gbk666 - 2:16 pm on Jan 29, 2013 (gmt 0)

Yup. Seems like some believe that images are growing on trees and are no reason to visit's one website lol.

I got other comments too though, not only negative ones, but those were sadly in the majority


"I've checked this and I don't like it. It's the hotlinking that offends me. Linking directly to the image, instead of the page it resides on. Don't some web hosts have hotlink protection? Wouldn't it work? I don't think it is. I don't get it.

The hotlinking is not right. That's one of those rules of the Internet. *shakes fist at Google*"

"Oh that explains what was going on with the google image search. Personally, I find it annoying (not just from an artist's standpoint) but from a user of google image search, I don't like the interface and find it clunky (and this is my opinion from 2 days of using it without knowing was the context was- I'm not from the US either, must be a NA thing).

Effectively on first glance it seems much the same except the tags associated with the image is gone, you just get the page address if you hover over the image, that and the date released which is pretty boring for most purposes. I liked the tags to make sure (or at least be more likely) something was what you were looking for if you have no idea what that thing might look like- for example if you're googling something like e.coli you might know WHAT that is, but you might not have any idea how that looks compaired to say, salmonella and you might get pictures of both on a google image search. Now you pretty much have to go to the page and read the associated caption with the image to find out if the picture is infact what you're after. Lazyness says that there will probably be an increase of wrong captioned images floating around due to people being too lazy to do this and just grabbing the first picture they find on google.

The positive to this is if the image in question is on a site you WOULDN'T want to visit it lets you bypass the float-over on the source webpage. When you click on the image you get two options- visit source page and view full image.

I imagine for a webmaster this might decrease ad profits (if you get ad viewing revenue from people when they're in the page float-over) however I think that it means that whatever number of views you get is much more representitive of "true" views.

Whatever number you're getting are from people who truely visit your website and browse, not just people who get sent there and then click on "view full image," save it, and then close the window without ever actually looking at your site. You do loose some of the curioustiy effect by getting a little bit of a preview though which will likely drop real views.

TL;DR: This is actually pretty similar to the system thats been in place on things like the iPad for a while now. I personally don't like it as a image search user since its clunky and makes my life more difficult on finding information about the image without having to visit every page. Similarily it will likely keep lazy people from checking their sources and so a lot more improperly described images will be floating around. I imagine a lot of the lost "views" are probably superficial coming from people who are only there to click "view full image" before closing the window, but it will likely hurt ad revenue and cause a drop in real views by not offering a potentially interesting preview of the page to people doing image searches. Main positive? Avoiding having to load a sketchy website to get an image."

"Damn, I did not know of this and yeah, right away I thought this is for their own profits on ads...
Essentially, what they're doing is beyond image search and it's about stealing content and place it on their own platform so they get their profit on other sites expenses. As if it wasn't bad enough when normal websites steals our work on the images, now google will do it themselves. No wonder how every schmuck with an internet connection thinks that it's ok to steal work from the internet without any consecuence, one of the biggest companies on the planet does it themselves."

"This is terrible. Google is hogging all the attention for itself and barely letting any room for anyone else. lol power hungry jerks..."

"That's a shocking move from google, i personally use image search all the time, I think that'll change if they fully implement that."