# Foundation Orbit Slider Stack (et al) vs. SEO-RX

**URL:** <https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/foundation-orbit-slider-stack-et-al-vs-seo-rx/7940>\
**Category:** RapidWeaver Classic\
**Created:** [June 16, 2016, 6:32pm UTC](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/foundation-orbit-slider-stack-et-al-vs-seo-rx/7940 "2016-06-16T18:32:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Butternut](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forums.realmacsoftware.com/butternut/32/3946_2.png) [@Butternut](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/u/Butternut)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 6:32pm UTC](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/foundation-orbit-slider-stack-et-al-vs-seo-rx/7940/1 "2016-06-16T18:32:37Z")

</div>

I know that there has been some discussion of these issues on this forum before, but I am wondering what the latest analysis/consensus might be.

I have used the Foundation Orbit Slider extensively on my website. To the best of my knowledge, Orbit Slider allows you to input alt tags, but not image file names. SEO-RX then proceeds to ding you big time for the missing file names.

Is there some workaround?

Or do you just ignore it, and proceed merrily on your way?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jbob](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forums.realmacsoftware.com/jbob/32/31581_2.png) [@jbob](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/u/jbob)\
**Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 10:50am UTC](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/foundation-orbit-slider-stack-et-al-vs-seo-rx/7940/2 "2016-10-06T10:50:49Z")

</div>

Hi Butternut

I’m keen to understand this too

Why do stacks replace image names we have so carefully crafted (be they in sliders or otherwise) with SEO unfriendly generic ‘1984’ names ?

How do we get around it ?

I’ve been trying with various sliders and they all do much the same thing … why ?

Looking forward to understanding this better !

JBob

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![webdeer](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forums.realmacsoftware.com/webdeer/32/5299_2.png) [@webdeer](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/u/webdeer)\
**Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 10:52am UTC](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/foundation-orbit-slider-stack-et-al-vs-seo-rx/7940/3 "2016-10-06T10:52:48Z")

</div>

You can around it by using warehoused images which retain their names. That is one of the many reasons why warehoused images are so important.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jbob](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forums.realmacsoftware.com/jbob/32/31581_2.png) [@jbob](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/u/jbob)\
**Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 11:07am UTC](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/foundation-orbit-slider-stack-et-al-vs-seo-rx/7940/4 "2016-10-06T11:07:27Z")

</div>

Thank you Gary - wish I’d understood this earlier : )

Perhaps using stacks (whilst admittedly adding functionality) is adding a layer of unnecessary abstraction to my site - that is working against me in Google’s eyes !?

So - warehousing - what do you recommend - flickr, google … or just a folder on my server … but isn’t that what the Resources folder is ?

Jbob

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![webdeer](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forums.realmacsoftware.com/webdeer/32/5299_2.png) [@webdeer](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/u/webdeer)\
**Post date:** [October 6, 2016, 1:26pm UTC](https://forums.realmacsoftware.com/t/foundation-orbit-slider-stack-et-al-vs-seo-rx/7940/5 "2016-10-06T13:26:06Z")

</div>

Use the Foundation Image stack for your images, set to use warehouse images FTP’d to your server and then place the Image stack into Orbit.