| 2:33 am on Oct 3, 2012 (gmt 0)|
EMD and image search update happened at same time to 5 of my sites that are completely unrelated and not connected and in different niches. So I do think it was all part of the same update.
| 9:04 am on Oct 3, 2012 (gmt 0)|
tedster - With some of the first Panda updates I noticed that google image was also effected, I never seen that before at that time, google image and google search is getting more combined thats for sure, so why not with this last update, but im not sure.
| 3:00 am on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Can any verify this with their site? For me, if I search my domain name in image search, what I see are some of the very same images from my site, yet they aren't the images from my site. As if to say, those images on my site actually belonged on those sites all along and therefore they are the rightful owner and not myself. It's quite odd. I would suggest in some instances, it has been done correctly by the Google Image search. They have essentially designated a "rightful" originator as best they can do with images that once resided on my site. I'm sure it will be fine tuned to established who had which image up at which time which ultimately points to the originator slash owner of the image. Again, it's very odd when looking at your own site I'm finding. In a sense it's like having a piece of land for years, having essentially ownership, and then being forced off the land. Whatever the case, it seems very complex to me now. I'm speaking to one or two of my sites, not all. If you've lost traffic, have a look at your domain in image search. You see what you thought were your images, but they have attempted to be accredited to a different/rightful site? Just curious. If so it would have me rethinking images all together and how much time to spend on them and even if saving time creating them won't cause any real negatives.
| 3:14 am on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I just tried that MrSavage and I am getting very few images from my own site. Mostly from other sites that are scraping mine. Funny thing I have also noticed is that some articles I link to with my G+ account and the images in those g+ posts outrank me. Pretty funny really.
| 10:02 am on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Mostly from other sites that are scraping mine.
If they find your picture hotlinked they will return all the pictures on that page when you do an image search search on your domain name.
My impression is that they give more weight to the full url in the hotlink than to the relative addresses on my own pages. I haven't seen any of these sites come up when searching on keywords.
I doubt if it was Google's intention but, given that Joe Public is most unlikely to do image searches on our domain names, we have a useful tool for a one-shot identification of hotlinkers.
| 11:46 am on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Hi guys and Zeus,
1. I couldn't see major changes in german Google image search. (Only some small changes that seems as Googles works on the "duplicate Images" Problem (t.m. same picture in the image-serps twice or more). Btw: We have in Germany a "image-search-index" called "bidox" - it confirms: no big changes at all...
2. All my english-galleries have the same traffic since months. From my point of view I can't confirm a major-update in the englisch image-search.
3. In my observations the last "big Update in image-search" was "freshness" (some months ago).
4. All you described sounds to me like a "safesearch-filter-problem". Did you checked your domain with the site-command (site:yourdomain.tld in the Google image-search)?
5. 'm sure the Panda, Penguin or other Web-Spam-Updates doesn't effect the images-result. A "web-spam-filter for images" - especcially for hotlink-farms - is missing!
6. Conclusion: I wait for a major image-search-update - guess we all do :-)
Best wishes, Martin
| 3:40 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I forgot to ask this question dang it. Where was it said anywhere officially that there was an image search update? I don't recall seeing that in this thread at all.
As far as I've been following there hasn't been anything official about this. In which case, is this possibly the first time that the effects of Panda touched image search also? It might explain the massive drops in traffic. In the past some of my sites at least got image results traffic, but in the main search I couldn't rank for anything.
I'm a bit confused about why it appears images are so affected, but there isn't a link in here to a story about it. Anyone?
| 5:59 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
as I just have seen on Googles Insidesearch-blog there are a lot of changes with the safeSearch-filter, please see [insidesearch.blogspot.de...]
Changes on the safeSearch-filter usually produces a lot of collateral-damage.
If you lost a lot of traffic, check this:
- make an image-search for "site:yourdomain.tld" with "safeSearch Moderate" (Option top right)
- check the number of results (top left)
- then switch to "safeSearch off" and compare the number of results
- if there is a big difference (much more images for "safeSearch Off") your site is in the filter.
| 6:14 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
There was a image update trust me and Google dont say that often when there is a google image update, Im even not sure if they ever had.
The problem is not safe search on and off for most, thats always the first thing to check, they did have a problem a few years ago, where they have filtered to many images without any reason.
About normal google update, yes before Panda it did not influence the google image ranking, but over the last year to 2 the ranking on the web search has some effect on rankings, somewhere I have also seen them say that, but thats some time ago.
Ohh one more thing martin, not always is it you can see the images rotate, sometimes its just the url that changes, the image is the same.
| 6:35 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
probably you are right, sorry. I didn't see changes in Germany, perhaps it will be rolled out here in some days.
What I observed is that the pages where the images-search link to get worser and worser. So I could not believe that there will be a Panda-influece for images. But of course I might fail.
You are right: Google did not announced every update in imagesearch.
The last point you mentioned is in my eyes the biggest problem: stealing the link in Google imagesearch by hotlinking (or copying). That is what I would call a major update in imagesearch: if Google could find the real author of an image (by age, trust of site, size or all together).
Looking forward to whats coming up :-)
| 9:39 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The German Google image is different sometimes, they also still use the classic layout as I recall, when you click a image. Outside of Google.com image the results are mostly better.
| 1:32 am on Oct 14, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I find the most baffling part of this thread is the lack of posts. I might be way off here, but for a site or two of mine, the only explanation is that the majority of Google traffic that I did get, was the result of a nice ranking image. That's the only explanation I can come up with.
This image update, if there actually was one, was like a fart in a windstorm. Why no Google mention? I have to ask that again. Is that because it's not .005% of affect searches and or websites? How major was this? Does anyone have any clue about Google image search anymore? No coverage on this.
I'm back here for insights if there are any. I was just sorting through stats and seeing Google traffic, it appears image related. Nothing more, nothing less. In addition, today I was search a brand of kids games, and what do I see? Two porn photos. Not sure if that's my settings (may have switched) or if this is new, or if this was just a very rare occurrence which I've never encountered before. It's such a hodge podge of images with some real site spam, I can't make sense of it AT ALL.
| 10:01 am on Oct 14, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Google image has made a bad update here late sep. thats for sure. About there filter, thats still top, nothing to complain about, of cause there can be one or two that pass by, but thats maybe out of a million.
| 10:15 pm on Oct 14, 2012 (gmt 0)|
in this last update g crushed me from 6k daily to 1k daily, earlier this year i had 10k+ daily (and since 2006), original images, but i see alot of copycats using my images and ranking good with MY images, and my site mostly disappeared from there
one fresh site copied all my images, even removed my watermark, and it's now in top 10 results for many keywords, i like google's logic :)
| 10:39 pm on Oct 14, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Dont take this the wrong way, its not the coping thats the bad thing here, its the hotlinking and links to other sites that get more benefit, then where the image is located. About images, many want there images spread around so more visitors see the work, the said thing is just now that the ranking on google image has gone bad with this last update.
| 10:49 pm on Oct 14, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Oh but it is the copying that is the problem..and many ( in fact as an image creator,who is in contact with many others, I'll guarantee you that most, like 99.99999% of image creators), don't want their images "spread around"..( those who do want their images "spread around" actually say so..but some people just assume that they do..and use it as an excuse to copy without permission )..the issue is that now Google is sometimes ranking the copiers higher than the creators..and some of the long time copiers are actually complaining, because they are being outranked by newer copiers ..for images that they both scraped*..and which belong to neither of them ..
*scraped or stolen, is what it is ..not "spread around"..unless the image creator gives permission in writing, for each and very separate instance..for their images to be "spread around"..
| 11:24 pm on Oct 14, 2012 (gmt 0)|
not only they copy 1, 5, 10 images, but entire site 1500+, and those images rank better than my original images, or most of the time my images are 2-3 pages down and my copies are in top 10 (where i belong 2006-early 2012), g totally destroyed my site with this years' updates, 1st update in spring i lost 6k visitors/day, and sep.28 lost 5k more
at least i still get some visits from bing images :D
| 6:53 am on Oct 15, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Just a thought here as I'm sifting through image searches hoping for something positive.
Is it possible that this update is just a update such that your site ranking is now mimicked in the image search. In other words if recently your site tanked for whatever keyword phrase, you images are equally as buried. This may not have been the case prior to this update. I can verify this in my situation for sure.
I might be going over previously discussed details here. I certainly can say I had examples of images ranking (giving me traffic) when my site in search would be nowhere.
So as jolting as this is, could it just be a matter of that "hand out" or "mercy traffic" simply vanishing as your ranking on the main search. I personally think that images kept a site of mine alive, but Google flicking the switch to say, aha, your site isn't ranking on our search, so why is that image of yours way up there? Then poof. It's gone and so is my traffic from Google. It proves that my site wasn't getting main search traffic. It was all image search. I didn't realize how dramatic that was until this took place.
Can any disprove this theory? Just curious. Sorry if repeating what's been mentioned. I still think the forum is scattered with discussion which omits the consideration that a dramatic drop in traffic was the result of "images be gone".
| 12:18 pm on Oct 15, 2012 (gmt 0)|
MrSavage - yes that started at about the same time as Panda started at that time they combined web and image search a little, but not fully:personally i dont think thats a good idea, be cause many good image just dont rank well, but would benefit google image if they had good ranking there. The latest update I think they have added a little more to the fusion of web and image.
| 12:43 pm on Oct 15, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I had a massive crawling of my Coppermine Gallery in the early hours of this morning UK time on a tablet from Mountain View...gawd knows what that means!
| 10:29 am on Oct 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The last two days I have seen yet another 50% reduction in image traffic to my Coppermine Gallery...this means it's now approaching 10% of a couple of years ago.
You are so screwed-up Google yet you don't want to listen!
| 9:18 pm on Oct 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I'm doing a bit of looking around. I seem to be on this trend of checking the bottom of search results and seeing what's there. Well has anyone been checking the last of image results?
On one of my sites in particular, the end of the image search results you can find many many images from my site. It's like a dumping ground of images from my site.
Can this be explained? Has anyone else bothered to look at the end of image search to see if there is a similar pattern? If I take a keyword search that I once did well for, I simply see a plethora of my images right down at the bottom. Any ideas on this? My site isn't spam and ultimately there is no explanation for such a widespread torching. It's like a cleansing of my images from google search. This may explain why I'm seeing the numbers I'm seeing.
I just can't figure whether it's the chicken or the egg. Which came first? Did my site get some type of issue and the images went as a result? Or was this the images were in the wrong and that's simply my loss of traffic? Very confused about this world of Google right now.
| 9:46 pm on Oct 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I dont see any update
| 10:28 pm on Oct 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I'm suggesting that since this thread started is the point at which my images ended up in last place. I don't think this was because of anything happening recently. The fact is I wasn't checking the bottom of image search until now.
| 4:34 pm on Oct 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Has any of you who where hit by this last bad update also noticed a decline from Bing image 6-7 okt, im asking because Bing is partly coping google web results, maybe then also a little Bing image.
| 7:23 pm on Oct 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Something happened again to my Coppermine Gallery over the weekend, yet another 50% loss of page views for the past 4 days, I'm now down to about 5-6% of where I was a couple of years ago or so.
The most bizarre thing is though my AdSense earnings have not been affected at all with my CTR more than doubling etc so far.
I'm now probably going to remove this gallery and sit it on its own keyword domain.
Doesn't Google understand that once these unique sites are removed for ever that they have no knowledge engine to draw upon?
G...Don't just assume that someone else will do it, they won't, it was a labour of love for my industry to use...I'll simply lock it down and provide free access to my trade...simples:-)
| 7:37 pm on Oct 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
To emphasise Husky's point..I knew of his gallery as the definitive source of images of what he sells..before I ever joined WebmasterWorld and discovered that a member here was the person behind such a resource..
I'm not at all in his industry..and if the gallery goes "trade only", very many people will mourn it's loss to the wider public..
G are "throwing the baby out with the bath water" in some cases, such as his..
| 8:25 pm on Oct 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Can we conclude that it's an ongoing update and specific sites are being impacted right now?
| 9:01 pm on Oct 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
hmm I dont think so, can be other new images pushes other down, but I almost thing the one dude maybe have another problem
| 9:22 pm on Oct 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
On search result pages where I still see my image ahead of the first natural result I am seeing youtube text links(without the video capture) a whole lot more right now.
| 9:28 pm on Oct 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Hi zeus, this all started with Panda 2.1 May 6th 2011.
This specific Coppermine Gallery was the only part of any of my sites to be hit and since then it has been hit several times, twice this month alone.
I have been told other Coppermine users have had similar issues however I've never had the opportunity to discuss this with them.
I agree that there must be a problem but precisely what I haven't a clue other than it's a Google hatred of Coppermine!
| This 98 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 98 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |