why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?

In article ,
sobriquet wrote:


https://opendata.stackexchange.com/q...rch-by-file-si
ze
a link where the answer is 'i *suspect* this is not supported' ?? yep,
that sure is a convincing bit of evidence.

not only that, the answer references google's search parameters, which
includes image size as the first in the list.

now what were you saying about talking out of your ass?

I've already tested it out (size:500000, which would yield images of 500 kb
or more if it actually worked), and it doesn't work.

it works perfectly fine and has for years.

If you think otherwise,
back up your claims with some actual evidence.

you provided the evidence.

In article ,
sobriquet wrote:

Oh and image size in the search parameters only refers to the resolution of
the image. But we were talking about the *filesize* of the images, not
just the *resolution*.

file size is not indicative of quality.

in general, higher resolution means larger file size, but that's not
always the case.

for example, a low resolution uncompressed tiff will look worse than a
high resolution jpeg with minimal compression.

On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 12:37:26 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article ,
sobriquet wrote:

Oh and image size in the search parameters only refers to the resolution of
the image. But we were talking about the *filesize* of the images, not
just the *resolution*.
file size is not indicative of quality.

In many cases it is.
If you have an image and a particular resolution, say 1 MP, applying more
jpg compression will reduce the filesize and the quality will be severely
affected if too much compression is applied.
So you can have a good quality image at 500 Kb filesize at 1 MP resolution
and use compression to make it 20 Kb in size at 1 MP resolution and the quality
will be garbage.

Compare these two versions of an image:

https://i.imgur.com/ESC1Agi.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/QDSgK6j.jpg

Both are close to 1 MP in resolution but the first is good quality at a filesize of 418 Kb
while the second is crap quality at a filesize of 18 Kb.


Of course the fileformat also factors into this and lossless compression will
reduce filesize while retaining quality, but images on the web typically use lossy
compression in jpg format.

Sometimes imgur will show png images, even though the original was a jpg, but
it was pasted at imgur and in that case it ends up as a png, because imgur isn't
always willing to upload from a given image url and then the image can
usually still be uploaded via a copy/paste method.


in general, higher resolution means larger file size, but that's not
always the case.

for example, a low resolution uncompressed tiff will look worse than a
high resolution jpeg with minimal compression.

On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 12:37:26 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article ,
sobriquet wrote:


https://opendata.stackexchange.com/q...rch-by-file-si
ze
a link where the answer is 'i *suspect* this is not supported' ?? yep,
that sure is a convincing bit of evidence.

not only that, the answer references google's search parameters, which
includes image size as the first in the list.

now what were you saying about talking out of your ass?

I've already tested it out (size:500000, which would yield images of 500 kb
or more if it actually worked), and it doesn't work.
it works perfectly fine and has for years.

If you had paid some attention you would have seen that I was already searching
for Large (Groot in Dutch) images and yet the results google comes up with
were all garbage.
So searching for Large images at google is not a reliable method to find quality
versions of an image.

https://i.imgur.com/ymnB23t.png


If you think otherwise,
back up your claims with some actual evidence.
you provided the evidence.

BTW, this is a rare problem, because usually images on the web
are multi-MP high res images which are downsized for the web.

So, most of the time, the resolution corresponds to the image
quality.
It's unusual that a 1920x1080 image has been upsized from
something smaller.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article ,
sobriquet wrote:

I've already tested it out (size:500000, which would yield images of 500
kb or more if it actually worked), and it doesn't work.
it works perfectly fine and has for years.

If you had paid some attention you would have seen that I was already
searching
for Large (Groot in Dutch) images and yet the results google comes up with
were all garbage.

user error

On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 1:24:51 AM UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
BTW, this is a rare problem, because usually images on the web
are multi-MP high res images which are downsized for the web.

So, most of the time, the resolution corresponds to the image
quality.
It's unusual that a 1920x1080 image has been upsized from
something smaller.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

It's not a rare problem, because it happens quite frequently for popular images
that you can find both bloated fake versions and genuine quality versions and
google doesn't provide a convenient way to distinguish between the two.
So you end up having to click images one by one and viewing them at full resolution
in the hope of eventually ending up at a good version and in some cases there
is little hope because google will find countless pages full of bloated fake
versions.

It just puzzles me that a company like google isn't able to provide a convenient
and reliable method to find good quality images.
Other search engines like Tineye show it's really not that difficult to quickly point
the user to high quality versions of a given image.

On 03/01/2021 00:36, sobriquet wrote:
On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 1:24:51 AM UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
BTW, this is a rare problem, because usually images on the web
are multi-MP high res images which are downsized for the web.

So, most of the time, the resolution corresponds to the image
quality.
It's unusual that a 1920x1080 image has been upsized from
something smaller.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

It's not a rare problem, because it happens quite frequently for popular images
that you can find both bloated fake versions and genuine quality versions and
google doesn't provide a convenient way to distinguish between the two.
So you end up having to click images one by one and viewing them at full resolution
in the hope of eventually ending up at a good version and in some cases there
is little hope because google will find countless pages full of bloated fake
versions.

It just puzzles me that a company like google isn't able to provide a convenient
and reliable method to find good quality images.
Other search engines like Tineye show it's really not that difficult to quickly point
the user to high quality versions of a given image.

Google is a general purpose search engine with algorithmic biases and
SEO filtering junk in the way. Tineye is a reverse image search engine.
That is all it does. They are not the same thing. Google is not an image
curator. Any success by Tineye is by accident. You didn't even know
about Tineye until I pointed them out to you without evena thankfuou in
return and I have also previously commented on Googles bias and filters.

Sigh. Are you still going on about this? Most people would have just
said thankyou and moved on or simply just noted the difference for
future reference. There's eff all point going on in this ng about it.
Take it up with Google management or the regulators.


--
Melanie van Buren

In article c95dce15-8ee4-47e0-9f70-
, says...
It just puzzles me that a company like google isn't able to provide a convenient
and reliable method to find good quality images.

Probably it's because if somebody needs a high res version of an
image, they can contact the photographer.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 7:04:08 AM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote:
On 03/01/2021 00:36, sobriquet wrote:
On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 1:24:51 AM UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
BTW, this is a rare problem, because usually images on the web
are multi-MP high res images which are downsized for the web.

So, most of the time, the resolution corresponds to the image
quality.
It's unusual that a 1920x1080 image has been upsized from
something smaller.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

It's not a rare problem, because it happens quite frequently for popular images
that you can find both bloated fake versions and genuine quality versions and
google doesn't provide a convenient way to distinguish between the two.
So you end up having to click images one by one and viewing them at full resolution
in the hope of eventually ending up at a good version and in some cases there
is little hope because google will find countless pages full of bloated fake
versions.

It just puzzles me that a company like google isn't able to provide a convenient
and reliable method to find good quality images.
Other search engines like Tineye show it's really not that difficult to quickly point
the user to high quality versions of a given image.
Google is a general purpose search engine with algorithmic biases and
SEO filtering junk in the way. Tineye is a reverse image search engine.
That is all it does. They are not the same thing. Google is not an image
curator. Any success by Tineye is by accident. You didn't even know
about Tineye until I pointed them out to you without evena thankfuou in
return and I have also previously commented on Googles bias and filters.

I knew about Tineye. I just hadn't tried to see if Tineye would be able to
find a better quality version of the image. There are also many other search
engines like bing and yandex with image search options. I just asked here
because that's an easy way to assess if people have had better a better
search experience in various alternative image search engines.


Sigh. Are you still going on about this? Most people would have just
said thankyou and moved on or simply just noted the difference for
future reference. There's eff all point going on in this ng about it.
Take it up with Google management or the regulators.

It's just ridiculous that google brings you tons of garbage in response to
a query. That's like the government building roads for people to drive on
and they make the roads out of quicksand so all the cars get stuck.
Why waste tax money on building roads for people to get stuck with their
cars in? It just makes no sense.
Similarly it makes no sense to create an image search engine to help
people find tons of garbage when they are obviously not interested in
searching for garbage search results.
I'm having this discussion here because this is a place I'd expect
to find people who might use google and other search engines
to find images online.
Many people who like to create images also like to share their
images and enjoy the images created by others, so an image search
engine is an obvious way to access images shared online.



--
Melanie van Buren