Google punishing image hotlink protections

[ianevans]

From a discussion over at the Pixabay blog it looks like Google is starting to further punish sites that use any scripts to redirect the Google Images "view image" button to the actual page containing the photo. Some sites with galleries that already saw a sharp decline in traffic when Google "improved" their image search to show our photos without context are now seeing a further decline.

Egads. I'm thinking about turning all my photo galleries into YouTube slideshows. At least there'll be some monetization.

[fathom]

Correlation does not imply causation.

Could just be older indexed images moving farther down the page as more newer images are added.

That would have the same effect... YES?

[ianevans]

The people about it rec'd manual action penalty notices on Google Webmaster Tools and had to submit for manual consideration. I guess we'll have to see.

[fathom]

Would love to see the reference material for that, as these are the current ones noted by Google:

[google.com...]

[aristotle]

Google punishing image hotlink protections

Do you mean that Google is punishing people who try to protect their images from thieves?

[Leosghost]

"Reference material" ..the first two posts in particular quote specific communications received from google on this issue..
[wordpress.org...]

[ianevans]

Ah...didn't know we could post reference material. Haven't been here in a while Are links to relevant posts allowed?

[fathom]

References sure. But not promotional.

[edited by: fathom at 4:52 pm (utc) on Sep 26, 2015]

[Leosghost]

It depends..on where they go to..( linking out policy was relaxed a while back ) if in doubt ..check with a mod or an admin first..

[tangor]

For years I have used a set of low res (which G and users see all the time) and a click through on each image to a non-indexed full res versions of same. Has worked for me, but is double the trouble.

Errr,,.. more explanation needed: these full res are in a paywall area.

[fathom]

Ya I think the only problem here if you desire Google's FREE traffic for HD Res you need to provide that.

It might indeed be HOTLINKING but as you pointed out it's HOT TRAFFIC as well.

[fathom]

This article while not directly related to imagery or hotlinking but the parallels in false advertising or fake traffic are based on the similar opinions here

[bloomberg.com...]

You get what you pay for and that isn't always the implied version of what you desired.

Google knows it sources of traffic are at the premiere level and it is still offering you that free of charge but you have to meet Google halfway or start paying a premium for this quality.

[tangor]

A few might say "some offer!" and decline to agree. I don't offer the high res from the get go. Those I sell.

[Lame_Wolf]

I checked one of my sites last night. I used to have 10k images listed. Now, I have ONE.

I do use hotlink protection, but nothing dodgy, or redirecting. I also use a framebreaker for said site, but that only works on older IE browsers.

My other site uses the same hotlink protection (but without the framebreaker) and that site does show them in Google Images.

[Lame_Wolf]

I've looked at my .htaccess for both sites.

This one is now causing problems (as far as I can tell)

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} .
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^google\.com [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^bing\.com [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^yahoo\.com [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://example.com/.*$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://example.com$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://example.com/.*$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^example.com$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER}
RewriteRule .*\.(gif|jpe?g|png)$ - [F,NC,L]

This one is from the unaffected site...

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://example.com/.*$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://example.com$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://www.example.com/.*$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://www.example.com$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^bing\.com [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^yahoo\.com [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^google\.com [NC]
RewriteRule .*\.(gif|jpe?g|png)$ - [F,NC,L]

The ONLY thing I can see differently is that one uses

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} . and the other RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$

Could that be the cause? I don't want to rush off and panic, and possibly make things worse.

Thank you.

[jambam]

"Google knows it sources of traffic are at the premiere level and it is still offering you that free of charge but you have to meet Google halfway or start paying a premium for this quality."

In other words google holds a monopoly over internet search so tough biscuit? Google image search result traffic is pretty poor as google sends users to the picture itself not a page on your site also it is often just used by copyright infringers.

Bad for bandwidth and bad for your content as it gets spread around the internet. Block gogole totally and build up a reputation to make users go directly to your site is the best way!

[ianevans]

"Bad for bandwidth and bad for your content as it gets spread around the internet. Block gogole totally and build up a reputation to make users go directly to your site is the best way!"

I agree with you 100%. Google's not giving me "hot traffic". When they initially changed Google Images we lost 95% of our traffic. We're a news site. Our images are from major news events. Now fans just look at the images on the search and never bother coming through to us.

[fathom]

Seriously that isn't the type of traffic you need nor really desire.

[ianevans]

The advertising from my former pageviews would beg to differ.

[tangor]

CDN style content is not "your" images. If you create your own this hotlinking thing would mean something else. I have never let any SE, particularly G, have my high res images.

Meanwhile, "news" images that others also have really aren't bread and butter either, particularly since G changed image search.

[fathom]

Which is likely why Google slapped you with a Manual Review...

Clearly promising one thing then offering something totally different "UNFAIRLY" puts money in your pocket. Of course, the same revenue filling would happen if you provided the lowest quality of images... right?

That would solve the hotlinking issue, the bandwidth issue and the MIS-MATCH issue... so what's the problem now?

[ianevans]

BTW, my photos are the same on Google and my site. No resolution difference. The only thing that happens is when a person hits View Image, they are taken to the site. It's the same resolution, but the people get to see the image's context (news event) and caption...and yes, the advertising that pays for us flying to cover the events.

[Lame_Wolf]

BTW, my photos are the same on Google and my site. No resolution difference.

Same here. I've no idea why I have been blackballed. I don't use any app/plug-in etc. And I don't use other sites for images, yet for some strange reason, I've lost my images in Google.

[fathom]

Pardon my ignorance but isn't that Google search... I thought Google images was about images.

I get it... You had a clever way to earn revenue. A LOOPHOLE in Google's ever changing standards.

Now you need to learn another clever way to do it. Sounds simply enough,

A year before Google launched PENGUIN I considered that they would create something like that, and changed the way I did links. Waiting for Google to drop the hammer, is a flaw, not an advantage.

[Lame_Wolf]

Pardon my ignorance but isn't that Google search... I thought Google images was about images.

Who are you talking to? If me, then I was referring about Google Images.

I get it... You had a clever way to earn revenue. A LOOPHOLE in Google's ever changing standards.

Now you need to learn another clever way to do it. Sounds simply enough,

I don't earn revenue from the images shown on my site, so you don't "get it"

[fathom]

If you had images in Google Images and you lost them due to a Manual Action, e.g. IMAGE MISMATCH, that's why you are blackballed.

If none of that occurred, random posting without clearly spelling out the conditions of your development doesn't afford anyone to appreciate what's up... So start your own thread.

Clearly, the OP did have these conditions reading their openng post.

[Lame_Wolf]

If you had images in Google Images and you lost them due to a Manual Action, e.g. IMAGE MISMATCH, that's why you are blackballed.

If none of that occurred, random posting without clearly spelling out the conditions of your development doesn't afford anyone to appreciate what's up... So start your own thread.

Clearly, the OP did have these conditions reading their openng post.

The header of this thread clearly states "Google punishing image hotlink protections" So there is no need for me to start another thread about it.

This Image Mismatch problem is faulty. I have never tried to fool Google, or any other search engine. When my images WERE in Google Images, if you clicked on an image, then it would take you to the page that image was on. Simple as that.

Yes, I use hotlink protection.

Added: When Google altered the way they show images, you were able to directly access the image without "seeing" the actual site. That was the way it was, until this faulty penalty.

[edited by: Lame_Wolf at 3:56 am (utc) on Oct 4, 2015]

[fathom]

...and Google is using HOT TRAFFIC PROTECTION!

So how do you fix this?

Not trying to be argumentative but you are intentionally exposing your images to acquire what?

Google traffic, to do what?

Google is attempting to monetize itself... Surely you are in the driver's seat... Prevent Google from accessing your images is the best way to get them to listen. If everyone did that... They will re-think their position.

[Lame_Wolf]

...and Google is using HOT TRAFFIC PROTECTION!

So how do you fix this?

I am unsure what you mean by "HOT TRAFFIC PROTECTION!"

If you are referring to when they altered the way the show images, then I did nothing to fix it.

For years, I had a basic frame breaker - like many other site owners used...

<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
if (top!= self) top.location.replace(self.location.href);
-->
</script>

Some time ago, Google bypassed people's frame breakers. You must remember when that happened, yes?

In .htaccess I used normal hotlink protection. Nothing else.

I haven't done anything like <snip>, or use plug-in, redirects, etc. That is why I am puzzled as to why Google decided to remove the images (11 year old site)

It annoyed me that Google allowed people to directly access the image, but I did nothing to stop it. I had to live with it, but they still brought in people to the site, as some did "visit page" rather than "view image"

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:33 pm (utc) on Oct 6, 2015]
[edit reason] removing name of specific site, per Admin request [/edit]

[Lame_Wolf]

Not trying to be argumentative but you are intentionally exposing your images to acquire what?

Google traffic, to do what?

Google is attempting to monetize itself... Surely you are in the driver's seat... Prevent Google from accessing your images is the best way to get them to listen. If everyone did that... They will re-think their position.

You added the above after I replied to it, so I didn't see it the first time. So, I will answer now...

I have a lot of text only pages that do get monetized. I have artists that either show off their work, or craftsmen that have their work for sale. I also have my own images on there, which require a link back to the site if they are to be used (for non commercial use)

Some of the artists have their images for sale, so they want the large image to appear in Google Image Search.

I don;t, but lets say that the site sells retro candy. People go to Google Images, see the item in question and think "yeah, that's the one" and click on it... bringing in traffic.