Google Image - Layout change could be VERY bad for webmasters - Google Search and SEO forum at WebmasterWorld

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google Image - Layout change could be VERY bad for webmasters

zeus

10:05 pm on Jul 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

Now google has copied Bing again, you will get a ton of images on first page, just thumb images shown, when you hover over image it gets a little bigger, with source URL, when clicked you see a larger version of images and in background faded the page from source url.
Im not sure a webmaster gets any impressions counted for when done this way and most image sites have large bandwidth to pay for and when they dont get any impressions with the new Google images, its just like hotlinking.

Google will then be blocked by many sites...

Now im not sure if impressions are counted but it will be a BIG blow for many webmasters who count on images searches on Google.

Personally I will give them a week, if I see less impressions counted for banners, I will block google image.

[googleblog.blogspot.com...]

levo

11:15 pm on Jul 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

Framebusters work, also I redirect hotlinked images to the origin page.

Planet13

11:22 pm on Jul 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

"...also I redirect hotlinked images to the origin page."

How do you do that?

zeus

11:44 pm on Jul 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

The new Google image layout is gone again, but does any know if banner impressions are still counted, with this new Image in front and faded site in background layout.

levo

11:45 pm on Jul 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

CDN shows an error page (with a "please wait" notice) instead of the image (via .htaccess), that has

<body onload="window.location='http://www.domain.com/hotlink.php?file='+self.location">

hotlink.php parses the image url and detects either the article id, or lookups the image in database, and redirects to the origin page..

zeus

12:12 am on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

now I just saw google adsense ads at top of image results

Sgt_Kickaxe

6:41 am on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

Framebusters work but what irks me more is that the "see full size image" link Google places opens up my image with a url ending in .jpg/.gif/.png etc. I don't like or want this, people link to the .jpg/.gif/.png version of the image instead of the full url of the page it's on which doesn't help me in any way.

I don't want links directly to any image at all, I want links to the pages they reside on. Google isn't helping me here.

In fact Google was sued over this but unfortunately won (source:http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20070523.html).

HowYesNo

2:27 pm on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

this is very very bad :\ less earnings in adsense, more bandwidth costs :\ way to go google :S

zeus

3:36 pm on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

as said im not sure if banner impressions are counted with this new layout, be cause it has been gone sense i have seen it yesterday, but I surely hope so or I will of cause ban google from spidering my 40.000 images and counting. When copying Bing why dont they respect that most of Photo site count on banner imp. Bing does it the right way.

ken_b

7:15 pm on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

Well that's it for me. I just disallowed my image folders in my robots.txt file.

Hopefully that will get G (and others) to drop my images from there public image serps.

I'll see how that affects my traffic and income, if it does.

I've already quit building "image" pages for the most part because I'm weary of seeing my images pop up elsewhere anyhow. It's taken me years to get to this point, but I'm there now.

zeus

7:28 pm on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

I will also block google, but I first need to know if banner imp. are still counted with this new version of google image, as said I dont see the new version anymore, if not counted I will of cause block google and many will follow, that must also be clear for google.

So if you want to search images its at Bing.com, but its still a big IF in this situation

HuskyPup

8:36 pm on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

I'm only seeing this in Firefox 3.6.6 and not in MSIE 8.0.7.6, Opera 10.6, Navigator 9.0.0.6 nor K-Meleon 1.5.4

Is this the same for everyone else?

zeus

8:56 pm on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

I see it in every browser and I have just noticed that the new version is back and I dont think a single banner impression is counted, means Google is using your Bandwidth without you get any visit/banner impressions, so I can just recommend everyone to block google image so you dont use up bandwitdth for nothing and concentrate on Bing and Yahoo.

I will also say I will not follow Google image anymore or come with updates, if Google stays with this new version, its not worth watching as a Webmaster or talk about.

Also when blocking Google image do this with .htaccess so no image is shown on there site at once if not cached.

ken_b

9:05 pm on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

when blocking Google image do this with .htaccess

How is that done?

zeus

9:11 pm on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

one sec I will try something, so if they click the link directly to image they get to my page also, means what ever link they push they will be redirected, then google dont offer any good service and you get your impressions.

I will say this first, give them a week, before baning google they are still testing, I know for the last many years there motto was "do evil" but give them a week, maybe they still have a little Nerd heart in the chest and not a $ sign.

Lets wait to see the results with this, it seems it is spread much wider now and we will then see how it effects the impressions of site giving google there content.

levo

9:57 pm on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

Well, even if banner impressions are counted, you would be either smartpriced, or advertisement networks would stop showing ads or stop counting impressions sooner or later. Instead of loosing traffic, bust the frames and redirect hotlinks..

zeus

10:05 pm on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

yes we do need some solutions if this really ends bad.
1. Like how can we stop the direct link to a image "full-size image link" thats maybe the most important thing.
2. How can you stop the ajax pop image or can it even be redirected in someway.

levo

10:33 pm on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

[googleblog.blogspot.com...]

and

[adwords.google.com...]

zeus

10:53 pm on Jul 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

hmm not much about if a content provider gets site impressions, but ok now we know we only have to give them 2-3 days to see if blocking Google is a must.

One thing I have to say I dont see any positive thing is this showing a larger image and hide the provider in the background, I would rather be transfered directly to content site from the thumbs or have it like before where you have a view of the resource page.

mahlon

1:09 am on Jul 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Just now saw this and came here. Very Bingish.

J_RaD

2:54 am on Jul 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

do they think at all before rolling out such a change? to to blatanly block out the content, absurd! Nahhh you don't wanna view that silly page you just wanted the picture...here take the picture, move along now nothing more to see...back to google images you go.

jeyKay

4:35 am on Jul 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

I cant see how this can be bad, but I have a feeling it will be eventually.

Its just kind of sad that they are copying Bing.

gethan

5:59 am on Jul 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Any tech details?

1) Is google hotlinking to the source image on the high-res preview?

2) Is the results page the same as that seen in Asia a few months back?

3) The high-res "preview"? if hosted by google is it a full copy of the image?

4) Has this new interface been seen outside of the USA?

I think this is very serious - a sad day for fair-use - hopefully getty or AP will sue them.

zett

6:33 am on Jul 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

gethan:

3) The high-res "preview"? if hosted by google is it a full copy of the image?

Ah - good question. Maybe this is related to the outcome of the Viacom-Youtube trial? Now that Youtube/Google officially may host and transform videos of any kind and show ads next to them, maybe they feel more safe hosting and serving high-res photos as well (and display ads next to it)?

Again, one step closer to banning Google.

gethan

6:35 am on Jul 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Q: Is there a fair use issue with showing full image instead of thumbnail?
A: We believe our implementation is within fair use. That said, when you look at the page, you do get webpage behind the image; you get both in a single view.

[techcrunch.com...]

Note: Q: Is there a fair use issue with showing full image instead of thumbnail?

HuskyPup

10:00 am on Jul 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

UK - 5 different browsers

PC with Vista is not seeing any difference

Laptop with Win7 is seeing this only in Firefox

Netbook with Win7 is NOT seeing any difference

What's going on?

zeus

10:29 am on Jul 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

I only see it in IE8, im using windows 7, but I dont think that matters. Have any tested if the banner impressions are counted with the new google image, I can not test here in europe.

I want to know if I have to block google image from all my sites and focus more on Bing /yahoo images.

HuskyPup

1:51 pm on Jul 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Have any tested if the banner impressions are counted with the new google image

At the moment I'm not seeing any difference in any metrics, including bandwidth and AdSense PIs, whereas when I had several images hotlinked from Google images a few months ago by several social networking sites my bandwidth exploded and sent AdSense Page Impressions crazy.

Personally I don't like the look of it because it seems too crammed and busy.

albo

3:47 pm on Jul 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

"Qrobe dot it slash images" draws the results from GOOG and BING, but I don't know how that hits your metrics. At any rate, it is my favorite (much more user-friendly) image search.

freejung

8:11 pm on Jul 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

you do get webpage behind the image; you get both in a single view.

That is not the same, and they dang well know it. Nobody is going to click on ads displayed in the background behind the picture they came to get, so these are basically wasted page impressions from a financial viewpoint.

And it's even worse than just that. Normally on my site when you click on an image, it opens a popup with terms of use and the option to download various higher-resolution versions of the image. This interface completely bypasses my normal download mechanism which will not allow you to (easily) download the image without reading a summary of my terms of use. Now you can just save the image straight out of Google's popup. That's obnoxious -- at least with the previous interface you got a full page impression for the trouble even if people did have the option to click "view full size image" and bypass the download mechanism.

You have no way of knowing that higher-resolution versions of the image are available either. This is bad for the users and bad for my site and encourages people to violate my license terms. IANAL, but this use doesn't seem "fair" to me at all. Big thumbs down.

If they stick with this I'll have to consider either blocking it or putting in some kind of very obvious text along the lines of "close the Google popup and download directly from my site to get higher res versions!" or something like that.

This 104 message thread spans 4 pages: 104