Google Removes Ability To View Images, Now Requires You To Save Them To Your Account.

[moderategamer]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

Oh you might be on to something actually... I did try it again, and it did actually work for some.  However for others it still does not.  Seems to be hit and miss

just depends where the image is coming from, a lot of sites only upload a low res sample image and then have a link to download the full quality image usually after purchasing. If they keep the image in the server but don't use it in the website it's safe from google

[BillyCool]

Who's not lazy and wants to create a lovely userscript that adds the button back? Someone will eventually...

[vanished]

19 minutes ago, BillyCool said:

Who's not lazy and wants to create a lovely userscript that adds the button back? Someone will eventually...

What I worry about are the less technically capable users who will be confused by the sudden lack of the button and won't be able to write a script, or even find and install one, or even right click to save for that matter.  I foresee a lot of time wasted browsing the host page, as well as cellhpone pictures of the monitor

[Energycore]

By the way Bing has this as well now. I was unable to "view image" any Bing Images. They also have the "may contain copyrighted content" clause.

[GoodBytes]

3 minutes ago, Energycore said:

By the way Bing has this as well now. I was unable to "view image" any Bing Images. They also have the "may contain copyrighted content" clause.

huh? Don't you have the image icon at the bottom right?

(second one)

[Energycore]

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

huh? Don't you have the image icon at the bottom right?

(second one)

Oh, didn't see that.

I guess bing it is then.

[aezakmi]

-who would win

 

the most powerful and intrusive company in the history of mankind that is worth trillions

 

one printy boi

[SpaceGhostC2C]

18 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I doubt they make their products more difficult to use on purpose, because it doesn't benefit them in any way.

They sometimes do, but I guess there is some benefit in those cases (I wouldn't for 100% of them, though). I remember one example: Google Maps offline functionality. They first introduced it through the app's "Labs" settings, as an experimental feature. It was the best version of it we ever got. They later removed it from "Labs" with an update, and some updates later it was reintroduced in a vastly inferior way as a core feature of Maps (including limited geographical availability, something absent from the original version). Since then, the offline function got updated several times, but it was never restored to the original version (to this day, offline maps still "expire" if you don't update them and Maps would refuse to show them - so much for "offline" use).

Now, while they certainly made Maps worse for its users, they probably did benefit from it: I assume they counted on users sticking to Maps no matter what (Google often seems to act on the assumption that all users are locked in to Google), and they need perishable maps to sell placement on search results, who is displayed first in the maps, and who gets displayed at all.

 

18 hours ago, Captain Chaos said:

Meh, haven't used Google in years anyway.  Quack 'em. 

DDG all the way.

I've set DDG as main search engine as well. However, I often need to repeat the search through Google due to unsatisfactory DDG's results. I guess all that peeping allows google to better predict what we're looking for  I do hope DDG or similar improves enough over time so I don't need to bite the bullet anymore. 

[vanished]

2 hours ago, aezakmi said:

-who would win

Spoiler

the most powerful and intrusive company in the history of mankind that is worth trillions

 

one printy boi

 

I suppose that's another option to add to my list:

12 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

What I worry about are the less technically capable users who will be confused by the sudden lack of the button and won't be able to write a script, or even find and install one, or even right click to save for that matter.  I foresee a lot of time wasted browsing the host page, as well as cellhpone pictures of the monitor

 

[TimeOmnivore]

What annoys me most about this isn't the fact that they removed "View Image" (right-click still exists, not much more difficult), it's that they also removed "Search by Image". That was, by far, the most useful and convenient feature of Google Images - see a photo that you like, but in a really low resolution? just click "search by image" and your issues are solved (provided a higher quality image exists in the first place). Now it's significantly more cumbersome to do this - e.g. right-click -> copy image URL -> new tab -> go to google images -> click the camera in the search box -> paste URL and search. I really miss that simple click. Fuck you Google.

[vanished]

27 minutes ago, TimeOmnivore said:

What annoys me most about this isn't the fact that they removed "View Image" (right-click still exists, not much more difficult), it's that they also removed "Search by Image". That was, by far, the most useful and convenient feature of Google Images - see a photo that you like, but in a really low resolution? just click "search by image" and your issues are solved (provided a higher quality image exists in the first place). Now it's significantly more cumbersome to do this - e.g. right-click -> copy image URL -> new tab -> go to google images -> click the camera in the search box -> paste URL and search. I really miss that simple click. Fuck you Google.

Right click & view image isn't equivalent to the old view image button though.  Often using right click does not get the full res version in my experience, where as view image always worked.

 

I hadn't noticed that this search by image link was also gone, you are right that is also very unfortunate.  They seem bent on removing all the features people have come to love over the years.

[Trik'Stari]

On 2/15/2018 at 5:06 PM, tmcclelland455 said:

This is quite stupid...

I was about to say the same thing.

 

People will just find a way around this because.... who honestly cares about the copyright on an image when you just want to make or post a meme?

 

Should people care? Maybe? I know most probably won't.

[GilmourD]

On 2/14/2018 at 10:14 AM, VegetableStu said:

hmm, interesting. wonder if it'll change over a week or next month

 

(for the record the [view image] button also appears on my side)

And it changed the next day. I've just been crazy busy and couldn't reply.

[NMS]

Good bye Google, hello Bing!

[Techicolors]

On 2/16/2018 at 1:09 AM, BillyCool said:

Who's not lazy and wants to create a lovely userscript that adds the button back? Someone will eventually...

found this beaut https://github.com/bijij/ViewImage

[JuztBe]

10 minutes ago, Technicolors said:

found this beaut https://github.com/bijij/ViewImage

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-images-downloader/bfncneeboblpajkpienladgdmfdkpefg
This one is great as well.

[Aeternalis]

On 2/14/2018 at 7:39 AM, GoodBytes said:

Yup I noticed... I also noticed that Google remove search results it doesn't like.

Bing is getting more and more interesting.

Especially political and social related things. Google is pretty much the king of censorship.

[TopHatProductions115]

I guess it's time for me to un-shelve that search engine project that I was working on back in 2015...

[themctipers]

rolled out to me last night.

 

 

 

to duckduckgo!

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, themctipers said:

rolled out to me last night.

Dang, me too (Though I already use bing)

[themctipers]

17 minutes ago, tjcater said:

Dang, me too (Though I already use bing)

BING?!

[handymanshandle]

Yeah I lost the view image button, if I wanna see the source I just usually right click on it but frankly I've been switching my search engine from Google to Duckduckgo and so far I've found it to be generally better.

A bit off topic but about duckduckgo the only thing I think it could do better is when you ask for stuff like this

I mean it does alright, there was one example I forgot which one it was exactly but I would get that image of the map and info about it on Google but it wouldn't show up on duckduckgo.

[TheKDub]

On 2/14/2018 at 7:39 AM, GoodBytes said:

Yup I noticed... I also noticed that Google remove search results it doesn't like.

Bing is getting more and more interesting.

Or even better, DuckDuckGo

[handymanshandle]

On 2/14/2018 at 8:15 PM, Bensemus said:

However I will never say "Bing it". Sounds terrible.

 

"Duckduckgo it"?

 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

1 hour ago, wcreek said:

"Duckduckgo it"?

"Duck it"

 

Then again that sounds too close to "f*ck it"