__/ [Stacey] on Saturday 05 November 2005 14:17 \__
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> 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-
> Yep, people wanting to find images to use(steal).:-)
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-
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...
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:
They imitated though:
If you can't patent, imitate, then patent?