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

“Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 278 posts

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#81

Post by mrsteveman1 »

They seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to insert themselves between the site users visited intentionally to find what they were looking for (Google), and the site that actually provided what they were looking for.

They've essentially become a large MITM attack on Google Image results.

Edit: just tried a few arbitrary search strings on Google Images, it seems improved compared to the past few weeks/months, somewhat.

For some searches, Pinterest results didn't appear at all. For "esp8266 enclosure", only 1 out of 15 on the "front page" points to Pinterest, but the original image is still from Tindie, not Pinterest. The person who supposedly pinned that image describes themselves as "Creative Digital Marketing, Web designer, WebDev, crazy SEO".

Ok, maybe a real pin from a real person, maybe.

Then I decided to see what happens with a handful of more "NSFW" search terms. The number of Pinterest results varied but significantly increased overall.

For some terms, in the 3 rows of images visible without scrolling, there were 19 images, and 11 of them (57%) pointed to Pinterest. None of them were images originally posted on Pinterest, they all have a hover link to the original site.

However, even though Pinterest is providing a link to the original site on top of the image, clicking it doesn't always take you there.

A good bit of the time, Pinterest has chosen to redirect you to a "blocked site" page instead, and only after they have already displayed an image from a site that they deemed "inappropriate". And then shortly afterward a giant popup prompting the user to login or create an account filled the screen.

[1] (safe for work) https://i.imgur.com/XuOvwvi.jpg

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#83

Post by acqq »

deckard1 wrote: post #67
bradford wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a hobbyist woodworker. I was recently searching for an unusual wood-joint, and I had to give up because the google search results were absolutely polluted with pinterest.

Yep. I've encountered this way too many times. And you'll find the picture you're looking for and it will only be on Pinterest. Then you click on to Pinterest and there is zero context for the picture. WTF? No links. Nothing. I'll never understand Pinterest.

It's a site which allows stolen images to be shown. Showing the context (their origin) would prove that they are stolen, so they don't show it.

It really poisons the results of searches.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#84

Post by saagarjha »

shiado wrote: post #39

While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty deceptive to me.

> You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in

I believe you can, actually, in some cases. It's just most of the time they try to lock you out with a login screen.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#85

Post by joshu »

I search for a lot of DIY stuff and frequently the image search results are on pinterest. Often the underlying link is shown as pinterest and not the original link (presumably because someone saved it from pinterest instead?) and I can't figure out the fucking original site.

Pinterest in search results is awful garbage, it seems.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#86

Post by YawningAngel »

icc97 wrote: post #69
shiado wrote: post #39

While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty deceptive to me.

Can we also ban Elsevier and get Google to replace their links with Sci-Hub links?

ScienceDirect articles shouldn't be indexed unless they have a readable abstract. I realise that isn't quite where you're going though ;)

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#87

Post by DanBC »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #34
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>AFAIK there is almost no OC on Pinterest anyway. And this is the key point. By removing Pinterest from the search results the user doesn't lose almost anything.

This brings up a great point. Why does Google not just extract whatever information Pinterest is providing and provide that directly in Google Images as SERP? If none of the content in Pinterest is original, what value are they providing the user? Pinterest is the "experts-exchange.com" of digital imagery, except EE at least had (gated) original content.

> what value are they providing the user?

Curation. Pinterest is brilliant for some users and some uses.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#88

Post by kevincox »

kps wrote: post #49
CM30 wrote: post #2

It should, but this also illustrates a problem with Google Search that they'll need to grapple with in the future. Namely, that while they should treat all sites equally, in practicality there's not really much incentive to on their part. Think about it. Let's say Google does remove Pinterest altogether, banning the site as a punishment for 'gaming' the system. What then? The people that do search for Pinterest will…

Pinterest shouldn't need to be removed specifically — the fact that they (or any aggregator, including say Reddit) reference some image should be a signal that the referenced source is a more valuable search result. (I think there used to be search engine that used a method like that.)

I think Reddit is different. Reddit often has valuable commentary that can be more relevant then the linked content.

However I agree that Pintrest shouldn't be removed specifically. Sites that don't display any useful content to the user should be removed.

Re: “Pinterest needs to be removed from Google IMO”

#90

Post by fragmede »

icc97 wrote: post #69
shiado wrote: post #39

While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty deceptive to me.

Can we also ban Elsevier and get Google to replace their links with Sci-Hub links?

On the version of Internet from the 90's?

Totally.

Could anything like that happen on the CommerceNet, post EME (Encrypted Media Extensions)? (Sept, 2017)

Hardly. (And your name is now on a list for suggesting something so subersive, citizen.)

Post reply on HN