|
Ditto - I had a huge spike in image referrals from Google Image Search. I've opted out.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
 cybele-
Have you hidden your images from both kinds of searches?
Hide your photostream from site-wide searches on flickr.com?
Hide your photostream from searches on 3rd party sites that use the API?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
As I said in my initial post:
I have hidden my photos from searches outside of the site via the API.
I have hidden my ID (not because of this but because of darkr & other systems).
And to answer your other question:
I have NOT hidden myself from searches from within Flickr. (Is that what it's come to?)
My understanding from the thread that I linked to from last fall was that my settings are appropriate for the desired result - no google searches. (At that time it wasn't just google image searches, it was also plain old google searches.)
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I too hid everything ages ago, and things were working fine. BUt i too have noticed my images showing up again from google images.
Has something changed Flickr??
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ran across this interesting snippet.
Google and Yahoo! " recently conducted a two-week test in which Google delivered ads on a small portion of Yahoo searches. The test, which both companies described as successful, was intended to show how much more Yahoo could earn by outsourcing some of its search ads to Google, whose technology and large base of advertisers allow it to extract more revenue on average for every search."
Wonder if something changed at Yahoo! during that two week test that gave Google a different kind of access to Flickr?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
We've not changed anything on our end - this looks like a problem at Google.
To get technical for a moment, flickr adds the following piece of code to every photo page that should be opted out of search:
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow">
This should stop that photo from showing up in searches on google, but it seems to have stopped working.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Maybe google and other search engines index search result pages that are linked from somewere. I just checked a searchresult page for jena and germany:
www.flickr.com/search/?q=jena%20germany&w=all
and this page dont have the robots meta tag. Maybe the spiders pick the photos from there as it also shows title and tags there so the search engines could associate the tags and title with the photo next to it.
I guess this might be a way google may find the photos.
An opt out of flickr wide search would stop your photos from beeing indexed by external search engines through this "backdoor".
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"An opt out of flickr wide search would stop your photos from beeing indexed by external search engines through this "backdoor". "
While I'm sure that's probably likely, I could also just make all my photos private and it'd solve the problem. I like my flickr friends and I enjoy making new ones via the search function.
Flickr has created settings that are supposed to do things and I expect them to do those things, and having told Flickr that they're not doing those things, I'm hoping they'll be able to track it down and fix it.
I'm not against people seeing my photos, it's just that the ones I take of candy often end up being used on eBay to illustrate auctions. (And some of my dolphin ones have ended up on calendars & screensaver programs.) Not what I call sharing ... I call that stealing and profiting from someone else's work. When I contact these eBayers, they tell me that they found it on the internet via a search and that they're entitled to it. (Apparently things on google image search are free for all to use!)
While I do my best (okay, perhaps I don't do my best in this instance) to educate them on how these things work, it keeps happening, even with the same people.
So, Paul Hammond, what is the resolution for this? Because the pages have the correct meta tags that's it?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here's what Google has to say about requests to remove URLs from their searches:
"Google views the comprehensiveness of our search results as an extremely important priority. We're committed to providing thorough and unbiased search results for our users.
We stop indexing pages of a site only at the request of the webmaster who's responsible for those pages, when it's spamming our index, or as required by law. This policy is necessary to ensure that pages aren't inappropriately removed from our index."
Looks like the Flickr "webmaster" who is responsible for "those pages" will need to contact Google.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Yes, but as Paul said, they already are putting the correct code into Flickr pages as per Google's instructions which he's linked above.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
the robot no-index code is universal for search engines like Google, and says "don't index me". So if Google is ignoring this, there may not be much Flickr can do. Except maybe a stern phonecall.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Someone needs to let Google know that their instructions no longer function to provide the service Google says it provides.
Since Google is immune to a NOI on searches, I'm suggesting we follow Google's own instructions for reporting problems.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
cybele-: before everyone gets too grumpy at Google - can I check whether you opted out of third party searches recently? Due to the way search engines work, it can take several weeks for Google to notice the meta tags and drop photos from their results.
(Sorry, I should have checked this earlier before making assumptions)
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, Paul, I'd opted out of Google searches and then they suddenly started appearing again on Google. I would really rather my stuff on Flickr not be in Google, thanks.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Paul, there's also this report
Edit:
Nevermind, AustenHaines is here in person.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
ColleenM edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
|
|
I opted out months ago. I can check how many months if you like?
EDIT
but was a long time before the stats function was rolled out.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Paul Hammond - Yes, I opted out of the search API when the option became available. I can't recall, but from the date of the initial thread I created about this issue, it's been at least since last August 07 (I can't tell for sure). I think I hid my profile on the site in March 08 when the Darckr issues came up.
My photos didn't used to show up on google as being here at Flickr. The meta tag fix late last year fixed it.
I didn't notice these search engine hits on my stats until last week. (Then there was the glitch on the stats and I couldn't confirm what the actual search was.)
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Hello. I have been having the same issue as cybele-. I've had my photos hidden from 3rd-party searches for many months. Just noticed yesterday that I was getting referrals from Google Images. I posted about this earlier http://flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72113/. A resolution would be greatly appreciated.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I still think the meta tags on just the photopages are not enough to protect against the indexing of the photos. I think the google picturesearch just follows links in the web of the following pattern:
www.flickr.com/search/?q=searchword to find the photos and index them. I just see the souce of the search result pages and it didnt have the meta tags. The robots.txt on flickr also only protect 2 directories from indexing and the /search/ path is not one of them.
So I think adding the metatag to the search results page too may help to hide photos.
But you have to consider that also photos may be found if they are put in group pools, but then only the thumbnail size should be appearing in the image search.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
PS: It also may have to do with this: Google now also crawls pages with forms
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for the reports - we're talking to our friends at google to see whether there's anything that can be done to improve the situation here.
No promises, but we're doing what we can...
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I also opted out of 3rd party searches many months ago and have recently seen a number of Google image search referrals
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I opted out of 3rd party searches when the ability to do so was first enabled, and I haven't changed my status since. My stats also show that Google is indexing my photos.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I also opted out of 3rd party searches many months age and havent changed my status in any way. And my stats also show Google image search referrals---
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
before everyone gets too grumpy at Google
Bouncing their collective heads off a wall isn't being grumpy.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
...but it can make you grumpy
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I have just noticed this happening in my stats, and it's not only Google but also Yahoo and Baidu. And I opted out of 3rd party searches quite some time ago too.
Just FYI.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Interestingly, yesterday's stats showed that a google search had found one image in my stream using certain keywords, but not another that has the same tags.
The difference is a) my stream is not hidden from 3rd party searches and b) the "missing" photo is specifically hidden from searches from the photopage (and has been for quite a while).
So google search is still respecting the no-search command for the individual photo.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I have a (probably stupid) question for anyone:
Why don't you want your pictures in Google Image Search results?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Because many people who find images using that tool download and misuse the images.
Like, posting them as their own. Or using them on their commercial website to attract customers. Or using them in other ways that the original photographer is not comfortable with.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I also opted out of third party searches many months ago, but have constantly seen my images coming up in searches. It's never been too bad until the past few days, when 459 hits from images.google.com - just 20 less than I got from flickr. It's really frustrating.
I personally do not want my photos on google images because many people who find images there use them however they want, posting them in blogs, using them without permission.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ahh, I understand. Thanks, Colleen!
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
For most people it's not really a problem of Google or Yahoo, etc. but that "hide from 3rd party searches" also hides the photos from site-wide searches made trough the API, which unfortunately looks more and more like a desirable feature.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Umm, you can choose whether you hide yourself just from 3rd party searches, but still be visible in Flickr-wide searches, or whether you hide yourself also from Flickr-wide searches.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think he's saying that hiding from "3rd parties" also hides you from API searches. Which may not be what everyone wants.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I just put one of my pictures, that was showing up on Google search, to private---- and when i went back to see if it was there or not--------it wasnt there anymore, so they are honoring the "private pictures"-
I was also able to download my picture, from google, ( before I put it to private) and didnt get the space ball thing ( as I have that option clicked),,, and I was signed out of Flickr and was using a browser i never use--
Wonder whats goin on??
Wonder why they arent honoring the opt out of 3rd party searches
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 I think he's saying that hiding from "3rd parties" also hides you from API searches. Which may not be what everyone wants.
Yes, that's what I meant. Only I meant it to stress the point that THAT is what some (probably most) people want, rather than to hide from search engines.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, about three hours ago I hid myself from Flickr-side searches as well, just to see if that gets those items to drop off of Google (as a way of testing to see if that's how they're getting on there - spidering a static version of common or historical search terms).
I'll let you know how long it takes to fall off.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
cybele-, well, if you are to believe Paul, it'll probably start showing results in about few weeks.
Interesting is that since I hid myself from 3rd party searches, the search engines have become the biggest (in terms of individual view referrals) group of referrals.
I will also look how long does it take for them to drop out...
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I had more hits from Goggle search yesterday,--the hits started last week, no hits before that--
What good is the opt out of 3rd party search option if it doesnt work---------
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Contact them here
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
Phone: +1 650-253-0000
Fax: +1 650-253-0001
and ask why it is that they are not honoring the NOINDEX directive. Tell them that you want your images removed forthwith. Send them a DMCA notice, they have bypassed the technological controls that you put in place to prevent them from accessing your content.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brilliant Walwyn
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, it's only 15 hours later and if you click on that google search string on my initial post you'll see that the spidered images have dropped off.
So at least that works! And perhaps provides a clue as to how they got into Google Image Search in the first place.
I DO NOT want to keep site wide searches off. I just don't want 30% of my visitors coming from Google as they were before this.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What is a DMCA notice?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
It's a notice that Google will laugh hysterically at, and dare you to spend millions of dollars suing them. Make sure you ask your lawyer to look up whose name is at the very start of the major precedent regarding fair use of thumbnail images.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So in other words, just shut up Rosey,and go on your little way----ty
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
also known as a take-down notice or a NOI, notice of infringement.
The official paperwork you have to send to make a website take down your images that have been illegally placed there.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
cybele-, thanks for the tip. I, like many others, have noticed in my stats that my photos are being referred by google images, when i've had the API search option off for many months. And like cybele-, i do want my photos available via flickr search, but i'm turning that off now too, until fickr fixes this problem.
Paul or other flickr staff, pls let us know when the problem has been fixed.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes its a thing flickr need to fix and not google. Google does its job properly by indexing the search results pages of flickr,as on the flickr search results page no "meta name="robots"" tag is present to instruct the spiders not to index the content of this page, nor is there any directive in the robots.txt file regarding the search results page.
Google can not see the meta tag in the individual photopages when it does index the search results page. Also the tag is associated with a whole page and not single bits on a page like a photo or video.
The follopwup from the searchpage will be done later by google and when google then comes to a photopage with the meta tag telling not to index, it will not be indexed as instructed, but this would not affect the already spidered search results pages.
The same loophole applies with tag-pages and tag-clusters, group pools or photos embedded to flickr discussions. I think for the discussions its no way to stop it as then the entire group discussions couldn't be searched by google or any other searchaengine anymore.
PS: As my photos are under a CC license I like my photos can be sound by google and I'm happy the search pages of flickr are spidered.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Grrrr... I have reasons I don't want my photos showing up on Google's image search as well, and just checking my stats for yesterday (after being off flickr for over a week) I find 42 hits from Google. Grrrr...
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
rose_licious "I was also able to download my picture, from google, ( before I put it to private) and didnt get the space ball thing ( as I have that option clicked),,, and I was signed out of Flickr and was using a browser i never use--"
Which means that google is indexing background graphics.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We're talking to Google about this issue at the moment - their policy is to not give any details on the work they're doing, so I can't give any promises about if or when it will be fixed.
I'll update this thread as soon as there's anything else to report.
Until then, please take a deep breath, remember Google search is a huge system with lots of people relying on it, and give them a chance before fetching the pitchforks and torches.
Thanks...
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
Paul Hammond (staff) edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
|
|
Andreas. - all of the reported examples of opted-out photos appearing in image search are of the medium sized image from the photo page. Those pages have noindex tags to stop them appearing.
Can you give a concrete example of where an opted-out photo is appearing in google search because of tag pages or search pages?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh why the medium size appears, I cannot explain as those should be protected by the meta tags.
I just was guessing photo-pointers got into googles DB over indexed thumbnails on the search/group or tag pages as there is no spider protection. Right now on a try I could not find an example, from the mentioned users above. My own photos are not opted out so I could nnot retrive a sample from them too right now.
To track tis issue down, it would be good if a user whose photos are opted out and can see own photos in google image search could post the link that appears in the browser bar when clicking the photo in the google picture search, as this link will reveal on which page the spider picked up the photo.
Here is only an example of my own shots to demonstrate the interesting part of the URL:
--------LINK from google image search------
hXXp://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= farm1.static.flickr.com/35/123886151_3ac7b0003f.jpg&;
imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/124330160/123886151/
&h=500&w=375&sz=125&hl=en&start= 14&tbnid=o6b-tWkMLpwbgM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=98 &prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmodern%2Bflower%2Barrangements %26hl%3Den
--------------------------------------------------------------
The bold part of the link is the interesting part that might be helpful.
So to track it down it would be good if an affected user could provide
the URL from google or just the IMGREFURL found in the link on the google image search. Then its clear where the "loophole" is and if it is actually the search results page or not. (as i was just guessing about this as I explained above).
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
Paul Hammond (staff) edited this topic 4 months ago.
|
|
|
I've had no official word from Google, but I have noticed that the search that started this whole thread no longer returns photos it shouldn't.
It does still return Cybele's photos, but that's because they're linked to from typetive.com which doesn't have noindex set anywhere.
Can anyone else confirm if they're still seeing this issue?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Andreas. I just added some spaces to your post because it was making this page harder to read. Hope that's ok!
Cybele- already indirectly provided the information you're asking for (by linking to a search that showed the problem). It was the photo page (with noindex tags) that was showing up. That's why I suggested this wasn't a flickr problem...
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This search returns my pic first:
images.google.com/images?q=hells+gate+crater
Do you need to specifically hide each photo? (that would seem to be a bit dumb....)
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks Kyudos, guess I spoke to soon...
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i think even more of more are being found now.
Search for "birth of a frog" and my photo is right up there.
Thanks for looking into this Paul, its appreciated.
:-)
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Paul: Thanks for the info, and yes its okay.
As I looked at Cybeles links again for a closer look at the IMGREFURL it was already gone.
But the new sample shows it was picked from the photopage and so it seems a google issue, (maybe very slow in revisiting the/some pages)
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Paul - my photos that I've blogged have always shown up in Google Image Search because of that noindex issue (I've asked for help so many times on that and have given up - can I add noindex to an img src html code?).
The issue here is that instead of being directed to my typetive.com blog, the images show up twice in google image search, once with the result of typetive and then again (actually, usually it's the first) on flickr.
images.google.com/images?q=yellow+mentos
(It's the third image - I found that in my stats as netting 3 hits yesterday.)
I turned site wide search back on again, out of curiosity ... things pop back up VERY quickly on google.
Would some sort of a noindex & nofollow tag on the Flickr search result pages solve this problem?
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, mine are showing yet... and looks like Google find them in the photostream
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
austenhaines wrote: Search for "birth of a frog" and my photo is right up there.
Indeed it is.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
cybele- "(I've asked for help so many times on that and have given up - can I add noindex to an img src html code?). "
No. This has to go in a meta tag in the <head> section of the page.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If a person opts out of all searches, within Flickr and all 3rd party------how long would it take before all of your items would "disappear" off of Goggle and such?
I know its not instant, just wondering what a reasonable amount of time would be
Thank you
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There is an image of mine that was (illegally) displayed on a website in February. I found it by doing a google search for one of the tags.
Today, when I do that google search, the same thumbnail comes up. However, when you click on it to see it in the page, the replacement image that the site owner put up is what you see.
So, for some reason, Google shows you my thumbnail, but takes you to her image. She replace my photo back in February, so.........
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
rose licious asked "If a person opts out of all searches, within Flickr and all 3rd party------how long would it take before all of your items would "disappear" off of Goggle and such?"
As I mentioned in this comment:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72076/450540/
It took about 15 hours for my images linked in the initial post to fall off the google result after I turned off site wide searches.
I've tried turning my settings on and off (flickr searches - I haven't touched the outside search setting) and it seems to take an equal amount of time for things to appear on Google again.
I've turned flickr searches back off until this is resolved.
JShook - thanks! for the answer (even though it's not the one I wanted). I'm fine with the text of my site being spidered, I just don't want the google image bots. There doesn't seem to be a way to get them to keep their sticky spider fingers off hotlinked images.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I just heard from Google - they've confirmed that they're working to fix this issue now, and hope to have all affected images removed by early next week.
They also thanked the flickr community for bringing this to their attention.
I'll keep you updated when I hear more.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Cool. Thanks Paul for doing this.
Extra doughnuts for you.
:-)
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thank you Paul , for keepin us up to date-
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Paul - thanks for the update and following through with Google.
(Unlike austenhaines I have no donuts to offer, perhaps some candy?)
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Caramel Shortcake Mini Bites?
(Before I eat them all myself ;-) )
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Just checked my stats today. Some of my pictures are showing up in Google image search as well as in flickr site searches. I have both hide from site and API search checked. What else is there for me to do to stop my pictures from showing up in any searches? I set my profile as hidden as well.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I was hoping things would drop off, but even with myself hidden from onsite searches, I'm still getting 5% of my traffic from Google Image. But I also had a referral from AOL Search (plain search, not image) & still some regular google searches:
www.google.com/search?q=storck+chocolate
Any news from google?
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've seen no decrease in google referrers and in fact yesterday it went up.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Interestingly enough, If I do an image search using Google.com, Google.com returns some photos from the year 2007. Google.com has not returned photos from the year 2008. I am opting out of third party API searches.
I hope Google.com will remove my old photos from their image search function until I enable third-party API searches.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've seen no change in this issue either. And it's no longer "early this week" either.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Google have told me that most of the affected images should now be removed.
Unfortunately they haven't removed all of them - apparently that's going to take a few more weeks (they need to refetch the pages, which takes a long time).
Hang in there...
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Silly question?? What does refetch mean? sounds like they have a dog workin for them------- is it computer language? : )
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
hmm....refetch sounds like Google want to reindex the pages?? Wouldn't that defect the purpose of NOINDEX? My home server regularly gets probed by the googlebot trying to index the same directory structure EVEN if I have the file to tell it to go away. It just comes back at a later time. So unless flickr IS stopping google from indexing its pages...I can only see this as a regular problem.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, Google does have to crawl the pages to be able to read the noindex, so that it knows not to index the pages. I don't think you can just stop Google from touching the page -- it goes through the entire web periodically to update itself.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Paul, if they are removing the affected pages now, does that mean that they're undoing what's already happened but that no new images are being indexed?
In other words, is it now OK to turn the flickr public search option back on (as opposed to the third-party search, which of couse we'd leave off), if we don't want our images to come up in google searches? (Since, as cybele- correctly pointed out, it appears that images were being indexed via the flickr public search.) Or should we wait?
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I've opted out of 3rd party API searches (a while ago), but not from flickr site-wide searches and I had referrals from images.google.com yesterday.
So I guess it's not safe yet...
:o(
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@zyrcster, what i meant regarding the repeat indexing of googlebot was that, my server already has the text file telling it not to index my site. Googlebot only tries to index a specific path on my server. Why? I don't know. However, when you probe a site and the robots.txt tells you to go away, why come back at a later time and try to do the same thing again? The bot looks more like a pest to me =) It just wouldn't go away !!
Aside from the indexing problem, I also noticed that some third-party API app allows people to "steal" bigger versions of their photographs. If what are provided to users to set their flickr account's privacy settings aren't applied to all applications. Why bother presenting such options to users? Also, Slideshows (for Pro account users) show large versions of the photographs to all viewers. Another thing that eeks me about settings i can apply to my account.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
©larence edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
|
Paul H.
I've had my images hidden from third party searches for about forever ('cause third parties kept stealing my images) and as up a couple of hours ago my stuff was showing up Google Images.
It's really a simple case of Flickr not delivering on what it promised.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Just documenting that it's been a week since Paul's last update and my referrals from Google Images have remained rather steady for the past week (4%-9% of my traffic).
I'm hoping that these items will drop off sooner rather than later.
Lol-ita - I've been watching pretty carefully and I'm not seeing any of my new uploads on the referrals, just material that's been in my stream for 3 months or more.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I know Paul said it'd be a couple weeks more, but just wanted to add my voice that mine are still receiving quite a few hits from Google images.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I like the others had opted out of 3rd party months ago. Im still seeing tons of referals from google images. My biggest concern with it is that it effectively bypasses the spaceball function, allowing anyone who searches to click the view full size (actually reduced to about medium) on the search return, and simply right click and save the image.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I attempted to use google removal tool. on a few shots tht were repeatedly appearing despite blocking external API many months ago and my request was denied with the following explanation:
Removing content from Google: Denied - cached copy (meta tag)
Your request has been denied because the webmaster of the site hasn't applied the appropriate robots |
