Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
joined:Sept 29, 2012
joined:Sept 20, 2011
In fact, one of my long term clients lost an important page 1 ranking and about 40% of their total Google traffic - and they don't have an EMD, it's a branded domain.
joined:June 4, 2012
joined:Aug 18, 2011
but if a website dont want there images spread, they must watermark, thats the best and good solution.
piatkow - Thats what im talking about this Image update is just catastrophic, all those sites that links to images or websites rank better then those sites that are linked to, which sound so weird and not logic at all.
@Leosghost, what you say about watermarking is true, but the frustration with watermarks is that you have to stick them over a vital part of the photo, or scrapers can just crop off the watermark and use the rest. And if you DO put it over a vital part of the photo, then you're frustrating your users - especially if the photo isn't just decorative, but is part of something like a tutorial or product review where it's important people be able to see the details. Plus, it's just kind of ugly.
I wish there was some kind of invisible digital signature that worked like a watermark.
There is a blogger custom of re-posting a single image in a post that pushes visitors to the original site - LifeHacker does this, and they can send you lots of paying traffic.
I don't want Google to force me to send LifeHacker and sites like it C&Ds when I really don't mind the photo being reposted in exchange for all that traffic.
I just don't want Google somehow deciding I'm not the original copyright holder.
This is nuts - why don't they just devalue images?
And I'm sorry to ask again, but does anyone know about screengrabs being considered original or not?
I see huge sites doing just fine with this practice - Mashable, LifeHacker - but is it really okay or are they just "getting away" with it?
It seems to me screengrabs should be considered original.
And what about press release photos? For example, when a company sends a webmaster photos of its latest product in hopes they'll tell readers about it, should they not use those photos?