Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google's Image Search Now Requires Explicit Queries For Explicit Results

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the don't-be-coy dept.

Google 369

Several readers sent word of a change to Google's implementation of SafeSearch for image searches. There used to be three settings: Off, Moderate, and Strict. (You can still see these settings on, for example, Google's UK image search.) Now, for U.S. users they've made Moderate the default, and the only other option is to "Filter Explicit Results." Going into settings provides no way to turn it off. That said, Google still lets users search for explicit content if the search terms they enter are specific to that type of content. A Google rep said, "We are not censoring any adult content, and want to show users exactly what they are looking for — but we aim not to show sexually-explicit results unless a user is specifically searching for them. We use algorithms to select the most relevant results for a given query. If you're looking for adult content, you can find it without having to change the default setting — you just may need to be more explicit in your query if your search terms are potentially ambiguous. The image search settings now work the same way as in Web search."

cancel ×

369 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Relieved (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265339)

Thank God! I thought that goatse, lemonparty.org and the like would be filtered by default

Re:Relieved (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265449)

Thank God! I thought that goatse, lemonparty.org and the like would be filtered by default

They WERE. The default setting was certainly not off (I think moderate?)

What was wrong with the old way, I wonder? I was quite happy with filter off and I am sure plenty of people had their preferred stricter controls.

Is this coming from people who are too stupid to choose "Moderate" or "Strict" controls? Do we have to be protected against ourselves now?

Re:Relieved (4, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42265563)

Is this coming from people who are too stupid to choose "Moderate" or "Strict" controls? Do we have to be protected against ourselves now?

I think it's more that Google lawyers protecting Google from being sued by moralists, like "my seven year old son used the library computer, and this is what he saw when going to Google. Baw, baw, we need MILLIONS". And jurytards giving it to them.

I'm sad to see that Google is so spineless and does evil.

It is filtering out wikipedia content (5, Interesting)

larek (651733) | about 2 years ago | (#42265349)

The Moderate filter is blocking direct content from Wikipedia.

Re:It is filtering out wikipedia content (5, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#42265905)

What's your point? There are plenty of images on Wikipedia whose relevance to their articles I can fully appreciate, but which I wouldn't want popping up on an image search at work.

Censorship (3, Insightful)

kc67 (2789711) | about 2 years ago | (#42265351)

Time to switch search engines.

Oh grow up. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265403)

I jump on any chance to bash google for stupid shit, but this isn't one. I appreciate the lengths they're going so that porn results don't come up when I'm not looking for it. Cause i know the second it happens, my boss will be right behind me.

Re:Oh grow up. (3, Insightful)

kc67 (2789711) | about 2 years ago | (#42265459)

Then take the initative and change your SafeSearch setting before you search. Just because you Google stuff at work and are afraid of your boss (why aren't you working?) doesn't mean the rest of us need or want SafeSearch on.

Re:Oh grow up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265739)

...then turn it off. Are you seriously complaining about a feature because it's on by default?

Re:Oh grow up. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265775)

You can't turn it off anymore, that's the whole point.

Re:Oh grow up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265833)

Oh, herp a fucking derp, ignore me then. MY BAD.
I somehow missed that bit.

Re:Oh grow up. (0, Troll)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#42265841)

except that you can, and you're wrong.

you can still turn off safesearch, and when you search at the bottom is an option to turn off filtering.

This is not to say this is okay - it isn't okay to obfuscate search options, but this isn't "you can't turn it off" shit either.

Re:Oh grow up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265655)

As a means of wasting time at work I would do a GIS for borderline suggestive words with the safe settings on to see what kind of weirdness would pull up, but without the explicit pictures that would get me in trouble.

Time to find a new way to waste time.

Re:Censorship (-1, Troll)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#42265455)

Meh, just wait until your kids are 13, and you may have a very, very, very different opinion on this.

Re:Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265491)

Why? What good will this do when one can bypass it, or just use another search engine? Or just go to one of the many Youtube-for-porn sites available?

Re:Censorship (4, Funny)

Babbster (107076) | about 2 years ago | (#42265571)

Everybody knows that teenagers raised by good parents would never go out of their way to look for pornography. Seeing a fake picture of Salma Hayek straddling a 13-inch schlong when they were just looking for pictures to use in a report on actors' charitable works would traumatize the poor things!

Re:Censorship (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#42265575)

What, you don't think your 13 year old is smart enough to find the porn he or she wants? You're not protecting anyone from anything. Your prudery is probably more harmful than the porn you're so afraid of.

Re:Censorship (4, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | about 2 years ago | (#42265771)

What, you don't think your 13 year old is smart enough to find the porn he or she wants? You're not protecting anyone from anything. Your prudery is probably more harmful than the porn you're so afraid of.

So let's say you're helping your 13 year old with two of their friends of a similar age on a group homework project.

You're at the computer with them, looking for an image to use via google image search. Thanks to the lack of filtering you endorse, your search for anatomical images for their science project is also interspersed with some images that have a slightly different educational function.

The other kids then report to their parents that you showed them porn on your computer. Next thing you know you're being visited by the police who seize your computer, laptop and iPad. Next, child services have taken away your kids. Your name is muck, you lose your job as a result of the press attention and you need to remortgage the house to clear the whole mess up.

Re:Censorship (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42265803)

When you are helping those kids, you set your search image preference to strict filtering.

Better idea would be to stop doing the homework for your kids.

What people are opposing is not that it exists, but that there is now nothing lower than moderate.

Re:Censorship (4, Insightful)

Achra (846023) | about 2 years ago | (#42265855)

Better idea would be to stop doing the homework with your kids.

There, fixed that for you. You can always tell the people who don't have kids but assume that they're experts in parenting.

Re:Censorship (1, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42265879)

Doing it with them is doing it for them.

I might not be a parent, but I was a child once. I have also been in a position to teach children, and when a parent said they did the work with the child that meant they did it for the child.

Advice on parenting [Re:Censorship] (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265923)

You can always tell the people who don't have kids but assume that they're experts in parenting.

But you can't tell them much.

SEX IS BAD (4, Funny)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#42265783)

SEX IS BAD! Nipples will give you teh devil! And you will go to hell! Hell! Like those kids that mocked that guy's bald patch and got eaten by bears, all 42 of them. Bears!

Meanwhile, here is a scene of unrivalled carnage and bloodstained murder for your adolescents to enjoy.

Re:Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265667)

If your kid isn't familiar with at least the general idea of naked people by the time they're 13, they're lying to you. Just because you're too much of a fucking pussy to be able to tell your kids that sucking five dicks at the same time isn't SOP doesn't mean everyone else is.

Re:Censorship (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42265715)

Why?
I remember porn when I was that age, it was tricky then loading a little bit at a time. I am sure you can imagine what kind of images that "feature" allowed people to post for laughs.

Do your protect your kids from violence too or just sex?

Re:Censorship (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 2 years ago | (#42265799)

Perhaps, but that wont necessarily mean that said new position is more rational, and based on my general interactions with people and their kids, I suspect is very likely to be far less so.

I don't see how pointing out that circumstances may cause a person to adopt irrational stances out of fear of imagined dangers to his family really informs the situation.

Re:Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265705)

Yes, I'll use FuckFuckGo from now on.

Re:Censorship (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265845)

It's a sad day when I have to switch to bing.

Re:Censorship (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#42265869)

What are they censoring?

Interesting censorship idea: self-incrimination (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265355)

This is quite an interesting approach to social engineering: self incrimination - you'll end up with those searches tagged with your identity. No doubt that will make very juicy bootie for hackers, or to "convince" someone to be nice to Google or whoever buys those specific results.

And I know what the next malware is going to do now..

Coming soon! (5, Funny)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#42265371)

Next feature: If you want explicit results, you have to submit an example image of what you are searching for.

Re:Coming soon! (2)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#42265437)

Next feature: If you want explicit results, you have to submit an example image of what you are searching for.

That wouldn't be such a bad idea, when you think about it. As in, show me stuff like... as an input method. It would apply to pretty much everything, really -- not just porn.

Re:Coming soon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265527)

Next feature: If you want explicit results, you have to submit an example image of what you are searching for.

That wouldn't be such a bad idea, when you think about it. As in, show me stuff like... as an input method. It would apply to pretty much everything, really -- not just porn.

It would be an awesome option to have. But, especially as it applies to porn, I bet it is likely that if you search for it, you do not have access to... ahem... accessories and or people that you'd need to make your own version :)

And as far as the article goes, what if you don't know the terms for whatever porn-related things you are trying to find?

Re:Coming soon! (4, Informative)

rgbrenner (317308) | about 2 years ago | (#42265787)

go to images.google.com

drag image to the search box

you're welcome

Re:Coming soon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265751)

In the future, Google will require you to submit a form with your real name and address to use Google. Background checks will be done instantly to confirm identity. Why the hell do you think they're pushing Google+ on everyone for every Google owned services?

Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshit (0, Troll)

kheldan (1460303) | about 2 years ago | (#42265377)

It amounts to censorship. Enough said.

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (2, Informative)

dmomo (256005) | about 2 years ago | (#42265445)

No. Censorship would be if they barred you from seeing it all together. This is not censorship, it's another filter that you can opt in or out of. I might agree that it's not their job to decide where the line is, but it's hardly censorship.

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (5, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 years ago | (#42265635)

it's another filter that you can opt in or out of.

I thought the controversy here was that you couldn't opt out of it. It used to be you could turn safesearch off and that did it. it sounds like that isn't enough now, and that even with safesearch off results are still being filtered.

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265451)

It amounts to censorship. Enough said.

If, by the end of the day (maybe tomorrow if they're slow), they have it fixed and we have a post-mortem on how they screwed up something on the backend (for instance, they set the region wrong and the US is getting the content settings for Bumfuckistan), can I roll my eyes at you and point out your post as a shining example of the nerd community overreacting to minor temporary inconveniences?

Wait, my mistake, I didn't mean "if". I meant "when". And I guess I really didn't mean to ask for permission at all, since I'm going to do so anyway. Never mind!

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 2 years ago | (#42265513)

Which approach do you think would work best? Roll out a censorship system all at once, much to the protests of everyone, or a little at a time? This amounts to the second example. If unchallenged, they'll make it more restrictive as time goes on. The line must be drawn HERE, NO FARTHER!

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42265469)

The problem is that censorship and other totalitarian measures always have good causes or reasons behind them.
The road to hell, et cetera.

We can only vote with our feet - how are the competitors doing? Are hotbot, altavista, askjeeves, bing, lycos, alltheweb and the others still around?

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#42265511)

Which is why censorship is never acceptable, even if there is a "good" reason for it. The "good" reason is always, always, always merely the thin edge of the wedge.

and speed limits mean you can't drive? (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 2 years ago | (#42265809)

By that reasoning, a 70 MPH speed limit would be the wedge which inevitably lead to making driving illegal. That hasn't happened. It's not a wedge, it is what it is - it will show what it thinks you're looking for. If it thinks you're not looking for porn, it won't show porn. If it thinks you want porn, it'll give you porn.

Re:and speed limits mean you can't drive? (1)

DM9290 (797337) | about 2 years ago | (#42265903)

By that reasoning, a 70 MPH speed limit would be the wedge which inevitably lead to making driving illegal. That hasn't happened.

It's not a wedge, it is what it is - it will show what it thinks you're looking for. If it thinks you're not looking for porn, it won't show porn. If it thinks you want porn, it'll give you porn.

By your reasoning, anything that is non-sequitur can be falsely claimed to be analogous to anything else thus proving whatever you want to prove.

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265541)

Bing is, at least. And duck duck go, which IIRC is just a frontend to bing. The latter is just as good as, and in some respects better than, Google for web searches; unfortunately, it doesn't have image searching.

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42265749)

I meant to check out duckduckgo but if it is just a frontend to bing I will forget about that.

Any other options available?

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (1)

Sedated2000 (1716470) | about 2 years ago | (#42265871)

Duck Duck Go isn't just a frontend for bing.

They collect from many different sources including their own crawlers. Bing is a source, but nowhere near the only one.

See Duck Duck Go's help page on sources [duckduckgo.com] for more the full list.

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#42265885)

Any other options available?

Well, if search-privacy is a priority, then: https://www.ixquick.com/ [ixquick.com]

Strat

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (4, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#42265489)

In the interests of fairness Google should offer an Unsafe Search option.

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265609)

Bullshit. You can still search for whatever you want, you just need to specify that yes you really do want THOSE kind of images. I think this is a good thing. It shouldn't be easy to end up with porn in your search results by accident.

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (1, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42265735)

Bullshit. You can still search for whatever you want, you just need to specify that yes you really do want THOSE kind of images.

How, exactly? The way to do that was by turning off safesearch, which you no longer can do.

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (1)

PNutts (199112) | about 2 years ago | (#42265777)

It amounts to censorship. Enough said.

I believe the correct response is, "That word doesn't mean what you think it does."

Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265779)

Sorry I am actually on Google's side on this. If my query is non-explicit I should never get explicit content.

Never again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265379)

Will I search for Blue Footed Boobies on Google.

Grandma Said He Used to Be Attractive (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#42265381)

Google Image Search: Attractive Dick Van Dyke

Oh dear god!

Yes you are (2)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#42265383)

Because you don't allow them turn off the moderate filtering. Jack Ass.

Fading star (3, Interesting)

grumpy_old_grandpa (2634187) | about 2 years ago | (#42265391)

And with that; the flip of a bit, a mere config setting somewhere deep in the Google hive, their relevance is gone.

Now, who's up for a new toy: The Porn Search Engine.

Re:Fading star (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265531)

tblop.com

You're welcome.

Re:Fading star (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265649)

useless. motherless isn't on that list!

Hopefully Wikimedia Commons will follow suit (3, Interesting)

tarc (2793789) | about 2 years ago | (#42265421)

The Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org) has long been notorious for returning results that one would not expect to find, e.g. a search for "toothbrush" would contain an image of a woman with a toothbrush in her vagina, a search for "skittles" returned a woman pictured with candy placed in strategic locations, and so on. Some of these sorts of things have been cleaned up on an ad hoc basis, but the Commons admins are resistant to making any actual changes as to how images are curated.

Re:Hopefully Wikimedia Commons will follow suit (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265581)

Bastard, I just tried searching for toothbrush on Commons, and found no such thing. Now I feel cheated.

Re:Hopefully Wikimedia Commons will follow suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265613)

The skittles-girl is wearing rather covering panties with skittles over them. Ive seen less clothed ladies in TV-commercials.

Re:Hopefully Wikimedia Commons will follow suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265733)

The Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org) has long been notorious for returning results that one would not expect to find, e.g. a search for "toothbrush" would contain an image of a woman with a toothbrush in her vagina, a search for "skittles" returned a woman pictured with candy placed in strategic locations, and so on.

Please continue!
Any other good searches you would recommend?

Curated Commons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265853)

the Commons admins are resistant to making any actual changes as to how images are curated.

The Wikipedia Commons is curated? Who knew???

OK, seriously, they do have standards for their "valued images" and the like and they make some effort to eliminate redundant images and of course copyright violations, but otherwise it's pretty much a free for all.

This is too funny (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265431)

Old Search: gay tentacle porn
New Search: porn, type: gay, variety: tentacle, participants featured: 5, color: full, aspect_ratio: 16:9, results: many

Bing (5, Informative)

0racle (667029) | about 2 years ago | (#42265453)

Bing is a better porn search engine anyway.

Re:Bing (2)

multiben (1916126) | about 2 years ago | (#42265605)

Because finding porn on the internet is soooo difficult.

Re:Bing (3, Informative)

StuartHankins (1020819) | about 2 years ago | (#42265761)

Apparently if you're using Google, it is difficult now.

Re:Bing (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#42265607)

So, what am I going to see when I search for "creampie"?

Re:Bing (2)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 2 years ago | (#42265647)

Bing is a better porn search engine anyway.

It's a question of looking for porn, it's an arbitrary filter that I don't want on my image searches. Who defines explicit? Do I have to put a "fuck" in every image search to get all possible results? That's idiotic. Almost as bad as having to put double quotes around every search word. God, I despise Bing, but Google is doing everything they can to lose me as a user. And what it the real cause of this? Corporate users at the expense of everyone else. They are really pushing their hosted email/calendar as an alternative to Exchange.

Re:Bing (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 2 years ago | (#42265663)

It's NOT NOT NOt a question of looking for porn...

Re:Bing (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#42265785)

The problem (for some) was that you could search for a relatively tame thing like "wet" or "teen" and the results would be full of explicit pictures.

I would pass time at work by putting semi-random words in GIS and seeing what would pull up. I was surprised by some of the ones that came up explicit, and surprised even more by some that did not.

I Don't Use Google Anymore (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265465)

Google's most awesome, amazing feature wasn't that it returned decent result, but that it did it with a single search field, a logo, and a button. Using it was blindingly fast and simple. They made their default non-cookie behaviour drift farther and farther away from that until now it's unuseable. I type a letter in the search field, I type a second letter, and the second letter is missed because its javascript is processing the first letter and making outbound connections and doing all sorts of stuff that I don't want or need. Now I'm using ddg.gg/html and it's good enough. It's too bad that their default behaviour is also broken, but at least they have a URL modification that works correctly.

But that was the best feature. (4, Funny)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 2 years ago | (#42265503)

That was the best part about safe search. "Sorry, we couldn't find what you were looking for. He's a hot chick's tits."

Re:But that was the best feature. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265561)

That was the best part about safe search. "Sorry, we couldn't find what you were looking for. He's a hot chick's tits."

No wonder you couldn't find anything based on that query. Who searches for "He's a hot chick's tits" anyway? :-)

Re:But that was the best feature. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265617)

Those with a transformation fetish, obviously.

Weird (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265507)

An unusual choice for google. Violating privacy is the standard of course, and no one really complains. However, fucking with actual search results will only hurt google. Perhaps they have become arrogant with their monopoly? I for one have stopped using google today. I don't care about privacy - I can manage that. I do care about quality, and google is taking away choice. Defaulting to this kind of shit is fine. Removing the setting to disable it is unacceptable.

Re:Weird (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#42265583)

You've misunderstood a little. You can still make explicit search queries; they've just been segregated. The person who benefits the most is the one who doesn't want to get bitten by having Safe Search turned off while in front of others. The most important criticism, in my opinion, is that it hides scandals: e.g. searching for "paris hilton" will no longer return results for "paris hilton sex tape"; you'd have to dig for that separately.

Re:Weird (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42265859)

So how will you have to craft a query to get those results?

In the past it was easy to keep safe at work, by turning on strict and if you see what you wanted at home by changing it. Now if google decides a word is explicit next thing you know you are looking at NSFW images.

Here is a contrived situation, I am a avian biologist who wants a diagrom on sexing birds is the query "sexing boobies" explicit?

ie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265529)

naked jiggly blonde boobs anal

Yeah, it's censorship (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#42265533)

This 'algorithm' will have a lot of false positives, and no doubt will filter out things like images of war. It's censorship and propaganda.

Re:Yeah, it's censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265631)

ehhh if I were google I'd do this too, just out of being tired of hearing the snide everything my child searches turns up porn comments that have been going on since before google existed

The next step : Strict (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265591)

To appease the bible thumping religionists Google has forced the "moderate" filter and they are not allowing anyone to turn it off. To continue to appease these same religionists Google will force strict on everyone in the US. So much for freedom.

Not censoring, my ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265601)

"We are not censoring any adult content, and want to show users exactly what they are looking for — but we aim not to show sexually-explicit results unless a user is specifically searching for them."

I just tried searches for: pussy, titties, nipples. Virtually nothing. The results for "pussy" were especially pathetic, because not only did it bring up no pictures of what most adult men think of when they think pussy, it didn't even display any images of cats! This new image search is a joke... and I thought last night at first glance that the only change was that they fucked up the screen when you click an image. Damn, was I wrong...

Re:Not censoring, my ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265699)

I just tried this, and after getting pictures of Putin (?!), I tried to change my safesearch preference. The only option is to filter explicit results, which doesn't make a damn bit of sense; it was unchecked.
When did Google become morons? First Youtube getting progressively worse and worse for users and content creators, now this.

Epic Fail (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265603)

I just did a test search with SafeSearch set not to filter explicit results and compared the same search to Bing. Specificity isn't the issue; the returned results are far inferior to Bing when looking for plain ole nekkidness. I fear Google is going to end up with egg (or something looking like it) on their face over this one.

I've been a Googler since Yahoo jumped the Shark way back when, but I'm looking over the fence at the greener grass and thinking I may finally have to move on.

So... tell me how to be more explicit? (5, Interesting)

Grimbleton (1034446) | about 2 years ago | (#42265641)

This is a search for blowjobs. http://i.imgur.com/R5mjw.jpg [imgur.com] Feel free to click at work, it's work safe. That's the problem. Fisting, rape, etc., all had the same tame results.

So where's the /. porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265659)

I clicked on the Google UK link and didn't see anything pornographic, except for that logo that looks like an adolescent erection.

Good! I think. (4, Informative)

Jethro (14165) | about 2 years ago | (#42265689)

My first reaction to this was "Oh my GOD its not like we're CHILDREN" and "Oh my GOD more censorship" but frankly on second thought... yeah, I kinda like this. I mean if I want to see naked women I can easily type that into the search field. I just did a couple of image searches that used to be CLUTTERED with Rule 34, and now I can actually find relevant stuff. That's actually a VAST improvement. Better than Safe Search=on used to be, in fact.

Add an option for unfiltered no filtering? (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#42265697)

Isn't it kind of expected when the user disables filtering that a search for "tea bagging" will be more focused on nut-jobbery than porn?

Add a filter option for "make my wee wee hard". Problem solved. No more leaving onanists treading water while they find the magic words to find what they really want.

Most inocuous thing with google safesearch off (1)

aiwarrior (1030802) | about 2 years ago | (#42265727)

I was going to post:

Just search the most innocuous thing with safe search off and you will always get porn. I think it is censorship, American prude way, but even so i can try to understand some pragmatism.

But then i realized that there has been a massive cleanup in the results not just in google.com but .uk and others also even with safe search off. I really don't get the prudishness. Google is more and more becoming my enemy.

I googled titties (1)

aurashift (2037038) | about 2 years ago | (#42265755)

And it gave me this in the first row of images (probably NSFW...but then again this whole thread is) [rackcdn.com]

I still received a fresh helping of titties so google isn't broken, they just want to sabotage and betray you so hard that you won't care about titties anymore.

P.S. I know the pic is of a slashdotter. REVEAL YOURSELF!!

P.P.S The people who are being modded insightful for whining that this is censorship ought not to be, because they aren't.

Systematic of a sidetracked company? (4, Insightful)

jago25_98 (566531) | about 2 years ago | (#42265781)

Let's face it, this is not an isolated case of reduced advanced features with Google.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

We also don't have:

- booleen search of even a basic level
- or ability to priortise each search term
- ability for phrase search: Results for separate terms will also be displayed. Some results contain none of the words in the phrase you searched for (They don't look like adverts either - I don't understand)

Yet there's the patent on PageRank so the competition is rubbish?

Operators are useful:
http://www.googleguide.com/advanced_operators.html [googleguide.com]
but those more advanced abilities don't seem to mesh so well with the automagic aspect of Google.

The reason we all started using Google in the first place was that we found it was the only way we could find things without all the spam. We were able to find the results we were looking for.
Google is catering better to beginners and that is good. This is a good example of that.
Unfortunately it seems the core demographic of the nerd who knows what they are doing is being misserved. Also I think, possibly a bit sidetracked from the core ability of Google as a search company. Sidetracked?

What is the alternative? I use DuckDuckGo regularly but often fall back to Google. I think the edge there could be PageRank and manual result checking.

Any stock investors out there? Is a company sidetracked from it's core abilities often a sign of a company about to take a plunge? I've seen it before but Amazon did well.

Censored (1)

Kyru (836008) | about 2 years ago | (#42265823)

"We're not going to censor your results, but we're censoring results"

Bout time, had *BAD* results for "safe" searches.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265839)

.. more often than I hoped.

My favorite (long since fixed,) was searching for "HP ScanJet Ode To Joy Diagnostics" on Google Video search, and getting two correct results, followed by three hardcore porn results that obviously had *NOTHING* to do with the search terms (yes, I made sure :-P ) and that's it. Took over a year after I reported it for it to go away.

Yes, discovered it while trying to show the humorous diagnostic mode to a co-worker at work. Thank goodness she had a sense of humor about that kind of thing.

Not quite there... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42265897)

They still haven't gotten TubGirl and BlueWaffle taken off the default search, and until then, no one who has seen them will be able to un-see them.

I just (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#42265899)

download my porn from thepiratebay.

I don't need to search, i just see what was uploaded since I last checked.

But I can understand where google is coming from. You have a lot of people using your search engine and unless they specify or go hunting for naked pics, porn pics, etc, there really isn't a need to include them in searches. So they change the defaulting settings. big whoop.

You can still get the info you want.

But on a real wtf note, using google to find porn is like asking a known safe cracker to guard your safe. What google will lead you to is a mostly a bunch of sites that are infecting your computer with some sort of malware. I know, I clean those people computers of viruses and other crap. It's a very common attack vector, the other one i deal with is from sites "hosting" or saying it's hosting copyrighted materials, like TV shows. Or downloaders for downloading streaming vids off your computer.

Much like porn mags fronts are covered in a store, this only makes sense for the general public.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>