Are Image Theft and Hotlinks Creating an Algo Disaster?

[macas]

Hello everyone,

Since I don't have too much time to talk around ( paticilar on this section ) because I'm trying to put back website(s) in shape from SE disater and algo-changes, I'll start this

topic directly pointing on niche which becomes "wild wild west" near "Algo Farmer".

Am I only one WHO SEE this ? Is algo change ruined completely Graphic/Image related sites?

In last six months ( or more ) I never seen some many ways of scraping graphics/images around the web and spamming real source. In this niche every solid or reliable website who had original or at least licenced to redistributed content ( Graphics/Images , and yes THIS IS STILL content ) is trashed and ruined by buch of big scrappers websites and also hotlinking thieves.

They don't spam just Google Images , they even start to spam Google Search Engine and
literally copy/past whole page from original source. And no , they didn't punish them ,they punish a original source/ website with original content.
Things can be more appsurd (or they can ?) ...

I'm goona recapitulate some happening in near past :

A new trend with Google Images : Hotlinked images on malware pages around Google Images

[google.com...]

Crawl errors images on owner website with copyright which issue are Hot Linked
+
Hacked mobile google image results

[google.com...]

A clever money-making scheme taking advantage of google-image search ( Hotlinking Thieves )

[google.com...]

The Beginning Of Disaster - New layout

[googleblog.blogspot.com...]


Well as you can see or read , this is more then nightmare, I must pinch myself every time when I see this kind of news about Google Images but this is truth but Google stuff dont pay attention at all( or they become blind ) . With this algo-change solid and reliable websites are gone from bad to worse and big scrappers are still there and taking everything what's left .


I would like to join me on this discuss everyone who are familiar with this and have a
website related to graphics/images.

[edited by: tedster at 10:08 pm (utc) on Mar 3, 2011]

[aristotle]

I agree that a lot of images are being stolen and/or hotlinked. What I try to do is to apply SEO methods to the images on my sites to try to get them higher up on the Image search results. There are several simple things you can do:

1. Put keywords in the file names.

2. Put keywords in the image alt text.

3. Include some relevant text near the image.

[TheMadScientist]

Have you tried describing the image in the alt tag?

Personally, I wouldn't worry about text on the page. I'd describe the picture to some one it doesn't load for ... I don't in any way mean keyword stuff ... I mean they say a picture is worth 1000 words, I'd use some of them ... 200, 300, 500 whatever it takes to describe the actual image ... IOW: I'd tell the story of the images on page in words and see what happens.

[macas]

@aristotle

I did first , second and third suggestion but no hope ... big fat website scrappers still manage to be on first pages on Google search or Google imgaes. It's became never-ending-agony with them

@TheMadScientist
That's what you suggesting it's more looks like 'stuffing' and we both know that G don't like that at all :/
explanations of using alt tags:
[googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com...]

I'm still thinking that google images dont take seriously this madness because I found more website scrappers , ten of them is hurting my rankings on Google Serach and Google Images.
The biggest joke of all is that I reported one of those websites TWO TIMES as thief and after removing my images ... they did it again, scrapping again, both my websites.

Now ... is there effective way to stop this ?

[TheMadScientist]

Nope ... Stuffing is exactly like he says ... Cat cat cat yarn yarn yarn ... I said to describe the actual image ... It's totally different, and I've done it on occasion without any issue, but idk how they rank, because I don't let them be indexed.

I figure the person who can't see the image might like to know what color the cat is, and what color the yarn is and if it's a stick figure style drawing or a photo, and if there are knitting needles in the yarn, and ... all the other stuff they can't see.

That's not stuffing; it's describing.

<rant>I even said what I suggested was not a suggestion to stuff ... Idk what to say ... Blown away ... It's the alternative to the image ... Imagine having to use a screen reader ... Wouldn't you like some 'color' in the descriptions of the images on a page? It's been repeatedly states sites should not be built for search engines, so what's everyone do? They throw the suggestion and common sense out the window and try to kiss search engine a** which usually (especially lately) seems to backfire...</rant>

Sorry, just get tired of trying to defend common sense.

[TheMadScientist]

longdesc = uri [CT]
This attribute specifies a link to a long description of the image. This description should supplement the short description provided using the alt attribute. When the image has an associated image map, this attribute should provide information about the image map's contents. This is particularly important for server-side image maps. Since an IMG element may be within the content of an A element, the user agent's mechanism in the user interface for accessing the "longdesc" resource of the former must be different than the mechanism for accessing the href resource of the latter.

I guess they have a special attribute for what I said I would do, go figure ... lol.
Didn't know about this one until today: [w3.org...]

My semantics were off when I said to describe the image, but I think what I meant was correct; here's the newer version, maybe:

<!-- Using <figure> and <figcaption> -->
<p>The network passes data to the Tokenizer stage, which
passes data to the Tree Construction stage. From there, data goes
to both the DOM and to Script Execution. Script Execution is
linked to the DOM, and, using document.write(), passes data to
the Tokenizer.</p>
<figure>
<img src="http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/images/parsing-model-overview.png" alt="The Network leads
to the Tokenizer, which leads to the Tree Construction. The Tree
Construction leads to two items. The first is Script Execution, which
leads via document.write() back to the Tokenizer. The second item
from which Tree Construction leads is the DOM. The DOM is related to
the Script Execution.">
<figcaption>Flowchart representation of the parsing model.</figcaption>
</figure>

!-- This is WRONG. Do not do this. Instead, do what the above examples do. -->
<p>The network passes data to the Tokenizer stage, which
passes data to the Tree Construction stage. From there, data goes
to both the DOM and to Script Execution. Script Execution is
linked to the DOM, and, using document.write(), passes data to
the Tokenizer.</p>
<p><img src="http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/images/parsing-model-overview.png"
alt="Flowchart representation of the parsing model."></p>

[dev.w3.org...]

There seems to be some debate about alt v longdesc and how each will be used in HTML5 (or HTML moving forward), but imo there most likely will be a technically correct way to replace the image with text in any version.

[TheMadScientist]

Since alt text use is obviously unclear and these threads get read quite a bit, here's another example of HTML5 alt text according to the spec above. (Draft 5, Mar 2011)

A screenshot in a gallery of screenshots for a new OS, with some alternative text:

<figure>
<img src="KDE%20Light%20desktop.png"
alt="The desktop is blue, with icons along the left hand side in
two columns, reading System, Home, K-Mail, etc. A window is
open showing that menus wrap to a second line if they
cannot fit in the window. The window has a list of icons
along the top, with an address bar below it, a list of
icons for tabs along the left edge, a status bar on the
bottom, and two panes in the middle. The desktop has a bar
at the bottom of the screen with a few buttons, a pager, a
list of open applications, and a clock.">
<figcaption>Screenshot of a KDE desktop.</figcaption>
</figure>

[pageoneresults]

Use this as a reference for the alt attribute in HTML5...

HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives
[Dev.W3.org...]

The longdesc has been deprecated in HTML5. There are plenty of folks who are not happy with that decision.

If it were me, I surely WOULDN'T be taking the HTML5 advice and stuffing an alt attribute with an entire description like they show as examples. Remember, the text alternative takes up visual display space and may interfere with surrounding text.

I'd look at all the other methods available before putting more than 80 characters in the alt attribute. The W3 have recommended 80 characters as a suggested limit when composing a short text alternative.

In regards to the topic, don't let them hotlink! If you rely on image search for revenue, then you should plan on blocking all but those that you will allow to hotlink. Don't ask me how to do this either, talk to your dev. Let them know that you need to allow Google and maybe a handful of others to hotlink. All the rest get a 403 and/or a special message just for hotlinking swine! ;)

Are Image Theft and Hotlinks Creating an Algo Disaster?

In my personal opinion, yes they are. There are patents from Google that discuss hotlinking and how they may use it in their algo. Hotlinking can be good in some instances and in this instance (topic at hand), it can be bad.

[TheMadScientist]

It's funny how much we disagree, yet both seem to do alright P1R ...

There are plenty of folks who are not happy with that decision.

And plenty who are ... Me included.

Remember, the text alternative takes up visual display space and may interfere with surrounding text.

But doesn't in major browsers ... Were you misleading on purpose or have you not tested it? As long as you have a height and width set the text takes up the image size...

<img src="/img/p1r.gif" alt="If it were me, I surely WOULDN'T be taking the HTML5 advice and stuffing an alt attribute with an entire description like they show as examples. Remember, the text alternative takes up visual display space and may interfere with surrounding text.

I'd look at all the other methods available before putting more than 80 characters in the alt attribute. The W3 have recommended 80 characters as a suggested limit when composing a short text alternative.

In regards to the topic, don't let them hotlink! If you rely on image search for revenue, then you should plan on blocking all but those that you will allow to hotlink. Don't ask me how to do this either, talk to your dev. Let them know that you need to allow Google and maybe a handful of others to hotlink. All the rest get a 403 and/or a special message just for hotlinking swine! ;)" style="height:120px;width:120px;">

BTW For those who may be reading and actually considering following the HTML5 Spec rather than being 'stuck in the past' ... If you're wondering how Google may treat the use of the alt with some actual text in it ... The editor of the Dev Doc I linked above happens to be a Googler, so my guess is they know about the change and will handle it according to the spec.

[TheMadScientist]

Here's the full arguments about the longdesc retention rather than removing it from the spec for those interested: [w3.org...]

The discussion was put on hold, apparently Aug. 31st, 2010, and the page has not been updated to say a resolution has been reached, so it's possible we may here from this attribute again in the future, but hopefully they're smart enough to just keep it simple and do away with it altogether.

[macas]

*Topic Update

Maybe I should start another thread but it's very similar with this issue above.

If you have new issue with Google Images such as :
- Your images are disappeared from Google Images under Safe Search ( moderate )
-Wrongly tagging images as unsafe

If you have experienced simliar problem with your website , post here or write about your problem here : [google.com...]

You can also check this thread too:
[google.com...]
Google Images made big changes for safe search in last few weeks.

[aristotle]

So now, in addition to the horrible problem of image theft, Google is making it even worse by mis-classifying some images as unsafe.

[macas]

No one is happy with this , believe me ...

One thing we certainly know , they started briefly changes over Google Images SafeSearch filtering( particularly with moderate filter).

At time moment we didn't get any official statement about this algo-change and how long will be like this.

Bad thing is that blog scrappers, image thieves and other scrappers are still on Google Images and repalcing all original source of images, just another nightmare on search.