Google own or control PINTEREST ?

[VRPdommy]

I do a lot of image searching with Google...
As time has passed the last 4 or more years,
It now seems 80% of the images that Google returns on a image search are PINTEREST links.
The problem I have with that is getting the corresponding text from a original posting.
Pinterest does not have the image as I understand it and you may be able to find the original posting after many clicks even if you choose the right ones. But I'm not signing up for a account with Pnterest just to track down what Google should have showed me in the first place.

So, either this breaks copyright or they have no original content and that is what I am seeking, the original content poster. Is this not just plain pure making money from someone else's work ? I can't see the fair use.

I can only think that Google owns or has some controlling interest in Pinterest.
Are they not suppose to be giving priority to original content ?

Can anyone enlighten me ?

Oh... the short fix is to search for images with a '-pinterest' but my point remains.
Using that could possibly remove original content where they are mentioned in the pages.

[brassmonkey]

this is how google finds shit. why would you post shit like this???

[DraX]

Google are crooks and dishonest insects.

What happens when you search with Bing or Duckduckgo?

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by DraX

Google are crooks and dishonest insects.

What happens when you search with Bing or Duckduckgo?

uh they use google data. they have been at bing a while. bing is scraping google! they are very close to taking them to court!

[DraX]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

uh they use google data. they have been at bing a while. bing is scraping google! they are very close to taking them to court!

ok didn't know where bing stood, here's what duckduckgo is doing:

DuckDuckGo uses its web crawler, DuckDuckBot, and up to 400 other sources to compile its search results, including other search engines like Bing, Yahoo, and Yandex, and crowdsourcing sites like Wikipedia.

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/...duckgo/301997/

[rowan]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

uh they use google data. they have been at bing a while. bing is scraping google! they are very close to taking them to court!

Got a source? There was a minor uproar in 2011 (8 years ago) when Google discovered that unique searches typed into Bing would query Google... but that was a last resort thing, only done if there were zero results in the Bing db.

Unless you're referring to something more recent, which I can't find any evidence of, I think you're talking shit...

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by rowan

Got a source? There was a minor uproar in 2011 (8 years ago) when Google discovered that unique searches typed into Bing would query Google... but that was a last resort thing, only done if there were zero results in the Bing db.

Unless you're referring to something more recent, which I can't find any evidence of, I think you're talking shit...

they are both there for you to look over

[optics]

If they're jewish then it doesn't matter who the front company is. Google, Facebook, whatever. Pinterest was always jewish, and actually seemed quite boring, and it only came to prominence because it had the (((media machine))) behind it.

So many of you, especially those who do SEO, still seem to think that jewish tech companies are working in isolation, for a free and fair web, in which the cream will rise to the top. No, they're working as a collective for the benefit of the jewish people.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

I do a lot of image searching with Google...
As time has passed the last 4 or more years,
It now seems 80% of the images that Google returns on a image search are PINTEREST links.
The problem I have with that is getting the corresponding text from a original posting.
Pinterest does not have the image as I understand it and you may be able to find the original posting after many clicks even if you choose the right ones. But I'm not signing up for a account with Pnterest just to track down what Google should have showed me in the first place.

So, either this breaks copyright or they have no original content and that is what I am seeking, the original content poster. Is this not just plain pure making money from someone else's work ? I can't see the fair use.

I can only think that Google owns or has some controlling interest in Pinterest.
Are they not suppose to be giving priority to original content ?

Can anyone enlighten me ?

Oh... the short fix is to search for images with a '-pinterest' but my point remains.
Using that could possibly remove original content where they are mentioned in the pages.

Care to provide an example of what you are talking about?

[VRPdommy]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

this is how google finds shit. why would you post shit like this???

They are suppose to find "THE ORIGINAL CONTENT"
did you not read it or just not understand.
If I do what they are doing, I will be blacklisted/demoted.
Most image links lead to PINTEREST not original poster. And if I want to find the original content through PINTEREST, I need to have a account.
It is skewed search results. It is doing the same thing others were doing when google came along 'not doing it' and won the search war with users.
Now that they have done so, they are doing it more than anyone.

Imagine being pointed to only subscription sites for your news, and they only post links to what you were looking for.

I just want to know the justification for it.

[VRPdommy]

Originally Posted by baddog

Care to provide an example of what you are talking about?

A normal search, which may not be the same for you depending on your google 'profile'.
https://www.google.com/search?biw=16...4dUDCAY&uact=5

For me, the image I wanted was number one. But I know it has at least 3 original postings on the web. But I can't even find where that one came from without a PINTEREST account.

Without pinterest
https://www.google.com/search?biw=16...AukoDG4 d8VM:

[Beaver1]

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

A normal search, which may not be the same for you depending on your google 'profile'.
https://www.google.com/search?biw=16...4dUDCAY&uact=5

For me, the image I wanted was number one. But I know it has at least 3 original postings on the web. But I can't even find where that one came from without a PINTEREST account.

Without pinterest
https://www.google.com/search?biw=16...AukoDG4 d8VM:

Its a fucking shame that all that hotlink farms rank in front of the original source.

I think google prefers pinterest because they doing all the editorial work for them
what save a lot of time and money on google side.

The best way to deal with all the scraper shit is the hotlink protection of all your
pictures even for SE.

The traffic you got from SE image searches went to zero these days.
(Bouncing ratios on google images are up to 100%)
And all these scraper sites harm your own rankings across the normal SERPS.

Best Regards

[VRPdommy]

Originally Posted by Beaver1

Its a fucking shame that all that hotlink farms rank in front of the original source.

I think google prefers pinterest because they doing all the editorial work for them
what save a lot of time and money on google side.

The best way to deal with all the scraper shit is the hotlink protection of all your
pictures even for SE.

The traffic you got from SE image searches went to zero these days.
(Bouncing ratios on google images are up to 100%)
And all these scraper sites harm your own rankings across the normal SERPS.

Best Regards

Is that true ? They are doing the editorial work ?
I can't see that as the only connection. There has to be more.

Yes, I have had these sites outweigh my own copyrighted material in results with my images. But I'm not necessarily making copyright a issue on this, but it is one.
Others, drawn to my work are led to others sites where they make money from it as click-bait at a minimum.

[brassmonkey]

pat yourself on the back for screwing over webmasters. jealous a hole

[trevesty]

It's amazing to me how clueless some self-proclaimed internet marketers are.

Firstly, that'd have to be included in SEC filings and would make huge news.

Secondly, if you actually knew anything about SEO (which you clearly don't), you'd know that Pinterest is renowned amongst SEO types for having one of the best in-house teams in the world.

[VRPdommy]

Originally Posted by trevesty

It's amazing to me how clueless some self-proclaimed internet marketers are.

Firstly, that'd have to be included in SEC filings and would make huge news.

Secondly, if you actually knew anything about SEO (which you clearly don't), you'd know that Pinterest is renowned amongst SEO types for having one of the best in-house teams in the world.

Knowing anything about SEO is not the same as following SEO industry statistical who's who. But you might if you studied successful campaigns I guess.
I don't have to know who the best coders are to be a good one myself.

I do not know who you are referring to as a internet marketer as it can't be me.
The only thing I claim to be is a domainer and domain consultant. But I do many other related things. So, I don't know anyone else claiming that in this thread you might be referring to. But I do indeed market my own products in some other matter not related to this industry.

If google and pinterest had some buy/sell/trade relationship, it would not make a SEC filing requisite anymore than if your company wanted to buy printer paper at walmart.
It would if they were entering a partnership of any sort. Much like Bing and Yahoo have or Microsoft and Lenovo.

Obviously, since I do not get the same results at Bing, something is up.

Do you actually have some fact to bring to my query ? or just wanting to get that off your chest.

[trevesty]

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

Knowing anything about SEO is not the same as following SEO industry statistical who's who. But you might if you studied successful campaigns I guess.
I don't have to know who the best coders are to be a good one myself.

I do not know who you are referring to as a internet marketer as it can't be me.
The only thing I claim to be is a domainer and domain consultant. But I do many other related things. So, I don't know anyone else claiming that in this thread you might be referring to. But I do indeed market my own products in some other matter not related to this industry.

If google and pinterest had some buy/sell/trade relationship, it would not make a SEC filing requisite anymore than if your company wanted to buy printer paper at walmart.
It would if they were entering a partnership of any sort. Much like Bing and Yahoo have or Microsoft and Lenovo.

Obviously, since I do not get the same results at Bing, something is up.

Do you actually have some fact to bring to my query ? or just wanting to get that off your chest.

Ok. But if you're a Python developer and someone releases a great new Python script that's exploding in popularity and usage, you'd probably look into it a little bit to at least see if it was in any way applicable for your clients / projects and if so, how to replicate it or license it.

Bing works quite differently than Google in pretty much every way. They're pretty antiquated as a search engine. That's... pretty common knowledge, I thought.

Google doesn't make deals like that, and a deal like that would leak anyways. It's ridiculous conspiracy theory that just demonstrates the person asking it has no idea about how Google works or how well optimized Pinterest is. It's probably one of the most well-optimized sites on the internet and makes for a great case study.

Here's an interview with the guy mostly responsible for Pinterest exploding: https://growtheverywhere.com/marketi...ers-pinterest/

But keep on with the conspiracy theories. Fitting for GFY.

[VRPdommy]

Originally Posted by trevesty

Ok. But if you're a Python developer and someone releases a great new Python script that's exploding in popularity and usage, you'd probably look into it a little bit to at least see if it was in any way applicable for your clients / projects and if so, how to replicate it or license it.

Bing works quite differently than Google in pretty much every way. They're pretty antiquated as a search engine. That's... pretty common knowledge, I thought.

Google doesn't make deals like that, and a deal like that would leak anyways. It's ridiculous conspiracy theory that just demonstrates the person asking it has no idea about how Google works or how well optimized Pinterest is. It's probably one of the most well-optimized sites on the internet and makes for a great case study.

Here's an interview with the guy mostly responsible for Pinterest exploding: https://growtheverywhere.com/marketi...ers-pinterest/

But keep on with the conspiracy theories. Fitting for GFY.

Conspiracy ?
As I said, if I were doing it, I would be demoted or ban whatever the cause that I suspect is google looking the other way at it for some reason. At least for now.
I have watched them change their algorithms to avoid such a think happening in the past. Much to the dismay of many SEO artist.
Something is not right and you have not explained it. Perhaps someone will enlighten us.

but Bing antiquated ? Hmm... antiquated for who... the person looking to manipulate search or the user in search of info ?
I know, you look at this from a SEO dog and see so few users on Bing it's not worth your concern . Perhaps that is why the results are more accurate for me, and I don't even like Bing for other reasons. But Googles dominance will not continue if this stuff keeps growing, no matter the reason.

I can only make judgement on my own experience, not others, many who rarely try anything else and would not know any better.
Why not stick to the point, you don't have a answer. Expanding the topic will not help.

I suspect a correctly drafted letter to the FTC may bring eyes to it. I was hoping someone knew the answer and would actually feel better if it was a deliberate act on google's part. Because otherwise, google is being used and nothing they can do about it apparently. How many might be next? What would the value of search be if it grows ? Anyone remember Yahoo skewed results 15-20 years ago.
Think on it different now.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by trevesty

Google doesn't make deals like that, and a deal like that would leak anyways. It's ridiculous conspiracy theory that just demonstrates the person asking it has no idea about how Google works or how well optimized Pinterest is.

You're wrong.

I have no idea why you don't Google before making such statements lol

Yahoo made a deal with Google to show Google results. Bing made a deal with Yahoo. So in essence their all intertwined with Google.

Yahoo gives up turns search over to Bing

Yahoo & Google Together Again In New Search Deal

[bns666]

Originally Posted by drax

google are crooks and dishonest insects.

qft!
.....

[trevesty]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

You're wrong.

I have no idea why you don't Google before making such statements lol

Yahoo made a deal with Google to show Google results. Bing made a deal with Yahoo. So in essence their all intertwined with Google.

Yahoo gives up turns search over to Bing

Yahoo & Google Together Again In New Search Deal

What?

I was referencing Google making a deal with Pinterest - you know, the original thread topic.

[trevesty]

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

Conspiracy ?
As I said, if I were doing it, I would be demoted or ban whatever the cause that I suspect is google looking the other way at it for some reason. At least for now.
I have watched them change their algorithms to avoid such a think happening in the past. Much to the dismay of many SEO artist.
Something is not right and you have not explained it. Perhaps someone will enlighten us.

but Bing antiquated ? Hmm... antiquated for who... the person looking to manipulate search or the user in search of info ?
I know, you look at this from a SEO dog and see so few users on Bing it's not worth your concern . Perhaps that is why the results are more accurate for me, and I don't even like Bing for other reasons. But Googles dominance will not continue if this stuff keeps growing, no matter the reason.

I can only make judgement on my own experience, not others, many who rarely try anything else and would not know any better.
Why not stick to the point, you don't have a answer. Expanding the topic will not help.

I suspect a correctly drafted letter to the FTC may bring eyes to it. I was hoping someone knew the answer and would actually feel better if it was a deliberate act on google's part. Because otherwise, google is being used and nothing they can do about it apparently. How many might be next? What would the value of search be if it grows ? Anyone remember Yahoo skewed results 15-20 years ago.
Think on it different now.

Yeah. Conspiracy theory.

Pinterest is probably one of the most whitehat sites in existence. But ok dude, keep talking out of your ass and telling yourself you sound smart.

[trevesty]

Anyways, brainiac.

Pinterest scrapes the image once it's pinned by the end user and technically hosts it. It is then in Google's eyes hosted by Pinterest. It's like SEO 101. An intern with a couple months of experience should know something like this.

Your whole dipshit rant falls apart at "Pinterest does not have the image as I understand it" for two reasons - it's not true and it illustrates you lack the basic skill of "right click -> open image in new tab" to see that it's hosted on Pinterest's CDN for every pin.

But keep ranting about something you clearly are extremely ignorant about.

[Bladewire]

trevesty

Definition: a false, absurd, or distorted representation of something.

[trevesty]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

trevesty

Definition: a false, absurd, or distorted representation of something.

That'd be the definition of "travesty", yes. I'm glad Google worked for you.

Either way, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the OP.

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by bns666

qft!
.....

you lyin

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by trevesty

That'd be the definition of "travesty", yes. I'm glad Google worked for you.

Either way, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the OP.

Righton bro

[VRPdommy]

Originally Posted by trevesty

Anyways, brainiac.

Pinterest scrapes the image once it's pinned by the end user and technically hosts it. It is then in Google's eyes hosted by Pinterest. It's like SEO 101. An intern with a couple months of experience should know something like this.

Your whole dipshit rant falls apart at "Pinterest does not have the image as I understand it" for two reasons - it's not true and it illustrates you lack the basic skill of "right click -> open image in new tab" to see that it's hosted on Pinterest's CDN for every pin.

But keep ranting about something you clearly are extremely ignorant about.

You apparently lack any understanding of the point I'm making. But go ahead and flex the image of superior knowledge you do not have or might have but is useless without that understanding because you are answering questions I am not asking.
It not a question of SEO, it is a question of the value of SEARCH !

I do not have nor want to have a account with pinterest. Nor do I care how or why they do what they do... Who cares. No original content. Nothing to do with my query or point

My topic/issue is with search and google relating to pinterest and you are focused only on pinterest and seo. And you are no help. Go screw with some other thread.
It is about the value of search . Stop trying to make it about something else you may have knowledge of so you can sound like you are smart. Get smarter.

To everyone else...

Before google changed their algorithms some 8 years ago, search would bring up many facebook posts on page 1 and facebook is the same kind of closed entity (requiring a account to read/see the post), google had stopped this some time ago. Perhaps many were not around for that .
How relevant is a search link if you can't read it. You would end up with the first pages of results you likely could not read without a individual account for each.
If I wish to search Pinterest for images, I can set-up a account and go there and search their database. Same as Facebook. but I can see the value in showing links to people or place search to relevant facebook accounts.... i.e. Denver Chamber Of Commerce, John Doe etc. Think of what results you might get with all the content of other closed entities like Twitter and Facebook included the same way as pinterest who has no original content.

Notice all the 'Account Only' newspapers do not get top search results, if any, unless they release a publicly available portion (as a content teaser inciter to get a account 'but with original content'), so why is pinterest exempt from this in google search ? (Answer that smartass, it has nothing to do with seo, but I'm sure it's helping a bad situation get worse, but it's on google).

In any case, I will continue to use google image search with the filter -pinterest until they fix it. I'm fine with that. And it's simpler than even explaining the problem to some. I'm not joining pinterest to find the original content poster who still may not be the original author. Pinterest is just fogging the results with people who like images that may not be relevant at all because of a text tag not necessarily provided by the original content poster. I can also see where pinterest is manipulated for the same in the future. Blowing a big whole in good search results and a new problem for others sites legit seo.

It is about the value of search that is diminished .
What good is it if it takes you 20 pages of search results to find it. Same problem we had in the earlier days of the more modern internet and we thought google had fixed that.

...Oh well...

[trevesty]

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

blah blah blah blah blah I think I know what I'm talking about but I don't

Before google changed their algorithms some 8 years ago, search would bring up many facebook posts on page 1 and facebook is the same kind of closed entity (requiring a account to read/see the post), google had stopped this some time ago.

Notice all the 'Account Only' newspapers do not get top search results, if any, unless they release a publicly available portion (as a content teaser inciter to get a account 'but with original content'), so why is pinterest exempt from this in google search ? (Answer that smartass, it has nothing to do with seo, but I'm sure it's helping a bad situation get worse, but it's on google).

Pinterest doesn't require an account to view posts. They're not some "closed entity". Like any smart company, they will show a CTA asking you to create an account, but that doesn't mean you have to in order to view content. They can be pretty aggressive about this also (again, like any smart company). They're not exempt from anything and it has everything to do with SEO / inbound marketing - you're just too dumb to realize that your ridiculous theory and SEO / inbound marketing aren't mutually exclusive here. Furthermore, it's not difficult to create landing pages specifically for SE traffic that's exempt from this rule.



https://support.google.com/webmaster.../7451184?hl=en

Act in a way that cultivates user trust
Users feel comfortable visiting your site if they feel that it's trustworthy.

A site with a good reputation is trustworthy. Cultivate a reputation for expertise and trustworthiness in a specific area.
Provide information about who publishes your site, provides the content, and its goals. Shopping and other financial transaction websites should have clear and satisfying customer service information to help users resolve issues. News sites should provide clear information about who is responsible for the content.

Using appropriate technologies is also important. If a shopping checkout page doesn’t have a secure connection, users cannot trust the site.

Make expertise and authoritativeness clear
Expertise and authoritativeness of a site increases its quality. Be sure that content on your site is created or edited by people with expertise in the topic. For example, providing expert or experienced sources can help users understand articles’ expertise. Representing well-established consensus in pages on scientific topics is a good practice if such consensus exists.


If you search for "quilt ideas", you should see Pinterest at the #1 spot. Why? Well, according to Google's guidelines, it's pretty easy to understand why. They've got the most authority and trustworthiness compared to nannyscutequilts.com(of course, I made this domain name up).

Even being a content aggregator can establish trust, because perhaps Pinterest really only shows the best quilt ideas from a huge database of quilt ideas. Perhaps a metric like most pinned quilt ideas shows on page 1 of their landing page. Voila, they now offer a better result than nannyscutequilts.com to users.

[VRPdommy]

Well, again...
You must be logged-in via google or facebook accounts because I can't see a thing except a sign-in/sign-up window. I suppose that is a seo issue...LOL
You are to much. Go play with yourself.

[ghjghj]

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

I do a lot of image searching with Google...

Same here