - Google Search

Well,.. they also index meta keywords tags, but that doesn't necessarily mean they use them..

Not saying they´re not using them, but you can be sure they get abused once they are found to increase rankings..

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Well,.. they also index meta keywords tags, but that doesn't necessarily mean they use them..

Not saying they´re not using them, but you can be sure they get abused once they are found to increase rankings..

I was just thinking about the implementation of SAMI for videos.
More about see here: Understanding SAMI 1.0
Google cannot read the voice of an audio or video file, as they cannot read images.

So I am talking about alternatives. For images we have the alt attribute and for audio and videos we have SMIL and SAMI for Microsoft Windows Media, Real Text for RealPlayer, and Text Track for Quicktime.

Why should some one be penalized when he provides an alternative text of an audio/video file? I understand that having a text or an html file with the text spoken on those audio/video files and additionally captioning them with the above technologies a duplicated content issue may occur.

So what is the problem? Did I probably misunderstand your point?

[nipplecharms1]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Why should some one be penalized when he provides an alternative text of an audio/video file? I understand that having a text or an html file with the text spoken on those audio/video files and additionally captioning them with the above technologies a duplicated content issue may occur.

John, What would stop me, or anyone, from adding different text than what is truly in the video. My video does not have much voice unfortunately. Maybe I could be like the US Congress and just add a speech to the record that I really did not give! Ok, bad US political joke but accurate nonetheless.

That would be black hat I imagine, but who is to catch me? If the SE cannot read or hear the video, I can say whatever I want in the SAMI files.

NO?

MIchael

[Peter (IMC)]

Why should some one be penalized when he provides an alternative text of an audio/video file? I understand that having a text or an html file with the text spoken on those audio/video files and additionally captioning them with the above technologies a duplicated content issue may occur.

It's not about being penalized. It's about how much value something has for a search engine. And if they realize that certain content is not trustable enough (meaning: too much abused or not used enough to help) then they´re better of ignoring it. The experience shows that anything that is not visible to the visitor has a huge chance of being abused. It's really that simple.

I know there are many "ethical" people that would never do something like that, but there are as many, if not more, people that will abuse it or not use it correctly or not use it at all. If over the whole range the value is low for the search engines, they will ignore it. And again, experience shows that anything that's not visible to the visitor, is of little value to the search engines.