Google image vs frame buster scripts

[zeus]

For some days I have been testing what happens when I remove the frame booster so google can show our images as if its owned by google. As it looks now we double our image visits, BUT adsense almost collapses, so as it looks now its not worth it, if CPM banners are getting more impressions Im not sure yet untill now I dont see a boost there. Still I just dont get it WHY would google do such a thing to us webmasters they must know that they steal our visits and just take our images without giving something back. I would recommend all webmasters who dont depend on Google image to block them at once or if you are depended on click ads.

[matrix_jan]

zeus,

Did I get it right, you removed frame busting code from your pages, and the traffic doubled?

For some(most?) browsers the frame busting code isn't even working.

[zeus]

matrix_jan - yes when I looked at google image results in the stats it went from 1600 to 3200, my frame busting works. Another thing I have noticed is that some that also use frame buster, there images in google image search show a white page where it comes a warning if, you really want to go further be cause the site redirects. Means a warning where 90% of users will go back to search results.

[zeus]

just found a images where this warning comes from google image :

Redirect Notice
The previous page is sending you to http://www.example.com

If you do not want to visit that page, you can return to the previous page.

Why dont they write, we are stealing the content from this site, but the fight it. I bet this warning show up then we know, thats also this boost in my google image stats, but still see no boost in CPM banner earnings, just a sharp drop in adsense earnings.

I think about a way to hide the frame buster from google or do it so they dont notice it and let yahoo and bing have full access.

[edited by: tedster at 5:39 pm (utc) on Feb 4, 2012]
[edit reason] switch to example.com [/edit]

[zeus]

just added the frame buster again, I have adedd another this time, to see if the google images search stays. I think the boost is just be cause that google sometimes show this stupid warning I have not seen it yet on my site, but I have also not really checked.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Leave the frame busting in place, for now Google is not disabling its effectivness and from what I can tell is not giving that message 100% of the time (I have yet to see it).

Bing and now yahoo! both however flatly block the redirect when they load your page on their site and even ad a message saying they do NOT recommend the visitor leave bing/yahoo to see the original site. Google is the most lenient in this case.

LEGAL - It's against my site terms of service to load my website into a frame on ANY other site yet ALL THREE search engines do it anyway in their image searches. A legal challenge because of tos violations and because of image theft is possible though i'm sure they are ready for that. If they don't circumvent my blocking it from happening it's a non-issue... hopefully Google doesn't do what Bing/Yahoo do.

[zeus]

They really need to show the site in full again, the other method is just a slap in the face for webmasters, they say we have to work hard on our sites, but then they dont even want to show our site. If I was you I would write google and say its against terms of your site. I have a script that boosts yahoo and bing also.

[tedster]

stupid warning

At the same time that there are certainly unresolved intellectual property issues here, there are also security concerns that Google may also be trying to address. Your frame busting script has an honorable purpose, but not every JavaScript redirect does - especially those that run inside a frame.

In fact, frame mark-up has been problematic for the Internet ever since it was introduced. And the introduction of the sandbox attribute is a very weak band-aid for the situation.

I'm not sure that the courts in any country have definitively ruled about framed content as an intellectual property issue. After all, technically the content is still on the server where it started, even though it shares the viewport with content from another server. In short, the situation is a real mess.

[matrix_jan]

@zeus

The white ('90s) warning page you see is not always showing up. From what I have noticed it only comes when clicking on newly added images. Somehow G indexes the page then evaluates it, before the evaluation the message shows up.

The traffic boost you monitored, was it mainly from The US? As far as I've noticed frame busting is disabled on google.com only.

The thing is that my website has many sizes of the exact image, and when the user clicks on the largest one shown in serp, they naturally bounce back, because of long loading time. If G is smart enough to find "similar images" throughout the web, why don't they do the same for individual websites and serve more suitable image in the preview frame? The website is well formed and organized.

[zeus]

matrix_jan - im not sure if it just where US, I dont think so, but I have returned to the frame busting, but Im slowly getting very agree at Google, I just dont see the point in ANY way of presenting images in that way, google is a SE for people to find other sites, it also dont look good. I have seen this warning on some other sites for a search, but now those sites with warning is not ranking at top anymore. Another thing do you have images that is blocked, if so you could try my script if it also busts that.

Maybe its really time to stand up against google image, if we could get more then 100 members or non to block google image, then I think a lot would do it, maybe more would follow.

[1script]

Ad clicks collapse as the OP is saying because the ads do load (and that is counted in ad impressions) but they (and the rest of the page) are overlaid with the image that G Images is showing. In other words, you get a referral from Google that counts in every sense of the word in your web and ad stats except that your page is rendered useless by the way Google opens it.

This kind of referral is not only worth nothing but is actually harmful to the site - it uses all the resources a "normal" visit would but nothing good will ever come out of it for you as a webmaster - no site interaction, no account registration or sale or an ad click - whatever you measure your conversions with. I've tried some measurements and at best I'd say less than 1% of such visitors ever cared to close the "picture preview" thing to actually open your site. Given that the "preview" is 100% the picture itself, I can't blame them - they got what they came for. Besides, your site is more than half-covered and may not look all that enticing when all you see of it is a little border around the picture.

I've tried to use frame buster scrips on picture-heavy sites but my experience has been that the traffic from both general Google and G Images stopped almost dead. Google must have a special disdain for people that use frame buster scrips because it messes up their Images service. Even though all it does is shortening the path from Google to your site from two clicks to one, just like on their general property.

Anyhow, I think this G Images business is probably the closest Google has ever come to an outright copyright violation on a global scale. I think they have won a case or few where they've argued that the thumbnails (the G Images SERP page) is a fair use and is actually helpful to the copyright owners because it promotes their work (and isn't a full copy of it anyhow). I can actually see how this makes sense.

But then they turn around and add another click which has to open the very work they're supposedly promoting and yet it's still very much on their own property and, to add insult to injury, is served using the owner's bandwidth. Why they had to do it this way is beyond me - the fact that your site is disabled by your own picture makes it especially insulting.

I just ended up disabling access to the Images bot - there does not seem to be an amicable solution to this.

[zeus]

1script - do your frame work work? Yes they must have something that stops some of your visits, be cause as soon I added the frame buster again my google image visit got down big time, maybe 50%. I also dont get why they have to disable the webmasters site, they should be have for every content we give them.

[Lame_Wolf]

just found a images where this warning comes from google image :

That message is intermittent. It sometimes happens on my site. (I have a framebuster too.)

[zeus]

Now its official most if not all new web pages that use frame buster gets this notice on google image, it dont work everytime, but it sure is there to scare the user.

Redirect Notice
The previous page is sending you to http://www.example.com

If you do not want to visit that page, you can return to the previous page.

So WHY should we let google access to our images, with the way of showing our images, you dont get add impressions and no one clicks your ads, so no income for your bandwidth.

if you then use a frame buster, most visits now get this redirect notice which scares users away, so whats is it worth to be listed on google image.

[Planet13]

So, which frame busting script is working now?

Can anyone please post it here?

Thanks in advance.

[levo]

[webmasterworld.com...]

Scripts doesn't work...

[zeus]

my script works fine, but not against the redirect notice, but els on google , yahoo and bing. Planet13 i will mail you this, i will not post it here, enemy also looks here.

[zeus]

I have noticed that google is expanding there "we dont trust ANY webmaster" by blocking more and more images with there redirect feature. If you use a script to break frames so spammy sites dont scrape your content, then you will also have a problem with ranking on google image, be cause they do exact that. I have been testing a little.
First I have seen a big down trend in visitors from google image over the last 2 weeks, then I removed the frame buster then my visits went up 100% the next day, but I did not see more earnings, so removing the frame will make google happy, but thats also it, you dont get anything out of it, compared to have the frame buster on. The sad thing is, you will see less and less visits from google image, be cause of your frame buster. So if you dont have something on your site, so they have to go to your site, you will maybe be best of removing all images from google to save bandwidth and money, until google go back to "do no evil".

Here a few points:
1. Frame buster will have less and less effect
2. Google image ranking will go down.
3. With time Google image is not worth your bandwidth, if you visitors dont HAVE to go to your site for content.
4. Watch your google image visits, to see when its time to remove your image.
5. Still let yahoo and Bing have access and then remove frame breaker, then your site will also show, Yahoo and Bing is worth it, also be cause if they click cached image they get to your site.

I have one more test to make, will let you know if it worked.

[zeus]

Im not 100% sure, if i had a frame buster on this specific site, but I think not and I found a image from that site on google image which then got this warning of redirecting, but im pretty sure i never had it there, so are there also bugs in there new system, so they block site with no frame busters.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Google, if you show my images make it easier for the visitor to visit my site or you won't be showing my images much longer.

I don't know how to say that more simply.

[jabas]

Do you guys still get keyword data while using a frame buster script ?

I started a thread about that, please give your feedback if you are experiencing the same thing :
[webmasterworld.com...]

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Jabas, we don't even get a click more and more often.

[zeus]

I will keep my modified frame buster a few days to see the effects, then I will remove it, be then I get about 100% more "visits" but if the earnings dont go up from banner impressions, then I will remove all images from google, but just google, be cause why should I keep the images on google image.

[levo]

Scripts in "sandboxed" iframes, when using a webkit-based browsers (Chrome/Safari/iPad), don't work. You're probably using some other browser, that doesn't support sandbox attribute yet.

[zeus]

yes I test with firefox, another thing try a image search on google.de there you have the good old version of google image. Also google will say they do this be cause of security, which is maybe 50% of the reason, but why dont they do it so, if a site use frame busters and it redirect to host domain/listed image domain page then the frame buster works.

[zeus]

Now Im sure, they also block some sites with no frame buster and no redirects with the same Redirect Notice, so there new system that blocks webmasters that try to protect there site from scrapers dont work.

[Andem]

It appears that frame-busting is working again and for some strange reason, I'm also seeing Google.de using the old horizontal frame. Did Google even ever update .de to the new frame layout?

Is Google now only sandboxing *some* domains and others not? It's inconsistent because some days the frame busting works on Chrome, other days it doesn't.

[levo]

It seems to be on and off.

[matrix_jan]

For the last couple of days I see google.com-style preview for google country-level domains, except for .de, which still uses the old-style horizontal splitter.