#1 out of 1 billion+ and removing the page - due to IMAGE thieves

[HuskyPup]

I have every piece of protection in place yet these goddam scourges on every website insist on framing Google images, displaying mine, the user clicks and finds out it's not available and moves on yet I still get hit for bandwidth etc.

I am deriving absolutely zero benefit from this therefore a plain white page with 404 "Gone" is about to appear.

Is there any other solution?

I can afford the bandwidth, it's just screwing-up my metrics and I just do not understand why I should have to put up with it any longer!

[tedster]

Go for it

[anallawalla]

And replace the image with something appropriate for the thieves.

[Robert Charlton]

Years ago, I discovered a church hotlinking a client's image and changed it to a graphic reading "Thou shalt not steal." I took them a couple of weeks to catch on.

[HuskyPup]

We'll see how this goes:

404 ERROR PAGE!

The Page You Are Seeking Has Deliberately Been Removed

Because Of Bandwidth Thieves

To Return To Our Index Page Please Click The Link Below

Example.com

Thank You For Understanding

All is working as should be in the search engines and any attempt to open/link to the image goes directly to Bing.com

I think I'll give it a month then replace those pages with a slightly altered url and image name.

Honestly, it amazes me that so many people, 40,000+ so far this month, believe that they can just link to anything with impunity and especially so when they're wanting to use a very basic background colour!

[Brett_Tabke]

Why not block google imagebot? Also, put the images in a directory that normal gbot can't get too. Finally, put up a htaccess that blocks googlebot from the directory.

[HuskyPup]

Why not block google imagebot?

Out of the thousands of images I have it is only these two images that the social networkers want, rather than using a simple html code they obviously find it easier to hotlink than adding something like #123456

I am not having a hotlinking problem, all that was resolved last year, the problem is that the Google SERPs and Images feature these two images as #1 and 2 for this specific colour and, of course, everytime someone looks at them it creates bandwidth usage but more importantly it generates log visits etc thereby distorting my metrics.

As it is I had to remove AdSense from those two pages last year because they generated Page Impressions everytime someone looked even though they had not been to the site.

Now the rub is that these two colours are a couple of my company's worldwide best sellers and I need them to be seen to my industry therefore removing them completely from my sites is really not a permanent option for me. Fortunately at the moment for me my B&M sales for these colours are very solid so I really do not mind if they disappear off the normal SERPs top of the page images.

I'm going to re-name them now and re-upload them and hope that I do not regain the #1 and 2 position so fast!

[netmeg]

Would they still show up if they were set as a background image?

[pageoneresults]

I believe I've read somewhere that hotlinking of images is of benefit if you are targeting image search. That's probably why you have those number 1 and 2 spots now. :)

Can't you accommodate (via a redirect) for whatever they are doing and serve the image?

[HuskyPup]

The first few hours' results look encouraging:-)

The 404s have increased proportionately, bandwidth has reduced considerably plus I have renamed the url and image files and they're back on display working normally with an AdSense url channel so I can see immediately if there is an abnormal increase without having to check my logs.

I wonder how long it will be before Google puts them back at #1 and 2 and I have to go through this again?

[Brett_Tabke]

Ok - I see where you are going with this.

How about redirecting users to a smaller and more bandwidth friendly version of the gfx if they are viewing on Google?

[HuskyPup]

more bandwidth friendly version

They're already well optimised and compressed as a 500 x 500 to 17.35kb however that's not my real issue, I can afford the bandwidth, what really annoys me are these social networking sites using Google preview tools for freebie backgrounds.

Can you imagine what my bandwidth really would be if I allowed the 200,000 backgrounds per month to be added, that's 2.4 million in the past year alone and some of these sites do have some serious page views.

As I already wrote I do have this under control, I'm simply trying to make my actual metrics look correct rather than having a couple of "crazily-viewed pages". Quite simply what I have done is as follows:

example.html with image example.jpg deleted

and have been replaced by

example-ab.html with image example-ab.jpg

Now I can delete and replace immediately and only have to change the navigation link IF/WHEN it starts again.

[HuskyPup]

Yay...that's nailed it for the moment!

[StoutFiles]

Unless you run a tech site, most people won't understand what a "bandwidth thief" is.

[fabulousyarn]

I read this thread and chuckled at the person who is posting on another thread about just getting in over his/her head in SEO. This is another example of how technical expertise is somewhat critical to SEO. Just frem reading this I learned so much on something I've not encountered yet - but I know i will....