Our French-based sites have been hit hard by this update, and it isn't anything in the like of statistical adjustement of click count, it's the disappearance of Google Image as an entry point ! Conversion losses, income losses... Great.

The Dutch version of Google has also been hit. At least a 80% drop in Google images traffic.

Having a website in French for more than 10 years. Very stable traffic for many years, never had any trouble with Penguin or Panda....
After this Image search update in France, traffic down 50%.... Average revenue down 30%....
Speechless....

All German publisher (and everyone else) can sign my petition against the new image search and the abuse of power in the Google universe. Thanks!

https://www.change.org/p/ma...

I see a drop in traffic from images in Poland too

I bet they delayed the rollout to other countries because of antitrust issues. Taking someone elses images and keeping the traffic those images get is probably a big no no in some countries where Google has not paid of legislators. Maybe Google's lobbying arm has bribed enough politicians in the other countries to not fear antitrust investigations?

I think they know it's coming (the EU case). Just like anything in the EU though it takes too long. Google are on a scorched earth policy now. Rape & pillage as much as they can from the system until the system makes them stop.

I almost went out of business thanks to the image search change in 2013. I still have not recovered to my former income levels. In no reality was that change "better" for anyone except for Google.

I'd like to know how receiving fake clicks in your analytics (which weren't people actually visiting your site) not appearing in the analytics anymore nearly put you out of business.....

The only thing I can think of is if you were selling advertising based on those visits to your site..... as those visits didn't actually happen (someone seeing your image on the google search page would be seen as a hit on your page), counting them as hits for advertising would be fraudulent as they never saw the advert anyway.

Or am I missing something...

Read this as you seem to be hard of thinking. https://www.seroundtable.co...

So basically, all the webmasters need to do is block the high res images in robots.txt and then put up low-res replacements that aren't blocked with similar alt text if they wanted exactly the same thing.

Also it sounds far better for searchers (Google's customers) to be able to get the image directly without having to go to the website if they don't want.

Its not that difficult for webmasters who don't want their high res images to appear in search to get them to not appear.

So basically Google have made the service better for their customers (searchers).

Also the vast majority of people searching are unlikely to be specifically after a high-res version so I doubt that would have a massive affect on most sites unless they specifically sell high-res images..... and most of these sites only provide water-marked versions publicly anyway so it doesn't make any real difference to them.

As you seem to have declined to answer & re-iterate.

Think about offers super markets run, eg, cheap beer. They give it away at cost because it gets you in the store where there is a good chance you will buy something else. In a webmasters case, a good chance you will interact either BUYING something or SEEING AN AD that earns the webmaster money. That has been taken away.

Thats nice..... how is it Google's problem or fault.

Using your analogy, its like having a go at the supermarket for not paying the beer maker enough despite that meaning they would have to put the price up for their customers.

Google's customers are the searchers. Website are the products/suppliers.

It's google's job to look after the searchers not the supplier.

This is where the problem comes in, you are trying to claim Google have some responsibility towards the webmaster. Given they have ZERO responsibility towards webmasters they bend over backwards to help them and provide tools/information to help them.

If searchers prefer to be able to download the image directly from the webpage without visiting the site, then it would be wrong for Google to not give them that option. As already mentioned there are many ways the website owner can easily protect the hi-res one if they want so it doesn't appear in Google.

It's Google's job to make money, with zero regulation. Just about the only utility (as that is what the Internet has now become) is regulated. When Google get's regulated (which it sure will) it will have no choice other than to act with some responsibility. Where do you think Google would be without websites? Do you think people just tinker away in bedrooms making websites for Google to plunder at will? The irony here is it is YOU who thinks things should be available for NOTHING, not the webmasters who get raped by Google. What is your business?

Nope, to be a utility, it has to have access to a vital resource that others can't provide by means of infrastructure e.t.c. Hence the internet connection might be a utility but a search engine will never be.

If Google screw over their customers, then the customers move to a different search engine.

"Where do you think Google would be without websites?"
Ok, well you tell everyone to give up the free traffic from Google then, see how that goes for you. Its a BS argument that people trot out. What would happen to the supermarkets if all the farms stopped selling to them? Its the same thing and it will never happen because it would be the websites cutting of their nose to spite their faces.

I make websites so if anything my bias should be on your favour however unlike you I'm not a self-entitled brat who thinks that I should be getting free stuff for nothing.

Google don't plunder anything at all, they simply provide a LISTING of what YOU provide publicly.

If you don't want people to be able to download your high-res images directly from Google its bloody easy to only allow them to be accessed when the referrer is coming from your own website. Again, lots of options which are ignored because certain people are so self-entitled that they think they should get to decide how Google works.... but get offended when you offer them ways to change their site to work more like they want.... because god forbid they should actually have to do anything themselves......

If you think Google is that bad and nasty to webmasters, feel free to remove all your sites from Google via the robots.txt file.... oh you haven't.... I wonder why.....

hahaha. I can see the steam coming from your ears from here. Calm down dear :)

"we run an image based site and our revenue has dropped for $80/day to $8/day in the last 2-3 weeks. This way it would be hard to even pay for the amazon cloud infrastructure. This is really SAD and hope Google does something quick to help all webmasters."

Again, what makes you think the site is entitled to get that level of traffic consistently from Google?

Why are you relying on organic search for 90+% of your revenue?

Why is Google to blame for your bad business choices when they explicitly warned you not to rely on organic search?

In your haste to reply you've yet again made yourself look stupid. Did you miss the quote marks? That was a quote from elsewhere, not me. I don't run an image site. If I did I'd be pretty pissed off that Google feels oblivious to copyright law. Do you work for their PR or something? What makes you think Google is entitled to share other peoples work for no compensation?

No, I realised that, since you quoted it without attribution you could have been quoting yourself, either way I was replying to the quote regardless of who wrote it.

If you share a image publicly, then fair-use applies which includes showing it in search since you also have a means to block it via robots.txt
You can also share water-marked versions of the images as well instead of the full image....

Basically the complaint is people are too lazy to protect their own copyright so want Google to do it for them. There are lots of image sites who don't have any problems because they are set-up properly.

Literally all Google are doing is providing a list of the things you have made publicly visible. Its like trying to call the phone-book a copy-right infringement because it lists their trademarked names and brand images.....

Wrong on so many counts. You may want to ask around to some people who stuck watermarks on their images what happened to their traffic then...As for copyright, I'd suggest you read up on that law too, just because am image is on a website doesn't mean no one owns copyright on it. Even big G knows that! ("Images may be subject to copyright.Send feedback" Right there on the page). What business are you in?

Yeah, I have, they are called..... all the major websites in the industry. istock for example are one of the biggest and all their high res images are watermarked.

As for copyright, I didn't say that making them public removed your copyright, I said it makes it eligible for fair-use, which displaying them when they are searched for does count as.

More so when the owner of the image can easily put a block on it been shown in image search if they want.

So what exactly was wrong again? Other than your ability to read?

hahaha, have your Y Fronts untwisted yet?

Showing your troll colours now aren't you.

BTW....."Its like trying to call the phone-book a copy-right infringement because it lists their trademarked names and brand images". Tip, they are ADVERTS!! Oh the irony. Considering how easy you are to find online you are very vocal, can't be good for the company image that Steven ;)

Errr... I don't know what phone books you get, but there are several which do listing AND adverts. You are probably thinking of the yellow pages where the only images are if you pay for an advert.

The yellow pages isn't the only phone book in the world. Our local phone books carry the logos of lots of companies even when they haven't advertised... so another faulty assumption on your part. There ar of course paid advertisements as well.

Search engines are specifically excluded from copyright under the fair-use clause. Same as commentary, reviews, satire, parody, criticism e.t.c.

Oh and I don't feel the need to hide behind a fake name, unlike certain other people, who whenever their argument is shown to be nonsense, they quickly try and switch to a different easily disproven argument isn't of actually coming back with any evidence to support their point.

Phone books? Not used one in years but checking one see's classified directory at the front, you do know what classified means, yes? Now scurry off back to the Google Product forums, that's a good boy. What this all has to do with Google changing the system to rob webmasters yet again is beyond me. Perhaps you can offer your expert advice to those complaining in this thread. And get a hair cut too....

No... not in the classified section......

Its called "Fair-use" and quite a few courts have upheld search engines showing publicly displayed images is classed as fair usage. AKA no theft and not a breach of copyright.

Clearly as all you can do is hide behind your avatar and make personal attacks, you haven't actually got anything like a point to make or quite clearly a clue what you are talking about. You've been told how to fix the problem, how many other successful sites do it with no difficulty at all but no.......

Its blatant you are just looking for an excuse to slag off Google, Did they demote your site and its making you bitter or something?

Sorry for delay in replying. Did you get that hair cut? Hope you've got a fresh pair of knickers on!!! Told how to fix what problem? I personally have zero problem, I don't run an image based site dumb ass! Excuse to slag Google off? Nope, I'm just not a Google brown nose like yourself. Now once again, scurry off back to the Google brown nose forums. You missed a bit, I can see it from here :)

And again, no actual point just random insults.

Your troll face is showing again.

Note, before calling someone a "dumb arse" you might want to read what they put. "the problem" (people downloading the full res-images directly) does not mean "your problem".

You're right. No actual point. As for your claimed "fix" for the issue it just goes to show what a clueless buffoon you are.

The same fix that all the successful image sites use..... clearly no way that could work.....

If you actually showed any signs of intelligence, I might be slightly bothered by your comments.

hahaha. Says he. Get back to making websites.

Do you believe the Google take on it or the business owner that has posted her findings? I know who's opinion I'd trust! EVERY change Google makes is not for the better of the Internet ecosystem, it's to fuel their greed.

1> Show how Google profits from this
2> Show actual findings
3> I never claimed what she said was wrong, I said I'd like to know how the change nearly killed her business.
I'll not even get onto the fact that its practically the worst plan ever to have your business relying on search results which could change at any time with one algorithm update, in fact even Google explicitly advise against this.
4> Google main purpose isn't to make businesses happy, its to make searchers happy. If the searchers are happy, they come back and don't use Bing e.t.c. If its better for searchers then yes, Google will change it regardless if it hurts businesses. Thats not actually Google's problem.

I really have better things to do, you lost me when you spouted the usual "its practically the worst plan ever to have your business relying on search results" (you may want to check what % of search Google owns in the EU) & "Google (sp) main purpose isn't to make businesses happy, its to make searchers happy"
Absolute comedy gold that one, I HATE ADVERTS, I don't know anyone who likes them yet Google is now FULL of them. Make searchers happy my a$$. Their main purpose is to make THEM MONEY. Sooner you realise that the better.

Are you stupid? Of course Google are there to make money... they are a business, thats what they do.....

There are plenty of other marketing solutions to use that aren't as volatile as the organic search results. They aren't free however.... you get what you pay for.

We have plenty of businesses that while they do well from the organic results, that doesn't mean that we neglect the other marketing channels, as nothing else as a backup should anything happen to the traffic from the organic results.

Don't you think its "the usual" because it happens to be true. Just because you happen to be so self entitled that you think you deserve to get everything completely free and advert-less doesn't mean reality works that way.

Any half-competent business adviser would give the same advice as well. Its never a good idea to rely on a volatile source of income without having back-ups in place to take over as needed.

I'm not stupid, no. Your first comment made you look pretty stupid though.

Ah yes... apparently not believing your random BS with no evidence makes someone stupid........

Go back to self-entitled land and cry about how the whole world owes you something more.

hahaha. I'm doing fine thanks. I just dislike Google & their ass kissers like you ;) The evidence is all around you, pull your head out of Google's ass & you may see that :) Random BS? Along with all the others who are commentating on this update I suppose??

Ah, you dislike Google because they don't give you enough FREE marketing, I get it. You think the world owes you something... don't worry we get it.

Its random BS until you provide evidence to support it. Until then you are talking from what you should be sitting on.

hahaha.

You are missing something. Image search used to be my biggest source of traffic and was the source of my highest pages per visitor. People would click through to my site and visit at least 4 more pages, based on the rest of the content they used to be able to see in the background. Now that they rarely click through, I've lost out on the initial click plus 4X more page views.

So what exactly is different now? Why aren't they clicking through anymore? The visit site link is still there the same.

Are you sure the drop in traffic you are seeing isn't the fake results been removed and the people you think where on the site had actually never left image search?
"In short, Google said the traffic you thought you were getting in the old design was not real traffic. It wasn't someone clicking over to your site."

So is it not entirely possible that prior to the change you were making money by selling advertising that wasn't actually been seen as much as you were selling it as been seen?

Not your fault but it would mean the fact the business has been doing well before was based on a lie.

What's different? Previously a user had to actually visit YOUR PAGE & YOUR IMAGE to see the full hi-res version. Now Google displays that on THEIR page. ie, no click through required (yes the site link is still there). This maybe hard for you to understand but think about offers super markets run, eg, cheap beer. They give it away at cost because it gets you in the store where there is a good chance you will buy something else. In a webmasters case, a good chance you will interact either BUYING something or SEEING AN AD that earns the webmaster money. That has been taken away.

The real question is all these clicks disappeared, are they really fake?
From my Analytics and Search console, no, not all of them.

Yes, they have a bounce rate very high, but still there are a lot of them who will continue to visit my French websites and sign up, even place orders.

Given the very high bounce rate, its possible a lot of them are the 'fake' views. I notice that the people complaining about it previously did mention the other engagement metrics all improved which suggests the visits which didn't engage are the fake ones.

Will be interesting to see if the number of visitors that actually engage the site goes down as well or not.

https://uploads.disquscdn.c...https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Here are 2 photos for visitors from image---google---organic and image---google---fr----referral.

This website sells the kind of products of minority interest, small niche. So we had around 200-400 visitors every day. Not a lot, but for this particular niche, it was not too bad.

For image---google---organic..... we had en average more than 2 minutes of session duration, now that part of visitors are all gone. One important thing: it is normal that for 2 minutes people only visit 4 pages, because people need to read and understand our products (it is not like some clothing websites where people can click a photo and add to cart, easy and quick).

We highly doubt that all the people who spend 2 minutes en average on our website are fake.

Plus, you know we have kind of habit to watch the real-time traffic Analytics, for hours. I am pretty sure that I have seen a lot for traffic from image search stayed and clicked the sign up page...

Maybe, some of them are fake, like google said, but not all of them, it's impossible.

Could you post the numbers for prior to the drop and after the drop? Looking at it, those numbers include both sides so don't really tell us much. We can't see what filtering options are there at all.

I confirm, same informations in france : http://www.beetle-seo.com/m...