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...]

tedster

12:09 am on Aug 16, 2010 (gmt 0)

Try a page load speed tool of some kind to separate out the various factors. I'd guess the difference is not in the JavaScript.

FlashDriveDT

7:25 pm on Aug 16, 2010 (gmt 0)

Can you suggest such a tool that is reliable? I checked with a couple via google search (iwebtool, selfseo, etc) but they all show my pages as loading fast, usually 0.50-2 secs. My homepage takes a bit longer though, up to 6 secs (got three posts on there).

HuskyPup

7:54 pm on Aug 16, 2010 (gmt 0)

It's interesting that it's impossible to get off the hansrossel site without closing the window whereas on yours one can click back.

tedster

8:35 pm on Aug 16, 2010 (gmt 0)

Can you suggest such a tool that is reliable?

Try webpagetest.org - you'll get a double test so you can see the results of caching, a nice waterfall cascade, etc.

[edited by: tedster at 10:28 pm (utc) on Aug 16, 2010]

Lame_Wolf

9:05 pm on Aug 16, 2010 (gmt 0)

I've added a framebuster recently because I was getting pissed off with people going directly to the image.

Plus side :
1: The average length of time per visit has increased by 9-10 seconds.
2:Less 403 errors reported [people trying to hotlink] because they are not getting the URL of the image as easily as before.

Not seen a decrease of images in Google [yet]

Just put this code inside the <head> tag...

<script type="text/javascript">

</script>

HTH

munkiestyle

2:31 pm on Aug 17, 2010 (gmt 0)

Talking of hotlinked images and 403 errors.

I just added a custom 403 forbidden error page last night to my site and added blogspot as a forbidden domain.

It's now becoming one of my top ranked entry pages! I explain quickly on the page why the visitor has arrived there (due to hotlinking). Many of them are then using my site search or categories links to find the page or image they were looking for in the first place.

Used in conjunction with a frame breaker script (I'll try that next) we might be able to get back some of our syphoned off image search traffic.

FlashDriveDT

10:07 pm on Aug 17, 2010 (gmt 0)

It's interesting that it's impossible to get off the hansrossel site without closing the window whereas on yours one can click back.

Well, Im using this code in the header of my template:
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">if (top.frames.length!=0) {top.location.replace(self.location.href); }</script>

Whereas hansrossel uses this code, on a separate file:
if (top.frames.length!=0)
top.location=self.document.location;

Apparently that makes the difference. Personally I dont think its cool that his site prevents the back browsing.

Try webpagetest.org - you'll get a double test so you can see the results of caching, a nice waterfall cascade, etc.

Thanks tedster, thats a great resource! From what it looks like its the images that bog down the loading time, which I guess has to be expected...at least I know my cache page plugin works because the 2nd loading time is about 2/3 less.
I dont see what I can do to make the images load any faster? On the other hand hansrossel hosts a lot of images too, as preview of bigger images (just like with my site). I really dont get it, maybe he has a faster server.

tedster

10:42 pm on Aug 17, 2010 (gmt 0)

Yes - the "replace" JavaScript method will preserve the back button function for your users. It's often a better choice because it REPLACES the original url in the browser's history, rather than adding a new url, which just throws the back button into loop-de-loop.

I dont see what I can do to make the images load any faster

Just make sure they're as compressed as they can be without degrading visually. In addition to choosing the optimal format, use Photoshop's "save for the web" function. It uses some awesome compression algorithms and you can often squeeze the file size a lot lower than you might think at first glance.

FlashDriveDT

11:38 am on Aug 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

Can this also be done in paint shop pro? Is there any way to "compress as they can be without degrading visually" via the internet or a plugin? Thanks.

FlashDriveDT

11:40 am on Aug 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

I'm still suspecting btw that the javascript plays a role here because how can the hansrossel site break the frame immediately while with mine that takes about 5 seconds? That shouldnt have to do with any general loading time of a site, should it?

walrus

1:26 pm on Aug 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

They should ad a new feature to webmaster tools to deal with websites that do this to webmasters.

FlashDriveDT

3:28 pm on Aug 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Well, while my site surely takes longer due to the images etc the framebuster should kick in faster than it does. What I would expect is that the javascript would cause the frame to break immediately (just like on hansrossel) but that it would then have a blank page for the 5-10 secs or so until the page loads. But instead what happens is that the frame doesnt break for like 5 seconds. Why is that? Btw, my homepage is kind of a special case since it shows 3 full posts at once. And I dont think I have the images indexed by google from that location but rather the corresponding one post pages. But the thing is that the loading and framebreaking time is the same also with those (their sizes are smaller than my homepage of course). How can that be?

tedster

3:42 pm on Aug 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

FlashDriveDT - maybe you can get some better help for that javascript question in our Javascript forum [webmasterworld.com], where all the specialists hang out.

I just added a custom 403 forbidden error page last night to my site and added blogspot as a forbidden domain. It's now becoming one of my top ranked entry pages!

LOL - blocking those hotlinkers en masse can be very helpful - especially if they notice the block and drop the hotlink. That gives Google more of a chance to sort out who is the owner of the image.

Looks to me like we're not going to see Google Images move off this change, at least not for a while. Does anyone who has been getting traffic and conversions via Image Search have any current observations on how the new layout is impacting business?

pixar24

9:09 pm on Dec 7, 2010 (gmt 0)

Hi,

I used this code from Lame_Wolf, and it works fine.

<script type="text/javascript">

</script>

But I am wondering if Google would 'punish' you for using such a script ( and breaking their overlay system) and throw you out of their image search ?

Anyone who has been thrown out ? Or used this script, and is still in it ?

Thx !

This 104 message thread spans 4 pages: 104