• About Us
  • Contributors
  • Guides
  • Speaking Engagements
  • Write for The SEM Post
  • Submit a tip or contact us!
  • Newsletters

The SEM Post

Latest News About SEO, SEM, PPC & Search Engines

  • Google
  • SEO
  • Mobile
  • Local
  • Bing
  • Pay Per Click
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • State of the Industry
You are here: Home / Google / Google Manual Actions Issued for Image Mismatch Including Hotlink Prevention

Google Manual Actions Issued for Image Mismatch Including Hotlink Prevention

July 27, 2015 at 7:20 am PST By Jennifer Slegg

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • WhatsApp
  • Evernote
  • SMS

image mismatch manual actionsIf you have suddenly noticed many of your images suddenly being dropped from the Google Image Search results, Google has been issuing manual action penalties for the little known “image mismatch” manual action.

While the manual action targets those who are displaying different images on the site to users when compared to the images shown in Google Image Search, it is also targeting images who use hotlink protection methods as well, as those will often substitute a different image when the script or program believes the image is being hotlinked, or not serve the image at all.

An increase in images being removed from Google Search results was noticed, but the actual reason for the decline wasn’t a bug on Google’s end, but was actually due to manual action spam penalties being issued for images being served to Google being different from the ones users are served.

The manual action is called “Image Mismatch”.  From Google’s Search Console:

Image Mismatch

If you see this message on the Manual Actions page, it means that some of your site’s images may be displaying differently on Google’s search results pages than they are when viewed on your site.

The penalty itself will show under manual actions in Google Search Console, with “Image Mismatch: Images from this site are displayed differently on Google search results pages than they are when displayed on this site.”

In the thread on Google’s help forums, he uses an .htaccess code to prevent hotlinking, but one that has been in place for years.  So Google is definitely now considering this kind of tactic as problematic.

If you have this error, you can also confirm the image mismatch error by doing a “Fetch as Google” for a website page that contains the problematic images (do not use it to fetch the image URL) and see what it returns.  The webmaster macas on the Google Help Forums shared this screenshot showing that when he did Fetch as Google, that the images return errors.

image mismatch manual actionAnd the rendering clearly shows Googlebot was unable to display some images properly, which he believes was due to the hotlink prevention.

image mismatch manual action 2

For those curious, here was the hotlinking code in .htaccess the webmaster was using:

#Preventing hot linking of images and other file types
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http(s)?://(www\.)?website.com [NC]
RewriteRule \.(jpg|jpeg|png|gif|jpe|swf)$ http://website.com [NC,R,L]

# Garbage generated by such a scraper glitch
RewriteRule ^(.)width=(.)$ http://website.com [R=301,nc,L]

The image mismatch penalty has been around for a couple of years, but it seems that now it is going after those images that are being served to users differently than the ones served to Google.

If you are using any kind of hotlink protection for your images on any of your websites, you will want to check your sites and see if they were affected by the image mismatch manual action that are going out, or you might want to be proactive and remove the protection before you receive the manual action.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • WhatsApp
  • Evernote
  • SMS
The following two tabs change content below.
  • Bio
  • Latest Posts
My Twitter profileMy Facebook profileMy Google+ profileMy LinkedIn profile

Jennifer Slegg

Founder & Editor at The SEM Post
Jennifer Slegg is a longtime speaker and expert in search engine marketing, working in the industry for almost 20 years. When she isn't sitting at her desk writing and working, she can be found grabbing a latte at her local Starbucks or planning her next trip to Disneyland. She regularly speaks at Pubcon, SMX, State of Search, Brighton SEO and more, and has been presenting at conferences for over a decade.
My Twitter profileMy Facebook profileMy Google+ profileMy LinkedIn profile

Latest posts by Jennifer Slegg (see all)

  • 2022 Update for Google Quality Rater Guidelines – Big YMYL Updates - August 1, 2022
  • Google Quality Rater Guidelines: The Low Quality 2021 Update - October 19, 2021
  • Rethinking Affiliate Sites With Google’s Product Review Update - April 23, 2021
  • New Google Quality Rater Guidelines, Update Adds Emphasis on Needs Met - October 16, 2020
  • Google Updates Experiment Statistics for Quality Raters - October 6, 2020

Filed Under: Google, SEO Tagged With: image mismatch, Manual Action, manual actions, penalties

Sign up for our newsletter


Comments

  1. Paul says

    July 27, 2015 at 6:04 pm

    So Google screws websites out of legitimate image search traffic by moving the enlarged image display inline on the search results pages (and breaking the copyright terms of a significant number of sites in the process).

    Then they issue penalties against sites that are trying to rescue at least a little traffic from this theft, or from theft/abuse by those who inappropriately hotlink them.

    Nice work, Google.

  2. Tad Chef says

    July 29, 2015 at 3:58 am

    Yeah, Google wants to steal your visual content. In case you don’t let them they will penalize you!

Founder & Editor

Jennifer Slegg (2052)

Sign up for our daily news recap & weekly newsletter.


Follow us online

  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Twitter

Latest News

2022 Update for Google Quality Rater Guidelines – Big YMYL Updates

We finally have the first Google Quality Rater Guidelines update of 2022, and like usual, it is … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • 2022 Update for Google Quality Rater Guidelines – Big YMYL Updates
  • Google Quality Rater Guidelines: The Low Quality 2021 Update
  • Rethinking Affiliate Sites With Google’s Product Review Update
  • New Google Quality Rater Guidelines, Update Adds Emphasis on Needs Met
  • Google Updates Experiment Statistics for Quality Raters
  • Analyzing “How Google Search Works” Changes from Google
  • Google Quality Rater Guidelines Update: New Introduction, Rater Bias & Political Affiliations
  • Google Updates Quality Rater Guidelines: Reputation for News Sites; Video Content Updates; Quality for Information Sites
  • Google Makes Major Changes to NoFollow, Adds Sponsored & UGC Tags
  • Google Updates Quality Rater Guidelines Targeting E-A-T, Page Quality & Interstitials

Categories

  • Affiliate Marketing
  • Amazon
  • Apple
  • Bing
  • Branding
  • Browsers
  • Chrome
  • Content Marketing
  • Design
  • Domains
  • DuckDuckGo
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Firefox
  • Foursquare
  • Google
    • Analytics
    • Google RankBrain
    • Quality Rater's Guidelines
  • History of Search
  • Industry Spotlight
  • Instagram
  • Internet Explorer
  • Links
  • Local
  • Mobile
  • Native Advertising
  • Other Search Engines
  • Pay Per Click
  • Pinterest
  • Publishers
  • Security
  • SEO
  • Snapchat
  • Social Media
  • State of the Industry
  • The SEM Post
  • Tools
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized
  • User Experience
  • Video Marketing
  • Week in Review
  • Whitepapers
  • Wordpress
  • Yahoo
  • Yelp
  • YouTube
March 2023
MTWTFSS
« Aug  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031 

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2023 · News Pro Theme On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in