Recently Google announced an update to its Google Image Search product to improve its UI and make it more useful.
However, the UI seems to have been greeted with mixed reviews. In addition to some noting the similarities between the new search and Bing’s offering, the response to it has been split with some users hating it and others loving it.
Webmasters, however, have also been chiming in and their opinion seems much more negative. The reason is that, while all the changes were to the user interface, at least one of those changes has the potential to actually take audience attention away from the original sites.
It’s a problem that has a growing number of webmasters upset and, now that the new format appears to be here to stay, the chorus seems likely to grow.
The Changes
The most visible changes to Google Image Search are on the image search page itself. Gone is the “grid” layout and it is replaced with a more varied one that uses larger thumbnails with less whitespace. Gone are individual pages as it is replaced with a nearly-infinite scroll that will let the user go through 1,000 images at once.
One thing that has been removed is the image information, including dimensions and relevant text. Previously that was displayed below the image but now that information is only shown after the user hovers over the image itself, one point of contention among many who use the service.
Finally, clicking the image also now produces a different result. Rather than going to the original site loaded in a Google frame (with the Google portion on top), Google loads the site in a frame, with their panel to the right and adds a “lightbox” effect to the image, placing it over the original site and graying out the page.
It is this last change that has been the subject of most of the controversy among webmasters.
Not only does this add an extra click between the image result and the original site (forcing the user to click on the site if they want to see it), but it also loads the entire page in the user’s browser, using the site’s bandwidth, and keeps the ads from being clickable until the site is activated.
In short, many feel that Google is de-emphasizing the original site and, instead, putting even more focus on the image itself and their own search panel. This has the potential to hurt webmasters who earn revenue from advertising and see a lot of traffic from Google Image Search and that has some upset about the changes.
Time to Leave Google Image Search?
Previously webmasters, especially artists, have had something of a love/hate relationship with Google Image Search. Though it brought in some well-targeted traffic, many who did not know better used Google Image Search as if it were a stock photo library.
Google, for its part, hasn’t done a great deal to dispel this idea. It offers a vague warning that “This image may be subject to copyright”, a warning that is still present but has been moved to the right-hand side of the results page, and it did introduced a Creative Commons search that is very difficult to find for those who aren’t actively looking for it.
However, since Google Image Search as a good driver of traffic, many tolerated fact some users were abusing the search but it may be time to reevaluate that. The reason is that the quality of traffic from Google Image Search is almost certainly going to decline as sites are hidden behind the image, grayed out and are unclickable until activated.
Many, are going to wonder if Google Image Search is worth participating in and, since you can remove your site from Google Image Search without removing it from the main index, now may be the time to do just that.
Bottom Line
In the end, this is a choice up to the individual webmaster. Personally, I won’t be taking this step at this time. The reason is that I don’t see a great deal of traffic from Google Image Search now and most of the images on this site are logo and screenshots. If I were an artist or photographer where my images were more valuable, I would have to reconsider but, then again, I would also be more dependent on Google Image Search for traffic.
So I ask you the questions. What do you think about the new changes? If you are unhappy with them, do you plan on removing your site from Google Image Search?
All in all, there are no easy answers to this one but I can definitely see why many webmasters are upset.
The new Google reverse image search is going to stir things up. We sell stock photography. A reverse search of only a few of our images turned up multiple, copyright violations from law Firms, to CPA’s, our own state’s website! Apparently, Getty is aggressively pursing violations of their images, with violators screaming “extortion! I am only an innocent user.” Google used to make the warning that image may be copyright much more prominent. But they know thru various court decisions that they can’t be touched or held liable.
Actually, Getty has been on that campaign for a long time, I wrote about it last year here:
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/07/21/the-stock-photo-industrys-massive-copyright-campaign/
Basically, they’ve been using much more advanced tools than Google for these searches and Getty even recently purchased the company that was doing most of the matching, making their solution an in-house one.
Still, it definitely is going to shake things up, there’s no doubt about that.
I get 500 visitors to one site JUST from google images. It's a ECom / Affiliate site and the traffic converts poorly (1%). The traffic goes from 100 to 500 in a day… fluxuates all over the place. Completely useless and annoying when analysing statistics!
The solution : Add this to your robots.txt file:
User-agent: Googlebot-Image
Disallow: /
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answ…
Thanks for writing about this. It’s not like Google listens to anyone that often. I am an artist, and when I need an illustration model, Image Search has saved me on many occasions. I don’t need to copy anything: am usually looking for poses, or an example of a particular perspective, or kinds of architectural embellishments or details of some sort. What I do with images is not at all ripping anyone off. But the new Image Search is so much less useful, and way more unrelated images get mixed in, to make it even worse. I always have to set it so show size, and I hate the extra click to look at the original website. I was researching the Commedia dell’ Arte character Harlequin and was horrified to discover many many images of dead babies with some sort of terrible skin disfigurement that has the word harlequin in it. No, the new standard is terrible. It is not fun to use anymore.
It seems the new image search is a failure in just about every regard…
I tend to give my opinion even when not asked for. lol
Hi Cybele—Read your post and immediately thought of 2 products from PicScout that would help solve your problem. ImageTracker allows image owners to “fingerprint” their images and then receive reports back on their usage. For this product, the company typically works with stock agencies, although they are looking at serving individual photographers as well. More interesting for you right now might be their ImageExchange service. With this service, PicScout will fingerprint your images for free and whenever your images appear online, they will be recognized and you will receive free credit along with a display of license information. If you want the image to also connect back to your site to sell a license to use the image, that’s where PicScout makes its money. They use a pay-per-click model (like Google AdWords). The company offers a limited number of free clicks each month – so you can try it without it costing you anything. Basically, just think of it as your own personal promotion vehicle. Anytime someone who uses the company’s add-on (their target audience is creative professionals – the people who actively buy image licenses) sees your images on sites such as Google or Yahoo Images, they can easily connect with you to license one of your photos. Here’s the link to PicScout. By the way, I help users learn about solutions and PicScout by following the community. Hope you find this helpful.
I don’t like using it myself, but it does bring more traffic to some of my websites, so I guess there’s an upside and a downside to everything. I guess.. I love and hate it lol
I've seen more mixed reviews though I've largely stayed off of the Google forums, beyond the link I provided. Other than ripping off Bing, people seem to like the layout but it is definitely geared more toward casual image searchers, not those who are more intense about their needs.
That's what I love about you Rose, I never have to go looking for your opinion on things, I know exactly where to find it
Well you already know my opinion on this. It sucks! Thanks for the linky love.
I can tell you from a user viewpoint…it SUCKS! Go look at the reviews and you will see this article is not telling the whole truth. almost 100% of the feedback and comment I read from users concerning the new “Standard Version” is negative.
Interesting, I hadn't pondered the Flickr/Picasa/Etc. problem with this issue. You are correct. If you host your images elsewhere, you can not trivially block access to Google Images. Though you can stop them from accessing it via your site, it doesn't work when Googlebot visits Flickr, etc.
I think you hit the nail on the head about the visible watermark, in the end, that is the only sure-fire deterrent to image abuse on the Web and, even then, it has its limits…
You can actually go back to the old version if you like. Do a search and go all the way to the bottom of the page (quite a long way down) and click the link to “switch to basic” version. Works for me at least…
Cybele, I believe that adding a watermark to your graphics is a must unless you want it to be reused elsewhere.
I don't like the new Image Search for one reason – no image information on the search page. I often use it to look for people and lack of this information makes it less convenient.
I have been unable to effectively block Google Image Search from my blog via the standard robots.txt. I host my images at Flickr (and have blocked outside searches via their preferences) but still I get oodles of traffic on my blog from Google Image Search. 9/10 of the time when I confront someone about misuse of my images, they say they found it on google image search.
It would be nice if one of Google's Webmaster tools was some sort of “copyright registration” system with them. That you could log in your account what your copyright or CC license is for your blog and that could be the default that's displayed next to all images found via GIS. Instead of saying “This image may be subject to copyright” it could say that “this site is copyright” or “this site employs a CC license of Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA)” I recognize that not every photo on someone's site is covered under the copyright of the site itself (such as a copyright blog using a cc licensed photo) but it'd be a lot better than their hands off system.
I have noticed, ultimately, that since I started adding my url as a watermark to my photos that they're swiped a lot less often.