Quizlet is awesome, but the use-case for this new tool could be:
a) mentioning new vocab off-the-cuff (or in response to a question) in class and immediately showing a picture of it
b) students trying to remember a word and me showing them pictures of words they are guessing until they see the right thing
c) Us making up sample sentences on-the-fly and using a background picture as an impromptu slide: "Darth Vader is hungry. He could make a sandwich. He may toast some broad. He might eat it later": http://darth.vader.bread.jpg.to/
I started with http://hello.jpg.to/ and was delighted by the results, thinking that the web app translated my phrase into a variety of languages and then made a stylish motif. Eagerly, I typed in http://goodbye.jpg.to/ to see, again, what looked like a totally custom image based on random text that I put in. I have to admit, I found this to be http://totallyawesome.jpg.to/ at this point, pressing F5 and hoping for other stylized generations.
After not seeing any, I decided to just try my name ... and found a football player.
It is the first image result on google image search. The previous comments on different keywords verified this. To amaze yourself, try "sex" and "male"
behind-the-scene technical aspect are not difficult to realize (either google image API, which is deprecated, or parse the result of http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=h... and get the first image url after a predefined string anchor, say <span class=rg_ctlv>), but the idea to simplify input and output is brilliant.
To deal with not-so-good image search result:
since google image search is presenting the result in a thumbnail group, it might be worthwhile to look into their ranking scheme for the result. It might be that the first one (on the top left) is not the most relevant result. It won't shock me if google ranked the relevance of result from center to peripheral. In the end that's how we look at a pile of images--we tend to start from the middle. Try a few examples, from the ones I tried the middle row middle column image is much more relevant than the top left result.
I take that since your website didn't state any call limit, you must be using the second method (parsing google image result page).
Give user option to get more photo (in ways like: /1, /2) as the index of result page. Or even randomize the result (provide an option to random deliver the result, so same call doesn't result in the same image) might serve the user good. lots of ideas.
Thanks for your ideas. In fact it's using the image search api and I think I would have implemented social voting to replace search before the limit runs out (if any).
No, please don't change it that way! The best use case for this is sharing images quickly. If I can't trust that my http://homer%20simpson.jpg.to/ is going to be the same one loaded by my friend, then I won't share it with my friend. This could be pretty handy in it's current state.
Note that that particular word is a katakana phonetic import from English; in romaji that reads "hakkaa". So while that works as an example of multilingual character support, it may not be the best example for a foreign word per se. :-)
Good observation.
But if you embed it on webpage (in which refer header is sent)
it would turn into real image file, which means it WORKS when you include it in forum, blogs, etc. :)
Refer header is not a good way to distinguish between embedded images and images accessed directly by user. AFAIK that header will have the same value both when you load an embedded image and when you click on a direct link to the image.
I did a little bit of research about it few years ago; the summary can be seen here:
Basically, I was able to distinguish between embedded and directly accessed images by analyzing the content of Accept header. It wasn't perfect (it didn't work for Opera), but I think it could be good enough to do something useful with it.
As 'cute' as this is please find a different API to use or at least find a way to attribute where you are _stealing_ the images from and ensure that the owners of the images are happy with you using the images.
Just because an image is on the internet does not mean you can reproduce it. I ran a couple of words I knew return copyrighted images and sure enough they come up.
Very true. I planned to introduce a page for every image to attribute the source in the near future. And I would delete them upon the owner's request. (just like youtube video)
I'm sorry but this is not good enough. You should try to do better than "what Youtube does".
Delete upon owner request (a la DMCA) is a legal maneuver. You should be able to parse out if an image is licensed as Creative Commons or public domain and show only those pictures. Else assume all rights reserved.
Not to pick on your project but it's time that people try to do better than take the easiest path of show all images (without attribution) because it was the most convenient thing to do.
(If you are going to do the delete on owner request thing, at least consider providing an immediate link to delete without 1) have to mail a paper request in, 2) having to sign in or 3) some other onerous route to delete)
If you are not going to validate that you have the rights to display the image the minimum thing you can do is add attribution to every page the image is displayed. Not a separate page.
If it linked to the source of the image, wouldn't it just be a minimalist search engine? Surely google doesn't individually license every image that shows up in image search.
I don't know what you think the site is doing but that is exactly what it is. It didn't curate the images, people didn't upload the images. It searched for an image that matched your word. No google didn't licence the image, but it only displays small thumbnails with a link to where it found the image. This is displaying the full size image with no link to where it found the image.
Just because the image is copyrighted doesn't mean you are violating copyright law by displaying it. It would be quite nice of you to display a link to the site that Google found the image on - but if this is a non-commercial site, you have a very good fair use claim. If you really wanted to be in the clear, you could change your image search default to show "images labeled for reuse." Either way, don't be cowed by copyright maximalists.
http://meme.jpg.to/(I don't have any idea what this meme is.)
Also, I want to see the source code. I think it uses the I'm Feeling Lucky page of Google Image API, but I'm a noob, so it would be nice if I could have an idea of how you made that site.
1. keyword.jpg.to is the most intuitive and easy to type domain I can think of at the moment. If you got a better idea please tell me :)
2. I planned to allow image upload and voting to select the best image that match the word. I believe this method can give better result in the long term.
The only issue is: I need a much larger rez image to put up on the big projector. Since this is doing Google Image Search... any chance for a:
http://keyword.jpg.to/large
http://keyword.jpg.to/medium
[plus]
http://keyword.jpg.to/photo
http://keyword.jpg.to/clipart
[plus]
http://keyword.jpg.to/red
http://keyword.jpg.to/green
http://keyword.jpg.to/white