Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google removes ‘view image’ button from search results

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 391 posts

Re: Google removes ‘view image’ button from search results

#301

Post by ksk »

phkahler wrote: post #212
ATsch wrote: post #97

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…

The issue is about closing a loophole. If it was framed that way people would still be upset, but not as upset in the same way as being treated like idiots.

Re: Google removes ‘view image’ button from search results

#302

Post by LocalH »

tritium wrote: post #47
gkoberger wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's... not because they want to. Getty sued them; it's a change they're begrudgingly making.

Basically, fuck Getty Images for a number of reasons. Here’s one reason in particular: https://2600.com/print/27097

Here's another reason.

https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-laws...

Re: Google removes ‘view image’ button from search results

#305

Post by akerro »

z3t4 wrote: post #291
akerro wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The image is often still hosted, but has been removed from the page content. The same applies to web searches, >So the next step for Google is to actually make sure the site still has the image before including it in the search results. And they should do the same for videos and DDoS the whole Internet just for 0.004% of chances making minor manual action a bit inconvenient.

You are arguing to save a minor amount of bandwidth VS saving thousands of man-hours.

>save a minor amount of bandwidth

I dont think that's minor:

https://www.cnet.com/news/google-goes-down-for-5-minutes-int...

now imagine google has to check if every link it will show still exists. That's like billions of trillions of request per hour world-wide. And another thing is a privacy issue, I know, google doesnt give a shit about it, but some people do. Think that you search for 'smelly poo' and 10 different servers get HEAD request to articles that are top ranked in this keyword, potentially 9 of the servers won't get a human-made visit, 9 sysadmins or developers will find a way to abuse that metadata in the future.

Re: Google removes ‘view image’ button from search results

#306

Post by rsync »

Pica_soO wrote: post #181
jakubp wrote: post #92

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…

Any horrible task can be split up and thus be made more fullfillable by the human employed in the process. Lets assume for example, google found some Xenomorphs on the moon- which needed a human host to be transfered to a research lab in moutain view. Instead of having one person do it, the task will be split up. There is one doctor making sure the human hosts are fine. There is a transport pilot flying the human hos…

"Any horrible task can be split up and thus be made more fullfillable by the human employed in the process."

I think you're onto something here but I think there is a detail you've missed - hierarchy.

It's not the number of people involved that allows a a terrible process to be completed but rather the number of layers of hierarchy.

Someone at the top says "just make this (outcome) happen" and if they say that to the person who actually has to carry it out, there is pushback or guilt or exposure. But if that person can, in turn, tell someone else a level below to "just make this (outcome) happen" eventually there is enough insulation (emotional, legal, etc.) that someone at the end of the chain can get the shaft.

You can't really do that with a flat (absent) hierarchy.

Re: Google removes ‘view image’ button from search results

#309

Post by gregknicholson »

amelius wrote: post #197
Buge wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Google, just give me the option to ignore Getty images altogether. Why does Google always think they know what is best for me?

They don't. You decided to use Google's image search service, and that's what you got.

Re: Google removes ‘view image’ button from search results

#310

Post by Zak »

bootlooped wrote: post #274
Zak wrote: post #73

I had not heard of Getty Images prior to today, but I now associate them with breaking the internet. I don't like it when people do that, so if I ever find myself in the position of needing to buy stock images, now I've heard of Getty Images and I'll make sure I pay someone else.

It's really just a minor inconvenience right? I wouldn't call it breaking the internet.

The intent is to break things for at least a fraction of users, or there would be no point in doing it at all.
Post reply on HN