241–250 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After many tries at ddg, I am using startpage.com since it uses anonymized google results. Still far from perfect, but the best I have found for now.
Did you actually try Startpage without an adblocker? https://i.imgur.com/KAZWb9i.png The Ad maker on Startpage is way less visible than it ever was on Google or even DDG.
When I click this link, it redirects me to https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers?sessionId=... Which is blocked by umatrix. The Verge seems to cover it with less dirty tricks: https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/24/21080424
This has been trending now a few days, but I still don’t get it. Seems nobody can really say what exactly about this design says ‘advertisement’? I get the feeling Mr. Mod’s tweet caught fire because of the sentiment, of Google oppression and dominance, and not many stopped to think what in particular about the design they don’t like. Personally there is nothing immediately offensive to the way the results look. In f…
Totally agree. I can understand that someone might think the favicon makes it look tacky but ads have the word AD next to them. It isn't hard to tell the difference.
Expedia for example, if you searched for "flights" you would get an advert for Expedia and a search result for expedia.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would you be OK, if Google didn't show images from your site on their site? If so, I believe a simple robots.txt statement should be sufficient. Giving people a way to opt out doesn't absolve Google. They need to get permission to use the property of others, not default to using it unless told not to. They're acting as if everything that isn't locked up, and doesn't have a note on it saying otherwise, is free for a…
Letting Google crawl your page and not telling it to stop via robots.txt is implied consent, and a german court case confirmed this[0]. 0: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/german-federal-court-rules...
> The court in Karlsruhe does not regard the display of the preview images as an act of making available a copyright work in the sense of the copyright law. ... Since the decision handed down in the “Svensson” case in 2014, it is common ground that, in principle, the use of a hyperlink is not a copyright-relevant act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like the stylesheet failed to load. (On a lot of websites these days I actually find that improves user experience!)
i have turned off blockers. every profile page is like that, and it says on the page that they ve "updated your settings and profile experience. let us know what you think". kind of agree with you about ux though its probably a blunder that they ll fix soon, but one would expect much better from billion dollar companies
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As website owner I vote for this solution. Right now many people don’t even know you can visit the source website.
As an image search user. The number of times I went to the site only to find it either doesn't have the picture or requires a login would just make me mad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember that, and I am a still a tiny bit salty about how it impacted me as a user. Ever since, it has been so unnecessarily tedious get the raw image link from Google. Half the time, I end up with a data url, sometimes I get taken to the backing website, who usually don't know anything about accessibility, sometimes I get the image. It's all just so much worse now. That said, it is absolutely theft for Google to…
I have a website with over 1.000.000 pictures. I’m still a bit salty that my images get 1M monthly impressions in image search and just 15k visitors. If I made a website like Image Search, hotlinked all the images and burried a visit website button somewhere as a ‘curtesy’, I’d be sued out of existence within a couple of weeks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As website owner I vote for this solution. Right now many people don’t even know you can visit the source website.
As an image search user. The number of times I went to the site only to find it either doesn't have the picture or requires a login would just make me mad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree. I can understand that someone might think the favicon makes it look tacky but ads have the word AD next to them. It isn't hard to tell the difference.
Double exposure. Expedia for example, if you searched for "flights" you would get an advert for Expedia and a search result for expedia.com