So it’s ok for google to scrape and save images and display them without compensating photographers (which I’m cool with), but not users? This is bizarre, anti user functionality. By default if the image is available on the web, it is meant to be seen. This is going to make high school PowerPoint users spend more time, and result in zero extra revenue and zero drop in copyright infringement. The more interesting ques…
> By default if the image is available on the web, it is meant to be seen
Some might argue the image is meant to be seen...in the context of the web page it's on.
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…
One of the follow up tweets is more honest: >For those asking, yes, these changes came about in part due to our settlement with Getty Images this week (see also https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/15/17017864/google-removes-v... …). They are designed to strike a balance between serving user needs and publisher concerns, both stakeholders we value. https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/964279749802512384
I'm perfectly fine with this, after all they have little choice because of the result from the Getty case, but now that option is gone they need to crack down on sites presenting different images when referred directly from Google than they present more generally: presenting an unaltered image to Google and a heavily watermarked one otherwise for instance, or sometimes the destination page redirecting off to something else if your request doesn't include a Google referrer or agent-string. These things are already against Google's policy and is basically the destination site being dishonest to the user (drawing people away from sites with the same content really but don't pretend to offer something else freely).
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.
That can't be true - or it would be very taxing to browse a page of 20MP+ images.
Just fucking look for yourself? You could have done that in the time it took you to write that comment.
They have to say that, no matter whether they mean it. What else could they say that wouldn't anger Getty Images?
"We're changing this to comply with a court order / settlement." seems fine to me. I don't think anyone would be angry at them, since they didn't want to do the change nor would be "lying" to users about why they do it.
Indeed that would be a much more elegant way to go about it.
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…
One of the follow up tweets is more honest: >For those asking, yes, these changes came about in part due to our settlement with Getty Images this week (see also https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/15/17017864/google-removes-v... …). They are designed to strike a balance between serving user needs and publisher concerns, both stakeholders we value. https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/964279749802512384
It would be more honest if "in part" meant 99%-100% of the reason to do it.
If memory serves well, this wasn't ever possible on mobile devices in the first place. Countless times I've googled an image of something I want to show someone, found a result, clicked on it to zoom in (because the image search result page doesn't support zoom) and ended up on a page that doesn't even contain the image itself. I'm not sure what limitations were the rationale for not providing this option on mobile b…
I'm pretty sure it was but the button to do it was some weird icon rather than text like on a desktop.