Our previous SEO experiments hinted at a possibility of Google (purposely?) shuffling the results out of expected pattern. This time we investigate what happens on a larger scale and use 100 images for our test. The Experiment We started by creating a row of numbers in Excel (1-100) and used…
Our previous SEO experiments hinted at a possibility of Google (purposely?) shuffling the results out of expected pattern. This time we investigate what happens on a larger scale and use 100 images for our test.
We started by creating a row of numbers in Excel (1-100) and used conditional formatting to colour all the cells. This was then exported as PDF and chopped up in Photoshop. Each file corresponded to its number (e.g. 64 = 64.png) and they were arranged in correct sequence on the experiment page. We told Google about the page (social sharing) and waited for the results. And then...
That's right. What you see above is what Google displays after roughly 30 minutes from our test page going live.
We noticed several interesting things but main discovery is that our images seem to dance randomly in Google Image results and not in a gradient mode we expected with values of numbered images incrementing from 1 to 100. Take a look at the original page and the way images are ordered. One would expect that this should be the order of indexation and likewise, display in search results.
Something like this perhaps:

So what's going on? Well, there are at least three possibilities:
Main highlight: Google seems to (whether purposely or not) randomise the order of otherwise neatly ordered images on a page.
Secondary findings include:
Two highlights: Google image search really is faster since recent updates and can include new images in search results within minutes, however they are not likely to be displayed (due to unknown bottleneck) in search results for at least 15-30 minutes.
Following four images were classified as photos:
Not directly associated with the test but we also noticed that a wide screen mode brought up a set of images slightly smaller than the rest (see top two rows).

We performed the same test on a different domain and got the following 26 results:

For comparison, here's the original 27 results:
Here's the table which examines co-relation between file size and image results:

5/5/2012: 30 images now display in results. Colours still not filtering.