• http://twitter.com/DavidVeldt David Veldt

    To all the people complaining about a loss in traffic: Did conversions go down as well? What happened to your bounce rate, time on site, pages per visit, etc.?

    My point is people browse image search to look at images! Your website loading in the background before they clicked the back button did little more than inflate your traffic numbers. That wasn’t “useful” or “engaging” traffic by any means.

    Also, give me a break about Google stealing your content. They are serving up images in image search, simple as that. Once you click to enlarge the image, you have two links to view the page and one link to view the original image. The old experience was clunky and annoying.

  • Wendy Piersall

    Cowboydroid clearly needs a little lesson in what the copyright LAWS actually *are*, rather than what he would like them to be in his idyllic world in which everything is free for the taking.

    From Copyright.com:
    Information is everything. It points the way to advances in science and medicine, innovations in business and technology and achievements in education and the arts. The cost of research, writing and editing is substantial and the efforts often Herculean. Some books are the result of years of individual effort; others are the product of ground-breaking collaboration. Either way, without the protections guaranteed by our copyright laws, many of the works we enjoy and rely upon today would never exist.

    Supreme Court Ruling Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, a U.S. court case between a commercial photographer and a search engine company:

    Kelly sued Arriba for copyright infringement for both use of his thumbnail images and use of the full images. The court found this factor to be neutral: “Copying an *entire work* militates against a finding of fair use … It was necessary for Arriba to copy the entire image to allow users to recognize the image and decide whether to pursue more information.” Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

    This requires considering the effect if the actions were widespread, not solely the effect of the particular user. A transformative work is less likely to have an adverse effect than one which merely supersedes the original: “Arriba’s use of Kelly’s images in its thumbnails does not harm the market for Kelly’s images or the value of his images”. The thumbnails would guide people to Kelly’s work rather than away from it and the size of the thumbnails makes using them instead of the original unattractive.

    In other words, what Google is doing is illegal. Full size images = NO. Thumbnails = YES.

  • Wendy Piersall

    Source of income and level of income are two different things.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mathias.burmeister Mathias Burmeister

    completely agree with you. if visitors only stayed for the overlay “visit” then they can definitely be classed as a phantom visit, while if they had actually clicked through to additional pages, they should then be considered actual visitors.

  • http://www.redstarcreative.co.uk/ Andy Kinsey

    Just from my personal point of view – i think that this move is a good one from the fact that if users do come through to the site they will be “qualified” / actually interested in that image or your page – previously even if they were not interested and just liked the image they came through and went back out increasing bounce rate and your bandwidth bill… thoughts?

  • Michael Colart

    Yeah. I had tons of traffic to one of my sites scoring skyhigh with “greeting card images” on Google Image search for about 6-7 years but lately traffic has gone down about 80%.

  • amir

    My personal client’s targeted traffic drop down considerably and even rebound
    rate has been improved badly in Style and Lifestyle Niche. I think all
    webmasters should be stand against Bing & Google pictures search insurance
    policies. http://www.infoeducations.com/

  • http://twitter.com/ignivasolutions Igniva Solutions

    It is natural with the present design. People searching for a specific purpose should visit the site now…

  • Cowboydroid

    Sorry, information cannot be owned. It can be hidden, but not owned. You cannot own an abstraction. Abstractions are not property.

  • Cowboydroid

    They can either react to the market, or suffer the consequences. They make their information freely available for anyone to look at, including Google. Google is really just another viewer, on a different scale.

  • Cowboydroid

    HA! There is nothing in my name associated with Google. Sounds like you have guilty conscience.

  • Jonay Pelluz

    We give Google the cake, we eat the crumbs, it is the way, … until another cake eater comes along …

  • Andrea Moro

    The CTR you’ve seen is a total different beast, but in the majority of the circumstances people are complaining about the lost in impressions.

  • Andrea Moro

    Sorry Wendy, but your right click protection is a protection that flows everywhere. Any person with a bit of IT knowledge can grab your images. Thus without considering how annoying thee right click limit is and how detrimental it is for the site usability.

  • http://twitter.com/BodasExoticas Bodas en Margarita

    I loved it, great post very interesting.
    greetings …