Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Google Images (Was: Jagger 3)

__/ [Stacey] on Saturday 05 November 2005 14:17 \__

> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dkidrg$1k37$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <snip>
> 
>> I  still  see  no changes in SEPR's I am familiar with. As far  as  Google
>> Images  is concerned, it's business as usual (more referrals than ever be-
>> fore).
> 
> Yep, people wanting to find images to use(steal).:-)
> 
> Stacey

They  are very welcome, even urged to do so. That's what I take those pho-
tos or render images for. I understand there was no implication of unorig-
inality.

The  issue  with Google Images used to be crawling of sexual  content  Web
sites.  People used Google Images for rapid access to glamour, or  nudity,
or pr0n, so Google got sued. I suppose there are no such lawsuits anymore.
There are also good image filters that are probably based on domain names.
I  still  manage  to /accidentally/ spot a nipple every  now  and  then...
*smile*

What  I think leads to traffic gain from Google Images are meaningful  alt
texts  and  image names that are other than DSC00001.jpg, DSC00002.jpg  or
1.gif and 2.gif. Amazon have begun to address the issue:

http://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome

They imitated though:

http://www.espgame.org/

If you can't patent, imitate, then patent?

Roy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index