|
|
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?
Hi. Suppose you encounter an image online and you want to find a good version of it. https://i.imgur.com/XbGAsus.png How come google images is such a useless tool when it comes to finding a good quality version of an image? Like for instance, if you search for this image via google images: https://i.imgur.com/QlQtopa.jpg Google will find countless versions of that image online, but they are all garbage quality. https://i.imgur.com/w1Ctu5N.png Yet, there exist much better quality versions of that image: https://i.imgur.com/TykYAvB.png How come google isn't able to quickly point you to such quality versions and comes up with countless pages of useless garbage versions instead? Are there any useful tools that actually work to find you a *good* quality version of an image instead of bringing you countless pages of useless junk? Kind regards and thanks for feedback on this topic! |
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version ofan image?
On 01/01/2021 20:52, sobriquet wrote:
How come google isn't able to quickly point you to such quality versions and comes up with countless pages of useless garbage versions instead? Are there any useful tools that actually work to find you a *good* quality version of an image instead of bringing you countless pages of useless junk? General algorithmic criteria and SEO at a guess. I'm not aware that Google or any other search engine rates images by quality either technically or critically. The same is true for movies. If you did, for example, a search on "thrillers movies 2020" you'd find most of the ones suggested are simply the most promoted. There may also be a backlash from copyright owners and copyright licensees if the best quality images always came out top. Found with Tineye sorted by image size. https://imgpile.com/i/8A8qh -- Melanie van Buren |
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version ofan image?
On 01/01/2021 21.52, sobriquet wrote:
Hi. Suppose you encounter an image online and you want to find a good version of it. Try Yandex. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?
In article , Melanie van Buren
wrote: How come google isn't able to quickly point you to such quality versions and comes up with countless pages of useless garbage versions instead? Are there any useful tools that actually work to find you a *good* quality version of an image instead of bringing you countless pages of useless junk? General algorithmic criteria and SEO at a guess. it's nothing more than his inability to figure out how to properly do an image search and then blame it on everything other than his own ineptness. I'm not aware that Google or any other search engine rates images by quality either technically or critically. they absolutely do, and not just images. The same is true for movies. If you did, for example, a search on "thrillers movies 2020" you'd find most of the ones suggested are simply the most promoted. that depends on what someone searches for and how easily they give up and then blame the search engine for not finding what they want. There may also be a backlash from copyright owners and copyright licensees if the best quality images always came out top. there was and they lost. |
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version ofan image?
On Friday, January 1, 2021 at 10:09:57 PM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote:
On 01/01/2021 20:52, sobriquet wrote: How come google isn't able to quickly point you to such quality versions and comes up with countless pages of useless garbage versions instead? Are there any useful tools that actually work to find you a *good* quality version of an image instead of bringing you countless pages of useless junk? General algorithmic criteria and SEO at a guess. I'm not aware that Google or any other search engine rates images by quality either technically or critically. The same is true for movies. If you did, for example, a search on "thrillers movies 2020" you'd find most of the ones suggested are simply the most promoted. There may also be a backlash from copyright owners and copyright licensees if the best quality images always came out top. Found with Tineye sorted by image size. https://imgpile.com/i/8A8qh -- Melanie van Buren Ah great, at least Tineye provides information about the actual filesize of the images. That's probably most useful to quickly identify whether images have been artificially bloated to high-resolution pixel soup. |
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?
On 02/01/2021 01:02, sobriquet wrote:
On Friday, January 1, 2021 at 10:09:57 PM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote: Ah great, at least Tineye provides information about the actual filesize of the images. That's probably most useful to quickly identify whether images have been artificially bloated to high-resolution pixel soup. A thankyou would have been nicer than shifting the goalposts for another moan. -- Melanie van Buren |
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version ofan image?
On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 10:23:56 AM UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article d4e042b5-bf51-4a66-9907- , says... Hi. Suppose you encounter an image online and you want to find a good version of it. https://i.imgur.com/XbGAsus.png How come google images is such a useless tool when it comes to finding a good quality version of an image? Like for instance, if you search for this image via google images: https://i.imgur.com/QlQtopa.jpg Google will find countless versions of that image online, but they are all garbage quality. https://i.imgur.com/w1Ctu5N.png Isn't the second search result 1920x1080? The resolution isn't the only aspect that matters for image quality. It should be pretty obvious if you compare the two versions I've shown in the original thread at 100% zoomlevel. On the left side you can even make out detail like the surface texture of the canvas and on the right side is ugly pixel soup. https://i.imgur.com/EBKXKG1.jpg -- Alfred Molon Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at https://groups.io/g/myolympus https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?
In article a7360651-c1f7-4e95-8531-
, says... On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 10:23:56 AM UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote: In article d4e042b5-bf51-4a66-9907- , says... Hi. Suppose you encounter an image online and you want to find a good version of it. https://i.imgur.com/XbGAsus.png How come google images is such a useless tool when it comes to finding a good quality version of an image? Like for instance, if you search for this image via google images: https://i.imgur.com/QlQtopa.jpg Google will find countless versions of that image online, but they are all garbage quality. https://i.imgur.com/w1Ctu5N.png Isn't the second search result 1920x1080? The resolution isn't the only aspect that matters for image quality. It should be pretty obvious if you compare the two versions I've shown in the original thread at 100% zoomlevel. On the left side you can even make out detail like the surface texture of the canvas and on the right side is ugly pixel soup. https://i.imgur.com/EBKXKG1.jpg How would Google (or any other search engine) be able to automatically detect such a quality difference? -- Alfred Molon Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at https://groups.io/g/myolympus https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?
On Jan 2, 2021, Alfred Molon wrote
(in s.net): In articlea7360651-c1f7-4e95-8531- , says... On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 10:23:56 AM UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote: In articled4e042b5-bf51-4a66-9907- , says... Hi. Suppose you encounter an image online and you want to find a good version of it. https://i.imgur.com/XbGAsus.png How come google images is such a useless tool when it comes to finding a good quality version of an image? Like for instance, if you search for this image via google images: https://i.imgur.com/QlQtopa.jpg Google will find countless versions of that image online, but they are all garbage quality. https://i.imgur.com/w1Ctu5N.png Isn't the second search result 1920x1080? The resolution isn't the only aspect that matters for image quality. It should be pretty obvious if you compare the two versions I've shown in the original thread at 100% zoomlevel. On the left side you can even make out detail like the surface texture of the canvas and on the right side is ugly pixel soup. https://i.imgur.com/EBKXKG1.jpg How would Google (or any other search engine) be able to automatically detect such a quality difference? Google provides multiple versions at different sizes, resolutions,& quality from multiple sources if they are available. The quality control for consumer acceptance is left to the viewer’s eyeball. Google doesn’t much care one way, or the other. Usually if you want a high resolution, good quality image file you are going to have to pay for it, and we all know that “Sobriquet" doesn’t like to pay for anything. -- Regards, Savageduck |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com