| 5:07 am on Aug 1, 2014 (gmt 0)|
With the number of ripped images all across the web you have a worry? These are your images, correct? Post them wherever you like. They are yours. Forget "duplicate content" as that is generally WORDS not tje bits in pics...
| 6:09 am on Aug 1, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Change the size of the images slightly and then rename them.
| 4:51 pm on Aug 11, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|Change the size of the images slightly and then rename them |
If that works it won't work for long because the image processing technology to compare images of any size has been around quite a few years now.
There's an image search engine called tin-eye that can even find an image within an image, so image mash-ups don't even stop it from finding your image.
If Google is using that kind of tech, which they may, many people are in trouble.
| 7:03 pm on Aug 11, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I don't think so. I have sites where I've purchased stock photos used on dozens (if not hundreds) of other sites, and I haven't noticed any negative impact.
|Martin Ice Web|
| 7:12 pm on Aug 11, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I wouldn't do it in any way. I did it, renamed , resize and turned and mirrored them. When i now put this images in google image search, both sites show up. I guess this is a strong signal that two site are very similar.
Make new fantastic images.
| 7:27 pm on Aug 11, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Martin. BUT maybe I am over thinking this.
| 7:29 pm on Aug 11, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|There's an image search engine called tin-eye |
As useful as a chocolate fireguard:-)
If you don't have time to make new images then don't worry about duplicates whatsoever, Google lost track of who owns what and from when ages ago.
In any case click-thru traffic from images is only 20% of what it was before their image grab of January 2013.
|Martin Ice Web|
| 7:54 pm on Aug 11, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Redbar, it has nothing to do with who owns the image, it is about the fact that you tell google that this two sites are similar and if they didn't have a real correlation between them you give it to them now.
I think panda is more about filter dc than about content, and pictures are a welcome factor to prove similarity of websites as most poeple of ecoms take manufactore pictures. And you don'T need heuristic approaches to compare pictures. If u are big enough it want hurt you, like amazon takes only original manufacture pics and description. Smaller site get killed.
| 2:18 pm on Aug 12, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|you tell google that this two sites are similar and if they didn't have a real correlation between them you give it to them now. |
Google's known for years about my sites, they've been interlinked since the 1990s, in fact at one time I used to serve all my images from one holding domain. It never hurt me until scrapers came along scraping all my images and code and then Google ranked them above me.
What? Scrape my site entirely and then let them rank above me for my images that I owned, that's how much Google lost control of the originals however they seem to have got some of it back now with most of my images back where they were and many scrapers gone out of the top results...in my niche.
Serving your own images on two of your own sites will not hurt you.
| 7:16 pm on Aug 12, 2014 (gmt 0)|
QUESTION TO OP:
Why not merge site A (which has stronger content and whose visitors convert better) into Site B (which get more traffic and - possibly - has better link juice) and make one site with both popular AND high-converting content?