> Google will only show result from that domain if you limit search to that domain with “site:karmadecay.com”
The question is, why doesn’t normal image search show that site ever, despite tons of content?
I know technical reasons are still possible, but so is google breaking laws, they have quite a history of unlawful behavior and have paid billions in fines for that.
My mistake.
>I know technical reasons are still possible...
It could be as simple as a penalty for breaking one of their webmaster guidelines.
Agree. Could also be for not having a mobile-friendly version, or for not using AMP.
Still, even if google does nothing illegal here and acts in good faith, do you think it’s OK to de-prioritize relevant search results based on these technicalities?
As a consumer, when I search stuff in a desktop browser, I don’t give a damn about mobile versions nor webmaster guidelines. I want search results relevant to my search query. Arbitrary limitations imposed on web masters by search engine decrease quality of results.
I do. That's actually the job of a search engine. If it wasn't choosing ranking factors, then it would just be a directory search.
Search engines are far more useful and relevant because they give more context to their results.
>when I search stuff in a desktop browser, I don’t give a damn about mobile versions
Desktop SERPs are actually different than mobile SERPs. They're crawled and indexed independently. A bad mobile site won't affect desktop results.
Normally, the domain is very strong keyword. Search for “facebook” and the first image will be from facebook.com, search for “duckduckgo” and you’ll see a screenshot image hosted on duckduckgo.com on the 7-th place (not the first I expected but still high enough).
I’m not sure how your duplicate content remark explains this behavior. karmadecay has original logo image, why it’s not found?