rustybrick
msg:4448878 | 12:25 pm on May 3, 2012 (gmt 0) |
Anyone else agree or disagree?
|
deadsea
msg:4448896 | 1:49 pm on May 3, 2012 (gmt 0) |
I challenge anybody to find images of an eclipse that happens at twighlight.
|
Sgt_Kickaxe
msg:4449003 | 5:43 pm on May 3, 2012 (gmt 0) |
| I challenge anybody to find images of an eclipse that happens at twilight. |
|
I lol'd at that one. Unless you're into astronomy and Google knows it you can't find a picture that doesn't have a barely clothed vampire or werewolf in the bunch. Yahoo! and Bing both have better image results, you're right. Actually I see Google results suggesting I want to buy the book on Amazon or ebay even. No thanks.
|
zeus
msg:4449014 | 6:17 pm on May 3, 2012 (gmt 0) |
I have now notice the search I usually make is now back to normal quality, maybe it was a glitch in the system. Still I think the image results has gotten worse after Panda, be cause they take there web search results more into the image ranking.
|
mssfldt
msg:4449911 | 8:33 pm on May 5, 2012 (gmt 0) |
No, I can not confirm this. Of course there are a lot of really (!) spammy hotlink-farms - and Google said that they want to rank images with high quality (text-) content on the target-page better. But until now I couldn't see that this works.
But this is since years a major problem. I would not say that i gets worser ;-)
In Germany we have a cool "image search index tool" (not my project). It's for free (called "bidox") (You could open the site with a .de at the end). This tool shows that neither Panda nor Penguin has any influence to the image search results.
|
|
