| 10:05 am on Feb 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
After checking a little bit, I must say : the new "site:" shows better results then before. Now it is sort by image-size - not any longer mixed with buttons eg.
A way to find hotlinks is to search just "domain.tld" - its a little bit more work because this search shows also images, that are not directly related to the site. But is a way to find out.
So my new opinion : Good job, Google.
| 1:16 pm on Feb 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
this search shows also images, that are not directly related to the site.
That confued me until I re-read the previous post. What I did notice was how many images G had de-indexed from my site since I last checked. Now only 21 and most of those are thumbnails compared with over 200 at Bing.
| 2:15 pm on Feb 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
@piatkow: this is what I mean: the complete images-index has changed.
In my perception you only see images, that link from Google image-search to your site. All other pictures (e.g.) are removed (perhaps because they link to another domain?)
Its a change from the "source-concept" to the "target-concept".
Sorry for my bad english ;-)
| 2:34 pm on Feb 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I had no problem understanding once I read it properly, I just skimmed the post first time around.
| 12:37 am on Feb 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Sorry for this post. I think it is false.
Now I think the only changes are these:
- images are sort by size
- return to the old design
- URL below the picture allways site:domain
I have a lot of trouble with the shown results with my subdomain-gallery but this may have other reasons.
| 5:25 am on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Nope, you're not wrong, you're ahead of the game. Google just announced something about this change to the site: operator in Image Search on their blog: [googleblog.blogspot.com...]
|Based on feedback from users and webmasters, we have improved the [site:] operator for Google Images. In the past, the [site:] operator filtered based on the image URL, not based on the URL of web pages linking to the images. Now, the operator will run your search over web sites that include images, no matter where the images themselves are hosted, which removes a lot of noise from your results and gives you more control over what you're searching for. |
| 7:12 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
A genius german guy ("schnurpsel") gets by trial and error a new (?) google-hack:
But you have to check it in the safeSearch-mode "Strikt".
New and easy way to find out hotlinks (if someone links directly to an image - and often steals by this the Google-Link)
Edit: Seems that this is only possible if your site contains potentially adult-material (which my site seems to have, I wonder...)
| 10:18 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Me again - after some more testing a while ...
"imagesite:" is a little bit cryptic - perhaps not finished, but I think its a bug. On some site it works on others not...
If somebody feels penetrate I will stop this ;-)
| 11:19 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
About a week ago Google started with some small changes to images search, which now looks stable, I see more Images in moderate serach which is a good thing.
Now the new thing is it looks like those hotlinking sites dont show up in a site:example.com search which is also a good thing, it looks more clean that way
Good job Google
to mssfldt - I know some website owners that just wait for other sites to hotlink to there images to then start something as a legal cage, I call those crooks.
If you have a problem with hotlinking then make a htaccess file so nothing shows on there page, then they dont hotlink to your site, be cause no image will show.
[edited by: tedster at 11:39 pm (utc) on Feb 22, 2010]
[edit reason] switch to example.com - it cannot be owned [/edit]
| 11:42 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Zeus ..I call those who hotlink to what they know isn't / are not their image(s) .. crooks ..and parasites ...and scum ..etc etc
And so do all of us who make our own images etc for a living ..
| 11:53 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Leosghost - Now I was talking about hotlinking case I have seen many times, that its not those who do the hotlinking but also visa versa
| 12:12 am on Feb 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Zeus..there is never any excuse for hotlinking ..it is theft..pure and simple .. claiming "entrapement" because it was "attractive and just sitting there asking for it" is like trying to excusing rape because the girl was pretty ..
| 9:30 am on Feb 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
If you have a problem with hotlinking then make a htaccess file so nothing shows on there page,
Locking your front door is common sense but if you forget it doesn't excuse the thief who walks in.
| 9:34 am on Feb 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
@zeus: thank for the htaccess-advice. I have installed that a while ago - works fine. But how to find ou new "bad guys"?
Edit: Ok, sure, the answer is: look directly in your log-files for the "bad-referer". But this is hard work ;-)
@leosghost: I agree with that, but most people didn't see the problem. 90% (?) of all people are not webmaster or seo. They use images in forums or facebook or whatever just for fun. Often they find it via google-image-search.
So as creative artist I agree that hotlinking is illegal.
But: it is actually a strong ranking-factor. Google loves hotlinks. So I have to decide which hotlinks I like and which not.
The border between legal and illegal ist very blurred. In germany we have e.g. some "personal search engines" that use the google-thumbnails on their pages to set a hotlink.
I am not a lawyer but this seems to be very tricky...
| 10:54 am on Feb 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Leosghost - Im not sure your got my point here, I DONT like hotlinking, but I also dont like those who has a site and really just sit and wait for people to hotlink to take legal action if possible, those people are also out there.
I will say this im a fan of DMCA, I think its great that sites who has a lot of images, have a chance to remove a image if a artist wants it and problem salved, but if I had a image site with images which I REALLY dont want to see on other sites, I would make a htaccess with the planning of site and a login for members to see images that way you are sure, many also use there images to promote there Company/art so they have a little logo in the Corner thats also great advertising.
Now this is a whole other topic as google image which have done a great job.
| 12:50 pm on Feb 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|They use images in forums or facebook or whatever just for fun. Often they find it via google-image-search. |
And therein lies the problem and especially so with myspace since they actually have a search panel delivering Google image results for users to hotlink to.
I had a HUGE problem with this however have resolved it using htaccess and hotlink protection in my cpanel with a 302 to the Google/Bing search page. In January alone this accounted for nearly 150,000 redirects but only 27 mb in bandwidth whereas in November I had created a 404 page which generated 200,000+ hits and 2 gb of bandwidth. So far in February another 150,000!
The initial attempt at hotlinking still shows in my logs and also in AdSense as a page impression (I have removed AdSense from the most requested pages) however my bandwidth has dropped enormously as you can see.
In Google images my thumbnails are shown and clicking on it actually shows the large image however when refreshing it disappears to Google/Bing search and hotlinking does the same.
When the images are shown on myspace clicking on them show them as unavailable.
| 1:55 pm on Feb 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
> In Google images my thumbnails are shown and clicking on it actually shows the large image however when refreshing it disappears to Google/Bing search and hotlinking does the same.
Likely because your browser has cached the image as a result of you having previously visited your own site. When testing anti-hotlinking code, it's important to completely-flush (delete) your browser cache in between each test access that should show be allowed (and should show the image) and a subsequent test access that should be blocked (and should not show the image).
The reverse is also true: Once your browser has cached a 403 (or 301/302) response, it will likely show that cached response for a subsequent test case where the image access should be allowed and the image should show.
Bottom line: Flush your browser cache before assessing each test case.
Sorry for the OT technical stuff -- Hopefully it's useful.
For those investigating the new 'site' directive's behavior, is the "-" operator still useful to exclude one's own domain so that hotlinks can be identified?
[edited by: jdMorgan at 2:16 pm (utc) on Feb 23, 2010]
| 2:11 pm on Feb 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
"For those investigating the new 'site' directive's behavior, is the "-" operator still useful to exclude one's own domain so that hotlinks can be identified?"
@jim: jes, this is exactly what we discuss this time. Seems to be the best way to find hotlinks : imagesite:domain.tld -site:domain.tld
| 3:55 pm on Feb 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Bottom line: Flush your browser cache before assessing each test case. |
Maybe I go a bit OTT...when testing I not only do this on my main office machine I do the same on my back-up PC plus at least 3 laptops all with completely cleared caches!
I was caught out by that problem many years ago creating me all kinds of problems.
|Seems to be the best way to find hotlinks : imagesite:domain.tld -site:domain.tld |
Under "Find similar images" I can find loads of mine however none are hotlinked now, personally I don't mind my fellow widget trade's people using my quality images so long as they pay for their own bandwidth etc.