I used to have a whole thread dedicated to the weird/intersting imagery I’d found randomly during image searches, which usually had nothing to do with my actual query; because of that very fact.
Exactly.
Though I wouldn’t call it stealing as no profit is being made on my end; I use images to emphasize my point.
And then there’s the obvious; if they don’t want images to be shared freely, they just shouldn’t post them on the internet at all.
Google web app/service development at this point consists largely of removing the smart features that made it worth using (my pet peeve is taking away “quick add” from the calendar) and tweaking styling and design to match current fashion. They’re enough of a huge octopus that they don’t really need to attract new users. I think we’re entering a new phase of google where it just capitalizes on its size, and also uses that to enter new businesses occasionally. I guess it’s probably been that way for a while now, we’re just starting to see a bit of the neglect and loss of user centrism in its core services (gmail, search) that we used to only see in the fringier stuff (wave, rss reader etc.)
If somebody can direct me to a page that shows how to edit/develop web extensions that alter browser search engine results directly (some sort of NoPinterest regex string modification to the built-in GIS search engine) I’ll make the extension myself.
Google Image search is so much better with javascript turned off - all the options are right there, instead of hidden behind stupid menus. Any way to make that a per-site setting in Safari?
That’s one of the long-running problems with browser (and app) permission models. It would need to be able to look at the content of the page in order to get the URL of the image in order to make a view image link and also to be able to modify the page to show that. So it gets read/write access to everything on the page. And since google has a lot of domains, the extension might need access to all of them to work everywhere.
Maybe shady, maybe not, no way to tell. Even if you review the source code, they could push an update tomorrow that changes it.
To come back to that for a second: how the fuck do some sites reach such an SEO success? Pinterest is one example which sucks on a level I truly start swearing every time I click on their links popping up when doing image search.
On the German-speaking part of the internet, there are also some massively successful sites, like the next-to-useless “c h e f k o c h.de”. Forgetting to exclude them when searching for anything food is a sure hit for, what? the first 10 links? It sucks in supreme, but Google as well as other services simply don’t seem to care.
ETA: didn’t want to give them the link, inserted spaces.
maybe I’m more in their target demographic, but pinterest has been able to connect me with a vast network of russian book pirates…
And while orphaned pins do pop up from time to time, I’ve also been able to reconstruct accession and bibliographic data by using pinterest. For me, and my interests, it’s a useful tool.
Now tumblr-- that’s a timesuck. I suppose I should get an account if I’m to see the adult content, though. Bluenosed bastards!
I will note that pinterest is uniquely awful at computer programming topics…
My understanding is that if you have an account, and the app, and you’re logged into it, then it sometimes works and depending on what you’re searching it might actually not be such a bad experience. But for most people, most of the time, it just leads to popup walls demanding that you make an account and circular links that only ever lead back to pinterest, almost never to the source.
