| 6:50 pm on Feb 28, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Seems clear that accurate attribution is not a high priority for Google Images, doesn't it? And an exact duplicate? I'd say that's something that could be spotted pretty easily.
| 7:01 pm on Feb 28, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Is it the same size, or larger?
| 7:18 pm on Feb 28, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Some copy my images and put them in rumple blogspot pages full of off-topic semi-naked female pics, and guess what? They outrank my images with my watermark on them. Some manage to cover the watermark and still rank higher. Now that's pathetic.
They should start linking images to websites somehow.
| 8:58 pm on Feb 28, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Is it the same size, or larger? |
Identical to mine other than they didn't save it to the same compression therefore the file size is bigger.
Yep, just now dragged the image into the image search box and several pages all come up, all with my image in varying sizes from the original down to 100 x 100 and several of these images are also from the last few weeks.
Whilst Bing is not perfect it is miles better, at least it has mine there and only a couple of copies further down the results.
They really do seem to have lost it with images, I wonder why, I never used to go anywhere else but these days 50% of the time I am forced to use other engines.
| 5:14 pm on Mar 4, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I've already posted this in the March SERPs update however things are getting really stupid with Google images:
|Today I've seen a 2013 launched site go straight to #1 with one of my images, obviously copied a few months ago, and knocked me off the top. The on-page info is crap with four short lines of general blurb, nothing more, nothing factual, nothing unique, nothing...fubard G, fubard. |
I just can't believe how they are assigning images so wrong these days. An image I've had for ten+ years yet a brand new site can just come along and "job done"...ridiculous.
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 5:17 pm on Mar 4, 2013 (gmt 0)|
A search engine's only decent defence is that it crawled images in non-chronological order. Their defence is pretty weak when you've had the image online for 12 years...
| 6:01 pm on Mar 4, 2013 (gmt 0)|
With apologies to Lily Tomlin..
|"Here at the search engine, we handle eighty-four billion searches a year. Serving everyone from presidents and kings to the scum of the earth. So, we realize that, every so often, you can't get an an answer that makes sense, or for no apparent reason your site drops out of the top 950, or perhaps you get kicked out of adsense. |
We don't care!
Watch this... [ *she* hits buttons maniacally ] We just lost interflora.
You see, this search engine consists of a multibillion-dollar matrix of space age technology that is so sophisticated -- [ *she* hits buttons with her elbows ] even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it? So, the next time you complain about your search results,or we credit your images to someone else, or we just take them, why don't you try using duck duck go..or bing?
We don't care.
We don't have to.
*Sometimes Matt Cutts or Amit, do this part of the "gig"*
| 6:34 pm on Mar 4, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Some copy my images and put them in rumple blogspot pages full of off-topic semi-naked female pics |
Same problem here. The joke is that I have to send strong proof of ownership with the DMCA before they remove my images from the Bogspot page with semi-naked pics and pron ads.