homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.98.35
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 39 message thread spans 2 pages: 39 ( [1] 2 > >     
New Side Scrolling Images in Google SERPS
Lame_Wolf




msg:4499140
 5:51 am on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

I was watching that old classic film, Big, and wanted to know who played Tom Hanks as a kid. So, off I went to Google and typed in "Big Cast" (no quotation marks) and there is a long list of images along the top, that scroll. (A bit like jquery).

[google.com...]
(link cleared with mods).

 

tedster




msg:4499143
 5:54 am on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

We will make an exception to our usual "no search terms" guideline for this particular post. I see the same interface in this case - and I like seeing it go horizontally instead of vertically which would push the organic rankings way down the page.

indyank




msg:4499174
 7:18 am on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

looks too crowded at the top and that famous "white space" is missing all around...even the search bar looks less noticeable and more like you would see on any other website. A visitor might forget that he is on a search engine results page. What a massive transformation is this!

g1smd




msg:4499175
 7:20 am on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

There's a "feedback" link over to the right of the scrolly bar.

It puts "wrong?" under each image. So, Google are building their own database it seems. None of the websites in this SERP will see any traffic once that's complete.

Sgt_Kickaxe




msg:4499187
 7:28 am on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

Where is Google getting all the celeb images? I get told off when I ask for permission to use celeb images if I balk at the usually high pricetag they want. DMCA notices flow too, but of course I'm not Google.

Why is the "knowledge graph" repeating what the first wikipedia entry has in its description?

The layout is great, very useful, but not much of it sends visitors to 3rd party sites so... why is it ok for Google to scrape but not anyone else? Wait, it's not ok and they didn't ask.

Andy Langton




msg:4499240
 9:02 am on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

First time I remember getting a horizontal scrollbar on a Google SERP too - admittedly I had a windowed browser, but I guess it's a sign of the times.

rustybrick




msg:4499283
 11:30 am on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

It is called the google carousel. Been out for a while, just rolled it out globally a week or so ago. [insidesearch.blogspot.com...]

Lame_Wolf




msg:4499292
 11:38 am on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

Thanks, rustybrick.

netmeg




msg:4499302
 12:35 pm on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

Yea, I've seen it too. For the few searches it came up for me, I actually liked it. Images probably come from Google Images.

As for the knowledge graph thing - I almost always see it pulling up Wikipedia information, but I've got one site that intermittently shows the latest Google+ post in the Knowledge Graph spot. So I suspect that's in play too.

Leosghost




msg:4499307
 12:37 pm on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

I discussed it at length with others here in August of this year..
[webmasterworld.com...]

It is part of Knowledge graph ( which went global for English speaking countries then )..nothing new..this is one number of threads here which "dupe" things found and discussed in previous threads, as if they were "news"..! there was another on the same subject which Robert Charlton spliced into the original one on the 9th of September..a month after engine started the original one..

<snipped>

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 6:28 pm (utc) on Sep 25, 2012]
[edit reason] chill on the rants [/edit]

indyank




msg:4499338
 1:39 pm on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

I actually liked it. Images probably come from Google Images.


OMG! It looks like you are trying to say google owns internet's images! The more correct way to say it is these are images from sites on internet that Google blatantly copies and hosts on their worst property called "Google images".....and adsense TOS never seem to apply to their own properties.

netmeg




msg:4499398
 4:20 pm on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

No, I did not say that Google owns the internet's images. Geezopete, has this forum ever become useless.

Sgt_Kickaxe




msg:4499488
 11:12 pm on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

Any way you cut it it's stolen content that doesn't send visitors anymore, it's time for Google to pay up.

Andy Langton




msg:4499489
 11:19 pm on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

Any way you cut it it's stolen content that doesn't send visitors anymore, it's time for Google to pay up.


Sgt_Kickaxe - your comment is way off topic. At the moment, Google is gathering almost all it's knowledge graph data (including images, as far as I can tell) from Wikipedia, who have freely licensed their content to Google - just as they've licensed it to pretty much everybody else.

Here's Wikipedia's license:

[en.wikipedia.org...]

It will be a much more profitable discussion if we can discuss impact on SEO without resorting to airing general grievances about Google, especially those that don't even seem to be factually correct.

Leosghost




msg:4499498
 11:35 pm on Sep 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

Andy..if you read my link above, to what I found in August..it does not all come from wikipedia..much of the image material that Google use for this "carousel" comes from other sites..not wikipedia..and they do not verify if these "other sites" actually have the rights to show those images, that Google then uses..as was the case with the "Louvre" image..

Andy Langton




msg:4499506
 12:02 am on Sep 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

Andy..if you read my link above, to what I found in August..it does not all come from wikipedia..much of the image material that Google use for this "carousel" comes from other sites..not wikipedia..and they do not verify if these "other sites" actually have the rights to show those images, that Google then uses..as was the case with the "Louvre" image..


I get it, Leosghost, I really do. And it's important that we know the detail of how Google operates. My point is that there's a discussion to be had about individual Google features that doesn't need to resolve to "Google is a scraper".

Let's assume that Google is an evil, twisting content thief that is exploiting all of our content for profit. If that was common knowledge, and everyone agreed, could we have a different discussion, or would every discussion need to come back to that point?

Check netmeg's comment above, you'll see a degree of frustration that might prevent her from commenting. That means we're going to miss information and opinions.

If anything, the "Google is stealing" comments totally miss the point. The carousel is a clear step from Google, who want to be the final destination rather than the gateway. They want to answer all basic questions right on the first page a user sees. And probably, they'll do that, and they'll do that in a way that users love and hardly anyone will click the first link on those pages any more. So is that game over for webmasters? Do we turn the lights off?

Or is there, perhaps, a discussion to be had beyond the mechanics of the thing? Perhaps we can look at what a site-owner who targets 'carousel keywords' might do to adapt. I have some ideas I could post. But I don't want to argue mechanics.

Leosghost




msg:4499520
 1:14 am on Sep 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

The major problem with the approach of targeting "carousel keywords" is that ..
Your images can be taken by anyone else who is also targeting the same keywords..and Google may well show their stolen image not yours..so you won't get even the eventual ( after Google force the additional pages and modal "lightbox type" pages with ads in front of the searcher ) visitor..and you won't even know that it is happening due to personalisation..

So is that game over for webmasters? Do we turn the lights off?


There does come a point where it is no longer in the interests of any webmaster to just smile and take it in the hope of the occasional searcher who makes it past all of "Google's interstitials" from the link in SERPS to their pages..If Google were doing this with text descriptions there would be uproar all over the net...

If your text content could be copied by anyone, and their description or snippet in SERPS served up by Google instead of yours, and if Google said that the content was "from the web" ( an admission by omission that it probably wasn't from the original creator , but was scraped )..and if the click on that "description/snippet" resulted in yet another Google page opening with yet more ads..and a click on a link on that page resulted in yet another Google page with yet more ads ..and finally a click on that page opened into a framed by Google page with yet more ads.. ( and the page content was greyed out with a "this may be subject to copyright" <= of course it is subject to copyright..and Google is not the owner, nor is it "fair use")..if that was happening, then all webmasters would be in uproar..and lawsuits for IP infringement would be flying all around the plex..

Because what they are doing with ""carousel" is illegal, unless they are certain that the images are copyright free such as those from wikipedia..

They cannot say..block us with robots text..because they are stealing second hand..apparently they have taken a leaf from the pinterest book and decided to crowd source the IP abuse and so try to play the "it isn't our fault we just found it" card..so webmasters have no defence..

Discussing methods to SEO for carousel is like saying to victims of sexual assault in their own homes, that they may as well enjoy it, because the perpetrator is too strong, well connected, will do it again..and that they should discuss which lipstick and makeup and clothing the perp prefers and try to wear them..because when the perp has finished..they might just say what a good time they had and send others.. around to the house..

No good saying that they can lock the doors when they see the perp coming, because the new method is anyone visiting may just take pictures and G will use them not caring who owns them..but knowing full well that G themselves do not..

G is now adding IP theft by unknown proxy, to what was previously search engine crawling..

The only thing one can do outside of closing all ones image websites and or showing no images at all to anyone..is now to watermark absolutely every image..

netmeg




msg:4499526
 1:36 am on Sep 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

And this kind of answer is why I've had it with this forum. There's just no point anymore. Every single discussion devolves into Google is evil. I don't have time for Google is evil. I don't care if Google is evil. I have a business to run and mouths to feed.

Leosghost




msg:4499534
 2:14 am on Sep 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

And this kind of answer is why I've had it with this forum. There's just no point anymore. Every single discussion devolves into Google is evil. I don't have time for Google is evil. I don't care if Google is evil. I have a business to run and mouths to feed.

The problem with that comment netmeg, is that some of us make our living with our images..which we can't when Google do this stuff..and it isn't OK for you to say that we should keep quiet because you making money doesn't depend on you selling or making images..

We all have businesses to run, bills to pay and mouths to feed..

I would n't tell you that you were wrong for posting about Google acting unethically or illegally if my business was not going to be affected and yours was by what they were doing..

Your post is saying that because the 800 lb bully is necessary for your business..the rest of us should shut up and be bullied quietly..or at least not mention what is going on..just in case the bully stops being nice to you..

I don't depend 100% on Google for my businesses..but your wanting the rest of us to stay quite and pretend that Google is still the webmasters friend..( when they clearly are not ) makes it seem like in spite of posts to the contrary..possibly your business does depend very heavily upon Google..and maybe you don't want people telling the truth and rocking the boat for you..

If nobody cared what or who was good or evil as long as they got a piece of the money that was being made..we'd just as well all sell crack and traffic women and kids..that is where "I don't care if ******* is evil.I have a business to run and mouths to feed" leads..

******* could be Google, could be the triads, could be organised crime, could be anything..as long as they make money and one gets the crumbs.. hey, if evil or illegal doesn't matter, and only money does..Once you don't care if someone else is getting screwed as long as you are making money..and you'd like them to stay quiet about it..:(

SevenCubed




msg:4499538
 3:01 am on Sep 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

May I? I want to keep this as short and as focused as possible. Both Sgt_Kickaxe and netmeg are expressing frustration but from opposite points of view. We as a collection of members have to have empathy for each.

Personally I don't mind seeing negative comments about google popping into any topics related to google and their practices. It gives me comfort that it's not just me feeling like that and by having it reinforced from time to time it also helps me to realize I am not becoming cynical because it's not only me.

For those that are bothered by it how can you have not developed "negative comment blindness" by now? Just ignore it like I ignore the comments that glorify google when they clearly don't deserve it.

Overall I agree with most of what Leosghost just posted in that last one -- a select few go too far to prevent us from biting the hand that feeds them. If our negative comments were allowed to gain momentum and it eventually contributed to less people using google that leads to less ads served and less profits for AdSense publishers.

<<< Passing the peace pipe to the left, who wants a puff >>>

lucy24




msg:4499559
 5:47 am on Sep 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

negative comment blindness

I read this too fast and read "color blindness" which is not at all irrelevant. I hadn't happened to search for anything in several days, so it was a nasty shock this morning when I searched for {squiggle}* + "translation" and found my search terms all highlighted in bright red. Ouch.

The relevance here is that the self-same red shows up when you click on any of those images-- except that either g### didn't test properly or they don't like my browser, because it hops and skips before lining up as intended, with the selected picture in the middle and the fresh search below. (Mercifully without red highlighting, since it would make every single header solid red.) For some reason it especially hates picture #2 in the specific search that started this thread. I get: red outline around where the image ought to be; smallish image to the right; and the top half of another red outline below that. Is it possible they cribbed the picture from somewhere else than all the others?

Wonder how "google in your language" sneaked into the middle of the picture-clicking history? Matter of fact, I thought I was kidding but I think they really didn't do enough testing. There's certainly no reason why "Check Cookie" should crop up repeatedly under /google dot com/ in browser history. The dropdown one, not the History menu.

Your browser's cookie functionality is turned off. Please turn it on.

This is, not to put to fine a point on it, a brazen untruth. (Detour to check browser prefs to make sure cat hasn't stepped on the wrong key.)


* Chinese word that I cut-and-pasted. Still not much wiser on what it means.

tedster




msg:4499706
 12:53 pm on Sep 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

Seems to me that the web itself is creating a major cultural challenge to all previous ideas of intellectual property. The complaints about search engines (Google and others) go back to the practice of serving a cached page - which was a big issue here ten years ago and not so much these days.

At the same time, there seems to be a generational divide going on in the culture. The younger generations seem to have a lot less concern about the whole issue. I'm not sure what that's all about.

There have been several legal rulings about search engines and whether this kind of thing legally falls under Fair Use - and so far most of the time, the rulings seem to fall on the side of the search engines. Something has got to give, but I fear it's going to be a many year evolution, and not a once and done "fix".

When it comes to image misuse, I already spend more time than I want to policing the whole thing and trying to defend my IP rights and those of my clients. Seems to me technology itself is at the root of this challenge, and that technology ought to be part of the solution.

Image Search has always been terrible at proper attribution. There ought to be a way for technology to offer a fix, but so far no one seems to be championing the cause very effectively. Yes, that includes Google - but they are far from unique or alone.

Leosghost




msg:4499816
 3:44 pm on Sep 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

The complaints about search engines (Google and others) go back to the practice of serving a cached page - which was a big issue here ten years ago and not so much these days.

That IMO isn't because it is any less of a problem, but merely because the newer and younger webmasters have grown up with "cache" and thus think it is "normal " and "right"..and legal challenges require very very very deep pockets ,,and the search engines alway fight those cases in the USA, in front of judges and a legal system which is very "friendly" to major corps and IT corps in particular..it is almost considered "un-American" to return a verdict against a US corp in a US court..( which considering how they all avoid paying their taxes in the USA like other US businesses, and instead are claiming to be run from my "ould country" Ireland, is ironic to say the least )..they are able to bribe/ lobby US politicians and legislators to be able to "have their cake and eat it"..whilst taking the food from the mouths of those who are not so well connected and whose pockets are not so deep..

The younger generations seem to have a lot less concern about the whole issue. I'm not sure what that's all about.


Most of those who are unconcerned are not creators ..they are torrentors or downloaders who are convinced that by not paying they are "sticking it to the man"..or as with the users of pinterest they are looking for their attention , and waving or pinning someone elses work gets them that attention..they don't care how, because they don't have to work to get it other than copy paste..those who are creators are not at all happy working for free, they too have businesses a to run and bills to pay and in some cases kids to feed..working long hours to create content be it text or images only to have it instantly "claimed" by a search engine directly or by another site and then by the search engine doesn't sit well with them either, but they are too busy playing catch up to the ever increasing larceny to be able to come and post in these sort of marketers forums..

Visit the creative forums and they are full of complaints about how they are expected to work for free and make all of this in their spare time or do it for the "exposure", ..what spare time, what exposure..you cant take "exposure" to the checkout at the supermarket or the gas station and use it to pay for anything.. !

Seems to me technology itself is at the root of this challenge, and that technology ought to be part of the solution.


The big rich players have no incentive at all to use or promote or research any technological solutions to this..because it suits them exactly as it is now..A solution to this would mean that they would have no content to hi-jack, whether by crowd sourcing , a la pinterst and ehow, or by scraping using other sites as proxies as Google has done, both now and previously..

Image Search has always been terrible at proper attribution


They could fix all problems of attribution easily..they have no interest in doing so..only showing the original of anything would take out 90% of the content that they use to pad their SERPs and to get the eyeballs to their ads..So much easier to say publicly that it is too hard, but we'll do our best and remove it if you tell us, whilst privately knowing that their entire business model is based upon showing IP that they do not have the rights to show..thje negotiations that were made public after Google's acquisition of Youtube showed that they knew and know exactly what is happening and use it as the foundation of their business model..

There ought to be a way for technology to offer a fix, but so far no one seems to be championing the cause very effectively


The voices of the "I don't create anything but you should let me have your creations for free or let Google have them for free so I can make some money with Google and don't rock the adsense webmaster welfare boat are louder and more strident than the combined voices of us creators..and Google can afford fancier layers, more bribes / lobbying, and string out court cases until the creators have to choose between paying the lawyers for years to fight..or have no money for their businesses or maybe even food..

The DMCA was written not to protect creators but in reality to give the Google and the other IP abusers a get out with no penalties to them if they took down what they already knew was not theirs fast..

Google got their start in an educational establishment ( whose use of content and images was protected under US law by fair use..they abused that right from the get go ) then as they moved away from there and into the garage and onwards via the IPO , they just kept right on claiming that they still had the right to do so as if they were still and educational establishment "reviewing or quoting brief passages"..Their SERPS have never been "reviews"..and you can't quote a brief passage of an "image"..you are either showing the "image" or you are not..it is either yours to show ..or it is not ( funny how they don't show any that they just found that belong to Getty images or the Image bank, they know damn well which images are attributable to who.."they don't mess with the big dogs" )..they began by showing thumbnails ..now they are showing full size images , and masking the sites that they get them from with a lightbox..

The searcher need never turn into a visitor for the creators site..Google have seen that crowd sourcing IP theft has worked for Pinterest so far...so they have put it on steroids..

Yes, that includes Google - but they are far from unique or alone.

They may not be alone..but they are by far and away the worst serial offender, the others didn't even exist when Google first began abusing the IP of image creators, hiding behind the fair use of the desktop in a university where they began even long after they had left that "fair use" haven..

Now they have taken it to the ultimate stage..it is no longer of any use to block them via htaccess , because they are using and image stolen by your visitors and claiming it to be "found" on the internet..and taking it as theirs and slapping ads around it for page after page..

They always said .."if you don't want your stuff in our index, block us with robots.txt..and or block us at the server via htaccess or similar..and we'll leave your stuff alone"..

They invented carousel as away to not have to keep their word..they are now using stuff that is not theirs to use and which they are blocked from and knowingly doing it using human proxies..upon whose sites Google "found" it ..

Like I said they don't find any Getty images, nor any thing from the other big image banks, attribution is working alive and well behind the scenes ..so as to avoid them big public scandals and legal bills..

They want to use just wikipedia..that is fine by me..but wikipedia doesn't have images for everything , and Google were hoping that those who create the images that they just "found"..wouldn't notice..

Yeah ..that is evil..

It is a shame that some here don't want to have the sound of "stop thief" interfering with watching their adsense stats..and that others are helping to find and furnish Google with excuses, Google and they know exactly what they are doing and Google knows exactly what belongs to who..they choose to pretend otherwise..because it suits their bottom line..

alvin123




msg:4499861
 6:14 pm on Sep 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

Great post Leosghost!

Brett_Tabke




msg:4499869
 6:30 pm on Sep 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

lets chill on the rants people. It is been treading with the line lately. Put it down and back away slowly from the rant button.

The_Fox




msg:4499905
 7:56 pm on Sep 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

I've seen those appear for artist, music, cast searches as well. Nice to know that they're global now. Effective!

incrediBILL




msg:4500133
 10:58 am on Sep 26, 2012 (gmt 0)

OK, that's pretty cool. I like it.

BTW, if you click these images they give attribution when shown on the right hand side, which all appeared to be from the wiki, which is a common usage license, making the issue moot if they only use those images. Besides, if you watermark your images (which everyone should) it's great exposure, if not, too bad.

IMO, if you allow any SE to index images, how they use those images in the promotion of the content is fair game. However, if they were using images from site A to promote content from site B, then we'd have a real problem and that's not what's happening here whatsoever. If you don't like what they do with your images simply don't allow them to be indexed.

FWIW, controlling content crawl and usage via robots.txt, .htaccess, robots meta, robots headers, etc. is easily doable so nobody is stealing much of anything anymore unless the webmaster permits it to happen. If a webmaster doesn't know how to do these things that's another problem, but not the SE's problem as all the tools you need are there if you know how to use them.

Leosghost




msg:4500145
 11:25 am on Sep 26, 2012 (gmt 0)

However, if they were using images from site A to promote content from site B, then we'd have a real problem and that's not what's happening here whatsoever.

In the example I gave in the August thread, that is precisely what is happening..

Given the billions of search queries that Google deal with every day, it could be happening to hundreds of thousands or millions of images..sure watermarking would get your domain name out there, but some people do not want to "spoil" their images with watermarks right through the middle diagonally,( thinking of particularly a lot of artists and photographers here ) because watermarking in any other way can be, and is, simply cropped off..

FWIW, controlling content crawl and usage via robots.txt, .htaccess, robots meta, robots headers, etc. is easily doable so nobody is stealing much of anything anymore unless the webmaster permits it to happen. If a webmaster doesn't know how to do these things that's another problem, but not the SE's problem as all the tools you need are there if you know how to use them.


I have a firefox add on ( I did not write it, it is widely available ) that can defeat any of that..I can take any image of yours, and put it on my site as if it were mine..where Google can then, "find" it..

The only way to stop it is using a script I developed ( which we two have already discussed ), which currently has it's own problems with a side effect of hi-jacking sessions ..this move by Google, more than anything, convinces me that I need to resurrect it and solve that problem..

incrediBILL




msg:4500162
 11:49 am on Sep 26, 2012 (gmt 0)

In the example I gave in the August thread, that is precisely what is happening..


How? each image I see always links back to the source website.

but some people do not want to "spoil" their images with watermarks


We're talking SEs directly using images here so they won't be cropping or tossing meta data or any of that nonsense. Those are fine arguments when 3rd party scrapers are involved. not really applicable to SEs, let's keep on topic.

If you don't want to "spoil" the image, keep it off the web ;)

Leosghost




msg:4500174
 12:14 pm on Sep 26, 2012 (gmt 0)

How? each image I see always links back to the source website.

When I made that search in August..the image linked back to the site where Google "found it"..but that site had taken it without permission from another ( in that particular case from the Louvre website ) that is the problem..Google is taking some images from scrapers..

Hence..

We're talking SEs directly using images here so they won't be cropping or tossing meta data or any of that nonsense. Those are fine arguments when 3rd party scrapers are involved. not really applicable to SEs, let's keep on topic.


But 3rd party scrapers are involved..in precisely that search I made in August ..

As long as the scraper that Google gets it's images from crops out the watermark, removes the meta data etc..then Google can say they are in the clear and merely "found " the image..

If they were only using wikipedia images, or images from sources which they know positively to be copyright free, and taking them directly from those copyright free image sites ..( the problem being anyone can scrape anyone else's images via screen capture, and then use them on their own site and say that they are now "copyright free", that happens all the time ).. I personally, and many other image creators would be fine with this "carousel"..

This 39 message thread spans 2 pages: 39 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved