This is the "I'm feeling lucky" of google images eh? http://gigawatt.jpg.to/
http://bing.jpg.to/ (what you'd expect)
http://google.jpg.to/ (not what you'd expect)
11–20 of 129 posts
This is the "I'm feeling lucky" of google images eh? http://gigawatt.jpg.to/
http://bing.jpg.to/ (what you'd expect)
http://google.jpg.to/ (not what you'd expect)
After not seeing any, I decided to just try my name ... and found a football player.
I'd rather prefer it to directly stream the image, not an to somewhere else. This version is not useful for anybody.
Not working for me? I keep getting this: Sorry, image not found. Please try other keywords.
This is the "I'm feeling lucky" of google images eh? http://gigawatt.jpg.to/
Author says it is powered by google images. Which is ironic: http://bing.jpg.to/ (what you'd expect) http://google.jpg.to/ (not what you'd expect)
I'd rather prefer it to directly stream the image, not an to somewhere else. This version is not useful for anybody.
Good observation. But if you embed it on webpage (in which refer header is sent) it would turn into real image file, which means it WORKS when you include it in forum, blogs, etc. :)
I did a little bit of research about it few years ago; the summary can be seen here:
http://temporal.pr0.pl/devblog/2009/09/14/eksperyment-podsum... (pl_PL)
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&js... (en_US)
Basically, I was able to distinguish between embedded and directly accessed images by analyzing the content of Accept header. It wasn't perfect (it didn't work for Opera), but I think it could be good enough to do something useful with it.
For example: http://kittens.jpg.to/301.jpg
Another feature could be to return a random result for that image search.
For example: http://ass.jpg.to/random.jpg