231–240 of 391 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google, just give me the option to ignore Getty images altogether. Why does Google always think they know what is best for me?
1. Try adding "-getty" to your image search 2. For the more general problem of searching free images only try hitting tools -> usage rights and select as desired
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.
>> 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. Imagine how users would feel if they said "We're making this change because people keep ripping off images via our search. Since the public can't be trusted to follow copyright law, we're not going to make it so easy to break." I'm sure the public would eat…
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…
> Do you believe any of these statements? Well, technically "to help connect users and useful websites" is true. You now have to visit the website that had the photo if you want to download the full-size version, whereas previously you could bypass the site and download it from Google Images directly.
After a tip I've switched to an alternative search engine that still works in the old fashion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Long ago, when I still thought of Google as a good company that made good decisions for its users, I never had the impression that I'd done an exhaustive web search until I searched on Google. Now, searching Google always gives me the impression that I'm searching a heavily filtered, AI-curated subset of the web. I switched to DDG recently, and so far the results give me that impression that I'm searching 'the whole…
I love DDG but the problem is that google is still the best whenever I want to search something that's not in English or that's localized. So I still use google for that.
Image and html files are all documents on the web. Well at least they used to be. If you put an image on the web, you must expect people to be able to view it also without context.
Actually hot-linking in that way is often considered bad form because it can incur bandwidth costs, sometimes significant, for the image host.
This only stops people who don't know how to "right click"
That doesn't seem to work either. If you right click and copy image address / open in new tab, the website opens and not the image itself.
Image and html files are all documents on the web. Well at least they used to be. If you put an image on the web, you must expect people to be able to view it also without context.
Actually hot-linking in that way is often considered bad form because it can incur bandwidth costs, sometimes significant, for the image host.
Image author can embed watermarks, credits, branding into images. Make use of the fact the image is out there.
Google's "image search" has been completely destroyed by Pinterest anyway. In that vein, this doesn't make much of a difference.
I'm curious, in what way? I can not look at any Pinterest content because I don't have an account with them. Figured most people would relent and sign up -- but perhaps this is the problem you were talking about?
You click a Pintrest image unsuspectingly, Pintrest takes you to a vaguely relevant board the image is contained on, but you can't get to the image because a signup lightbox blocks the content.
This has wider implications because using reverse image search wont point you to the original images either anymore it'll mostly point to Pintrest results and therefore Pintrests signup form.
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.
If the alternative would have been to disable the feature altogether, then this is an improvement. But to make this clear, they'd probably have to disable the feature for 2 days "because of the Getty case", then come up with this as a compromise. (Disclosure: I work for Google, but have nothing to do with that stuff nor any special insights)
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…
I'm not sure what's going on here though. It definitely isn't "some changes on Google Images to help connect users and useful websites." It's probably more to do with the fact that Google images is designed for viewing images, not finding links and that kind of makes it a content scraping site.
The idea that Google (or anyone) would speak normally (like a googler would speak, in a cafe) is oddly insane.
"After years of complaints and some lawsuits, we've decided to bite the bullet and take away the damned view image button. People use google images by searching for a thing and looking at the pictures. They don't really visit the website because well... they're looking for pictures not some random website that happens to have a picture. That means this isn't really a websearch site. It's pinterest with stolen content. Basically, Google images is kind of ilegal, but still dead useful. Hopefully this change will get the most litiguous photographers off our case and it'll be more or less business as usual."
I guess in this case speaking plainly actually does have nasty legal implications, but we do corporate speak regardless.
When OKCupid killed their app by making it a poorly implemented tinder clone with vestigial features, they pretended they had just discovered new and exciting things about first names, swiping and such.
Would it have really harmed them to say, real names are more normal now. Tinder is eating our lunch. Our average user keeps getting older. Our UI isn't as good for mobile or whatever reasons really drove those decisions. I'd be more interested in reading it then.
At the very least, ommit the meaningless stuff. Just say we're taking away this button and don't give a reason.
It would feel incredibly odd to lie like this between unincorporated natural persons in a noncommercial setting. Can you imagine telling your friends you'll noshow a bbq with some corproate-speak nonsense?.