Topic: Tools to Battle Google's Search by Image

[Otto Puzzell]

As promised, I've assembled a small grouping of tools that I've successfully used to defeat Google's dreaded new image search-and-match functionality, Mindful that some of our users are Mac users, I've included online (now platform-dependent) tools, as well as tools that can be downloaded to a Windows PC.

Starting with Windows, there is a very good chance that your Windows computer includes two image manipulation tools by default. These are Microsoft Paint (located in the Windows/Accessories folder), and Microsoft Photo Editor. Each allows cropping, re-sizing and shading options. The latter also allows for effects to be added that add textures or other overlays which can make the pictures cheat-proof.

A free tool is also available for download from Windows, which I've used since the site launched, in order to color-correct and add borders to the pics we add to the front page. Microsoft's Digital Image 2006 is available for free download on multiple site, including CNet:

http://download.cnet.com/Microsoft-Digital-Image-Starter-Edition-2006/3000-12511_4-10508408.html

For the first 90 days of your download, the tool allows all sorts of textures and other effects to be added to your pics. When the trial period ends, the basic functions remain - crop, rotate, crop-and-rotate, and color shifting.  

If you're not using a windows computer, don't have the Micorsoft-standard tools on your PC, or don't want to download anything to your computer, there are two free tools online that I've had good luck with:

http://www.lunapic.com/editor/

AND

http://www.picnik.com/

I've used LunaPic quite a bit, especially for those "missing" puzzles where the car needed to be removed from the photos. Picnic is easier to master, but doesn't have as many editing functions as LunaPic. As they are both free, why not try both?


Basic tips, regardless of the tool you use:

1. Use a picture you snapped yourself. Unless you've already posted it on the net, you're probably all set, and won't have to edit.

2. Start with a wide shot, when possible. This affords more options in rotation and cropping.  

3. Crop AND rotate where possible

4. Start with a color pic, and save as black-and-white or sepia.

5. When possible, make slight, almost imperceptible changes to shading. For instance shifting to slightly more blue or yellow tinting often 'fools' Google. While it easy to change an obviously color-shifted picture as black and white, a slight change might also fool the Google user into thinking the picture has not been shifted. Most guys who are looking for easy solutions and points will tire of the work involved in combating your efforts, and will move on to other things. As I like to say, "there's little traffic on the extra mile".  

I'll add more tips and tricks as they develop.

[Allemano]

In addition to Otto's tips: there's a very powerful (freeware!!!) tool that allows all the options usually only Photoshop provides: it's GNU's GIMP software.

Personally I still prefer PS as I'm a creature of habit, but colleagues of mine used to work with GIMP and they like it very much.

[Otto Puzzell]

In addition to Otto's tips: there's a very powerful (freeware!!!) tool that allows all the options usually only Photoshop provides: it's GNU's GIMP software.

Personally I still prefer PS as I'm a creature of habit, but colleagues of mine used to work with GIMP and they like it very much.

Great tip, Allemano.

Any and all ideas welcome in this thread!

[D-type]

The puzzles rule book should include "The use of Google 'Search by image' is prohibited".  A similar message could also be added to the standard script used when posting a puzzle.

This won't prevent people using it - in fact it might even alert them to the possibility - but it does make our intention clear.

[D-type]

I wonder .....

If you printed a picture then scanned it would the electronic image be sufficiently different to fool Google.  If that didn't work, rumpling the paper and flattenig it out might distort the electronic image sufficiently

I don't have a scanner and don't know how to post pictures so I can't try it out.

[Carnut]

I wonder .....

If you printed a picture then scanned it would the electronic image be sufficiently different to fool Google.  If that didn't work, rumpling the paper and flattenig it out might distort the electronic image sufficiently

I don't have a scanner and don't know how to post pictures so I can't try it out.

Probably not.  I often blot out things like registration numbers but GIS will still pick it up.
GIS is very useful for find out more info about one's own puzzles!
It's very easy to post pictures; if you wanted to post any puzzles then I can easily tell you how to do it.

[Tom_I]

I think we need to be very precise with terminology on this subject.

'GIS' implies 'Google Image Search'. Surely that's OK. You supply keywords, with or without Boolean operators, and the results are displayed as images, rather than web addresses.

It's the Google 'Search by Image' function which is the unacceptable one, where you upload or link to an image, and the search is based on that, matching it to similar images on other websites. I think that needs to be made very clear.

I hope I've got that right.

[Carnut]

I think we need to be very precise with terminology on this subject.

'GIS' implies 'Google Image Search'. Surely that's OK. You supply keywords, with or without Boolean operators, and the results are displayed as images, rather than web addresses.

It's the Google 'Search by Image' function which is the unacceptable one, where you upload or link to an image, and the search is based on that, matching it to similar images on other websites. I think that needs to be made very clear.

I hope I've got that right.

Now that you mention it I see what you mean.
I thought it was clear but I now see there is some scope for confusion.
I think everyone knows what we're talking about, as if we couldn't search FOR an image AP would be pretty hopeless, but it's searching BY an image which is unacceptable.  But I do see there is a difference in terminology and I'll change my wording so it's absolutely clear.

[threespires]

Thanks for clearing this up, until I came here I'd not heard of GSI, so was wondering how I could research without using Google Image Search..
Now I understand --- it's a different tool.

[D-type]

I like the way that Allemano and Otto Puzzell (and probably others I haven't noticed yet) are now putting a message in their signature.  The message is there and noticeable but far less "in your face" than putting it in bold in the body of the text. 

[woodinsight]

You've just prompted me to add a small message under my avatar also

[Carnut]

I like the way that Allemano and Otto Puzzell (and probably others I haven't noticed yet) are now putting a message in their signature.  The message is there and noticeable but far less "in your face" than putting it in bold in the body of the text. 

Perhaps 'in our face' is what I'm looking for, as the temptation is just so irresistable for some people...!

[GrahamClayton]

Thanks for clearing this up, until I came here I'd not heard of GSI, so was wondering how I could research without using Google Image Search..
Now I understand --- it's a different tool.

Thanks for clearing that up for me too - like threespires I had not heard of and used Google Image Search. I always use "Google Image Search", which requires some thought and knowledge in choosing keywords which bring up a range of images.

[727]

I'd like to suggest something regarding this security flaw/cheating method. Is it possible to make this forum watermark the uploaded images automatically to prevent people who are just looking for points from reverse image searching? A watermarking method that is not recognizable by any search engine. Along with this suggestion I'd also like to discourage mentioning 'g**gle image search is banned' in posts because I think it rather gives them ideas than prevents them from using this method. P.S: G**gle isn't the only search engine that can allow reverse image search, B*idu or Y*ndex does it too.

[Carnut]

If a picture is watermarked and then used to try a reverse-search would the search engine not be able to use that image? Does it have to be absolutely identical in other words for a search engine to use it to trace the original?

[727]

Not just watermarked by a simple logo, that wouldn't help, but rather have a complex filter applied to them. A manipulation filter that has to be randomized and which alters the image in such way that it should not be traceable but the vehicle in question will still be visible. Aside from what Otto suggested I don't know which filter to suggest because I haven't tested them individually. I'd think automatic cropping of the vehicle should be excluded due to unreliability. Manual cropping too, less work for the uploader. My conclusion is that the images need to be rotated and filtered in such way that they don't resemble the original image. Maybe adding an unique randomized layer onto the image would help? Using free stock photos?