141–150 of 391 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users are the goods, not the clients, of Google. Remember: if you get a service for free, then you are the merchandise.
> Remember: if you get a service for free, then you are the merchandise. Like Wikipedia, right?
There will be a Chrome extension called “Add view image button” within the next 24 hours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because then every other company would file similar suite and Google would have to deal with all of them.
Do you think every image company would want to be removed from Google Search results instead of building their services without the ability to scrape the big resolution images? How would users get on their websites?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a public ledger to show exactly whom is responsible.
Suing individuals in multiple legal jurisdictions is both more technically difficult and worse PR than suing a big tech companies. There's a reason record labels gave up on that approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users are the goods, not the clients, of Google. Remember: if you get a service for free, then you are the merchandise.
> Remember: if you get a service for free, then you are the merchandise. Like Wikipedia, right?
Is this implying that people use Google Images to find webpages? I thought the only point of Google Images was to find images to use in PowerPoints and school projects.
DuckDuckGo still has this feature in their Images search, using the "View File" button. It also doesn't wrap the URL of search results in a Google redirect URL, so you can Right Click > Copy to get the actual URL of the webpage or image.
This might just be the thing that gets me to switch. I use "Show Image" for the image search all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> using the context menu to “Open Image in New tab” essentially dos the same thing so the functionality is still there. No, actually “view image” loaded the source image at source resolution while viewing the image loaded into the DOM would show you the re-encoded, lower resolution, smaller Google thumbnail version. Edit: actually it seems that Google has simultaneously deployed an update that makes the actual source…
What I'm seeing on the current site is that the large preview seen on clicking a thumbnail is the original image, loaded from the original server and scaled in CSS. Nothing's really changed in terms of capability; the UI is just a bit more awkward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel somewhat angry at this tweet. Not because the feature is gone but because they are daft enough to assume that they can sell this as an improvement to their users and anyone will believe it.
They have to say that, no matter whether they mean it. What else could they say that wouldn't anger Getty Images?
Quotes from @searchliaison: "Today we're launching some changes on Google Images to help connect users and useful websites." "Ultimately, Google Images is a way for people to discover information in cases where browsing images is a better experience than text." Do you believe any of these statements? I am still surprised how easily corporations will hide their true motives, resolve any cognitive dissonance internally…
There's a reason a lot of people choose not to work there.