Google is eating all of image traffic

Hi,
My concern is about Google Image search. As everyone knows the new layout and images are now showing up in an iframe without giving any benefit to site where it come from.
i am very disappointed to see stats from webmasters that how much traffic is cut of from my site and now stays in Google pages only

 

I don't see how it's any different from someone hotlinking your images. Every time someone does a search, your system resources get consumed but you get no traffic unless someone takes the initiative to click the "visit site" button. Google gets all of the benefit and it's done at your expense. I have disallowed access to my images directory via robots.txt

That said, I'll say that your stats are pretty impressive. How many people here would love to have that 129,000 clicks?

 

I have same problem, when i optimized site i took care for all of img tags, i followed Google rules and best practice by adding informative alt tags and similar, now i have like 4300 visits and 183 000 impressions (mostly images on google).

 

There's not much you can do asides from blocking Google from indexing your images (robots txt file can tell Google not to index jpg/png/gifs).

 

...and that would eventually choke out one of your biggest traffic source

 

I have disabled Hotlinking and i am also now shocked to see how many peoples were eating my bandwidth

 

What kind of quality is that traffic? I've used image search daily for years, and I don't recall one time where I ever surfed someone's website via image search.

 

Once Upon A Time when our websites got load at backend while viewing the image in google

 

Didn't that skyrocket your bounce rate?

I was never really interested in being part of image search. I was always more keen on being included in the news results, but always got rejected. They would turn me down for one reason, I would fix it, then they would turn me down for another. I eventually gave up.

 

I am also Planing To Stop Google From Eating My bandwidth. if i got no benefit from Google than why i gave to them. after all i am paying the server cost.

 

Yes but would doing so reduce the amount of traffic you receive? Surely a small percentage of traffic (and therefore overall site revenue) may originate from image search.

 

For Google it's all about presenting your images as their own. After all if they click through to your site then it means clicking out of theirs costing them revenue from advertising. I do agree it's a very cheeky approach they are taking.

 

I must say finding this out when I first noticed it some months ago was almost heartbreaking as I has spent a lot of time and investment (if you can call working at this and working at doing it right > investement) in ensuring images we're a nice secondary source of gaining raffic and visitors and then hope to convet them for myself or my clients.

It is perhaps the most disheartening thing Google has done IMHO amongst all of their sneaky little tricks that seem to have been brought to light since Marissa Mayer (Bogue) left and Larry Page took the No 1 seat.

It was a very sad day for me finding this and I can only say I feel for those it has affected and who have noticed the dirty way Google have manipulated this aspect of Google images.

It still makes me almost shed a tear to think too much about how we have all been abused by this. The amount of effort I put in to my and my clients sites only to have it all hijacked really does make me wonder if Bing could be trusted more and whether it is time to sing Bing's praises instead of Google's. Just need to research a little to see how best to proceed in this regard me thinks.

 

For sites and pages one builds going forward, use a video instead of a static image wherever possible. The tagging/titling of the vid should contain your keyword. Get back at Google for hijacking images and violating their own rules about image tags.

 

Weird you should say that I think I have found much more interesting sites from image search results than normal search other then normal search results from Wikipedia or various acedemic type sites or sites giving proper meaning to things like dictionaries or thesaurus and such like sites.

 

zero quality in my opinion..I have never visited google images looking for
a site; Sometimes I look for generic images I can use on my site...
but I never recall going to google images to find another site, ever...
If I am looking for a site, then I will go to a search engine, and this sounds
typical of google to use what is yours for their gains, then leave you with nothing,
then again I feel that image search isnt worth much anyway, but for
google it means much more content for them to utilize without them creating it.

 

I don't see how it's any different from someone hotlinking your images too.

 

Sounds like a holy war on big G