| 7:49 pm on Jan 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Don't know if anyone has noticed the but Google has FINALLY updated their Pictures Search Results!
Months of hard work - I'll soon see if it paid off...
| 9:39 pm on Jan 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yep. Results paying off here as well. For the site I'm working on image optimization for, images.google has one of the best conversion rates on free traffic around.
They've changed the dupe filter at images, too. It trips a lot easier than it did before. Either that, or I'm going very crazy this week.
| 9:58 pm on Jan 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ack, this is awful!
Before, it showed two pictures featuring me, and one picture I had taken that I have of my site (of a building, not of me).
Now it shows ten photos, only two of which (barely) contain me.
Something's rather screwy here.
Anyone have any info on how I can better teach it which photos are of me?
| 10:06 pm on Jan 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes at last, been waiting a long time for this to happen, and can confirm that there must have been an update as we had no images in at all before today.
Showing up for various KW
Anybody have an idea on how much the image search is used?
| 10:09 pm on Jan 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You know, I was just about ready to post a topic on this. I've been reviewing stats for a broad variety of sites and there are quite a few of these...
...in the stats. Enough so that it caused a blip on my radar screen. On one site, the image searches (referer) have surpassed regular referrers for some reason. ;)
| 10:16 pm on Jan 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Using Google's notoriously poor result estimates, fwiw here's some figures:
I don't recall BMP or TIFF previously, but maybe I didn't try. Advance search still lists JPG, GIF, and PNG. JPG won't include JPEGs, that's how the
filetype: operator works, by file extension rather than MIME type
[edited by: mfagan at 10:59 pm (utc) on Jan. 23, 2004]
| 10:41 pm on Jan 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Does anyone have previous numbers on the total number of images Google had indexed?
| 10:57 pm on Jan 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
From March, [webmasterworld.com...]
|JPG: 3,050,000 |
| 11:03 pm on Jan 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yup, sure enough, they did update it! I was just mumbling to myself last night about how they really needed to do this!
| 4:04 am on Jan 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|images.google has one of the best conversion rates on free traffic around |
I see the same thing, jake. I've even been converted a few times myself. Perhaps it's because it such a low key way to market.
One nice feature is that Google's Image Search FRAMES your pages instead of using the same approach that the Google cache uses, which fouls up when you use CSS positioning.
| 4:11 am on Jan 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It still says "Searching 425,000,000 images". The same number as over a year ago [webmasterworld.com].
| 6:03 am on Jan 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Anyways, I see big changes and glad that they updated. My results are good. So am happy :-)
| 7:40 am on Jan 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I added a lot of images to my site just a few months back, and they are nowhere to be seen. Looks like I will have to wait another year for them to appear in the images index.
I hope Google starts updating the images index every month!
| 5:57 pm on Jan 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Based on traffic this week, I was averaging about 700 hits/day from images.google.com - yesterday I got 3,800. I'd say that's results on how effective it can be.
| 3:54 pm on Jan 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
When you're speaking about converting image-search visitors to paying customers: are you selling image-related products (cliparts, photos, editing-software) or products that are shown on the pictures you get traffic for? We thought about moving into the second direction but didn't do it as I thought that these visitors are usually not in the buy-mode but are just looking for a (free) picture. It might be easy to sell them higher resolutions of the same pic or similar pictures than the one they were looking for but I don't see many other commercial uses and would be happy if you give me a hint.
| 11:58 pm on Jan 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The site I'm talking about sells the products that the images display.
Success may well depend on exactly what you are selling, but a lot of the time this site's competitors have sub-par images (pixelated, banded, blurry, too small) or even no images at all. I think that may be part of what sends people to a Google image search.
People don't want to buy many things "sight unseen" and when they do find a good image AND the site has other good conversion elements in place, then you've just acquired a customer.
| 5:34 am on Jan 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google just indexed the photos from my last New Zealand trip, and that's getting me nearly a thousand page views extra a day. Probably low grade traffic, but I figure some of them will go "I wonder what other photos are on this site?" or "Hey, New Zealand, let's have a look!"...
More annoying are the people who find my photos that way and then load them on their own pages, without any kind of acknowledgement. At the moment I just redirect those requests (with a Referer set that's not one of my pages) to the smaller thumbnailed images, but if I hit my bandwidth limit I'll have to stop even that.
| 5:55 am on Jan 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You could also have fun serving them 'customized' graphics, such as a photo of a leech with text underneath "This site is a Leech."
Or, with a more warped sense of humor, you could also serve up some, ahem, questionable photos :D. I guarantee you, those sites would change their image habits PRONTO!
So many possibilities, so little time ;)
| 5:24 am on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Heh, one of the sites doing it was a forum of the France-bashing, all-Arabs-are-evil, juvenile fascist kind. They're now seeing a Howard Dean ad :-).
| 5:48 am on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Now THAT is funny (though I suppose it's not gonna win him any more supporters, eh? :D)
| 11:40 am on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
An alternative was the cover of Hilary Clinton's Living History, but I didn't want to be had up for manslaughter when people started dying of apoplexy.
[edited by: danny at 12:07 pm (utc) on Jan. 29, 2004]
| 11:49 am on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
at least they updated and left the pic of my X-Wife behind :)
| 12:42 pm on Jan 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Note that the "site:example.com" syntax (with no search word) works here too so one can see ALL the indexed images from a site.
Also, try this search. site:google.com logo
| 2:39 am on Feb 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have noticed for this month on my personal page, I get more referers from google images then google itself. This is the first time I've seen that. My site, particularly my hobby site has numerous pictures.
On my future to-do list is to redo and reduce in size some of the image galleries. I too worry about bandwidth limit and file leetches. I have no little logos in my images like I see on other similar hobby related site. I am also not in a position to work on my site much for the next few months due to lack of a personal computer...
| 3:18 am on Feb 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I personally think that it's pretty funny that on my site Google Images is just short of passing AOL and MSN on the number of referrers. But it is far from catching up to yahoo and google.
| 7:54 am on Feb 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Isn't the "Show: All sizes - Large - Medium - Small" filter option on the RHS new?
I've never noticed it anyway. Cool feature IMO.
| 1:06 pm on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i also noticed that my pictures showed in google img. directory at the same date as noted here. i got around 6000 extra users a day. but after around 10 days all images were deleted in the index. has someone else noticed the same or happend this only on my page?
| 1:15 pm on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I sell several different products on my website. If I do a kw image search for 1 particular producd, I get images of the other products which is a tad annoying. But, my images are now on the 1st page for their k/w's :D