directly download images from images.google

sirectly download image

[anakgembrot]

Hello,


My site contents are images, so image.google.com is very important to me.

Is anyone know, during visitor founded my images from image.google, then they click "view image", the image should download automatically without notice.

Probably with certain scripts or plugins.

So visitors won't access my wpuploads folder, of course it's better if visitors directly click "visit page" instead of "view image" on image.google.com



Thanks for any help & comment

[ergophobe]

Hi anakgembrot and welcome!

I'm not sure I totally understand your question. Am I understanding it correctly if I restate it like this

1. Your site ranks well in Google image search, so that is an important source of traffic.

2. If someone clicks "View Image" you want the image to download rather than display (Is this what you mean by "directly download?")

3. Of course you prefer them to select "Visit Page" but you want to do this in case they choose "View Image"?

4. You don't want them to access your wp-uploads folder.

#4 we can handle right away - they have to have access to what's *in* your wp-uploads folder, but if you can stop access to the index view in your Apache settings or by simply including blank index.php files.

#2 - Not sure about this. Google is going to send them to the image itself, which means you would need to redirect requests for images with a referrer from Google to a webpage that contains the image.

In general, the new Google image display is horrible for photographers and people who want people to actually view their website. I know photographers who saw traffic collapse when Google rolled this out.

[anakgembrot]

Hello Ergophobe,


Thanks for replying, sorry for confusion.

1. yes
2. yes

3. Yes, in this case, when visitor click "view image" they'll get image downloaded instead of viewing my image on browser. Because i've heard that redirection of "view image" is not allowed by google and you'll get penalty.

4. Visitor can still access wp-uploads folder only if they access from my page, not from image.google.

#1 If i disallow index.php google will not crawl my images, isn't? So it'll gives bad rank on SERP.

#2 i've managed my site to use byRev image plugin, and some users told they got penalty from google.


Is there any better strategy for webmaster that depend on image.google.com traffic source?

[not2easy]

#1 If i disallow index.php google will not crawl my images, isn't? So it'll gives bad rank on SERP.

I don't think that is what was suggested. index.php would be the home page for your WordPress site. I believe the suggestion was to add an empty index file to your uploads folder so that people cannot browse the folder.

WordPress uses a file like this, it is a plain text file with nothing in it or maybe a phrase that won't be visible even if someone requests the file by name. You can make your own file using plain text. Start with an empty page, paste:

<?php
// Silence is golden.
?> 

into the blank page and then save it as "index.php" in the uploads folder so visitors can't browse the server index of that folder.

There are other ways to prevent index browsing, but that looks like what was suggested. The new "index.php" does NOT replace the "index.php" in your root directory, it is only for the folder you don't want people to browse.

[tangor]

Image SEO is a losing game as each image downloaded becomes one more source for scrapers and evil-doers. This is an ugly fact that if you can find it on the web it can be (pick your term).

If your image on g is the same as in your folder(s) then they already have it and no "auto download" is required on your part.

Most folks dealing in images want a reasonable image (sized or thumb) to showcase what's there, but also PROTECT that full size image via many different methods.... some of which are monetary.

[ergophobe]

There are other ways to prevent index browsing, but that looks like what was suggested.

Yes, that's what I was suggesting, though really as a second choice. My first choice would be to disallow index views, so in your .htaccess or httpd.conf (or whatever it is depending on version)

Options -Indexes

Then you don't need to make sure you have a blank index.html file in ever directory and you also ensure that Google (or whoever) tries to view that gets a 403 rather than a valid empty file. But barring that, an empty file is fine. index.html or index.php should both work, but it depends on your server settings.

Image SEO is a losing game

This is what I hear over and over from photographers. One friend used to get over a million uniques per month to his photography site, but it has declined dramatically. A lot of it is the massive increase in competition in that space, but he saw a massive and sudden drop when Google changed to the slideshow paradigm for images rather than the original version which was, if I recall, just thumbnails and you clicked through to the site.

[lucy24]

so in your .htaccess or httpd.conf (or whatever it is depending on version)

But wait! If you're talking about auto-indexing, that's not a real, persistent, physical file; it's generated by the server at time of access. So will the -Indexes directive have the intended result when you're up against WP's built-in -d and -f tests?

[ergophobe]

Not sure I'm following lucy24

WP builds a persistent hierarchy of directories (depending on your settings) to store uploads, so they will pass the -d test (or fail depending on how you look at it I guess) and, as far as I know, show the directory index if you have Options +Indexes

But since these are built dynamically based on username, date, etc, you would have to go around and keep adding index.html files.

Unless I'm not understanding you at all (i.e. what file is generated by the server at time of access?)

[lucy24]

what file is generated by the server at time of access?

An auto-index: the file that is created on the fly if you have
Options +Indexes
(whether explicitly or by inherited default) and someone then requests a directory that happens not to have a hard-coded index file. Index files that physically exist-- the ones specified by DirectoryIndex-- are not affected by this Options setting, only auto-indexing. That's why I wondered how it interlocks with WP, or for that matter any CMS that is built around -f and -d tests.

This is assuming that your images live in a real, physical directory with a location that's deducible from its URL, since that's the whole point of the -f and -d business.

[ergophobe]

Ah, gotcha!

I hadn't thought of that. Easy enough to test. My gut reaction is that it will work fine because I believe the RewriteCond test will have to happen before the server generates the index file and I'm assuming it won't rerun the rewrite rules... but that's just guessing.