Google's Image Search Now Requires Explicit Queries For Explicit Results 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."
It is filtering out wikipedia content (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It is filtering out wikipedia content (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You did a Google Image Search for his ailment?
I like the way he's surprised that if you do a search for "inflamed anus" or something, you might get a hairy-arsed old geezer's flaming ringpiece rather than the hoped-for sweet chocolate starfish of a female pornstar.
Re: (Score:3)
Strangely enough some of my searches that didn't used to are now showing up the odd bit of gay porn. Either someone only considers only the female nude form offensive or the new filter needs tweaking.
Re:It is filtering out wikipedia content (Score:5, Funny)
"or the new filter needs tweaking."
I believe the term is twinking.
Re:more explicit query? (Score:5, Funny)
hot chick with big boobs hard penetration from behind over sofa and happy ending
Re:more explicit query? (Score:5, Funny)
Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a sad day when I have to switch to bing.
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Also you might want to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines
To stay a bit more on-topic... If my 7 year old daughter would ask me what 'blow-job' means Ill tell her. (oh and ask where she got that word from) It is called "education", just like "why is the sky blue" and "do I get hairy legs like mama too"? I think that overprotection is a bad thing. Whether it is sex, violence or anything else, it is part of life. Suck. It. Up.
Re: (Score:2)
What are they censoring?
Re:Censorship (Score:4)
Oh no, a search engine that only shows you what you explicitly search for! Bring out the pitchforks!
Moron.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh grow up. (Score:5, Informative)
You can't turn it off anymore, that's the whole point.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oh grow up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn it, that takes away my plausible deniability. :)
Re:Oh grow up. (Score:5, Interesting)
...then turn it off. Are you seriously complaining about a feature because it's on by default?
Welcome to Slashdot. You must be new here.
You're seriously asking that question on a site where a simple search will reveal dozens of articles in the last few months where there's literally thousands of dissenting/agreeing commenters debating 'on by default' as a thing.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/12/09/08/1755259/no-opt-out-for-ads-on-new-kindle-fires [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/12/057241/utorrent-adds-featured-torrents-ads-with-no-opt-out-yet [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/10/30/2054237/eff-wants-ubuntu-to-disable-online-search-by-default [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/10/12/183247/mozilla-details-how-old-plugins-will-be-blocked-in-firefox-17 [slashdot.org]
And for good measure, here's everyone excited that an option is now required on with a healthy smattering of, "why wasn't it default before?"
http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/11/19/2359205/facebook-switching-to-https-by-default [slashdot.org]
Shall I go on...?
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a definite difference between helping my kids with their homework, and doing it for them. Like what happened a couple weeks ago: "Dad, I'm stuck on this math problem."
I take a look at it, and sure enough, it's ugly. Yet it's not. I say, "One word: parentheses." It took him a couple more minutes but he got it and saw why it wasn't nearly as ugly as it looked.
Did I do his homework for him?
ObTopic: Yes, I've been known to suggest search terms that would be more effective than the ones he was going to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but that is quite different than doing the searching for him. Which is what the GP described.
Standing at a distance with an ear out for questions is one thing, doing the searching/math/reading for them is a whole other thing.
Parents like you describe don't generally mention they did the work "with" the child.
Re: (Score:3)
It was a hypothetical. Surely it doesn't take too many of your brain cycles to figure out a hundred ways that scenario could arise.
Lets say they're looking for information about Steve Jobs on your computer and ask you what kind of cancer he had. You say 'prostate' and they fire that into Google images. Without filtering that could easily through up a host of images.
Let's say they're researching a celebrity who
Advice on parenting [Re:Censorship] (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just filtering but also your prior searches appear to be calculated both in the search results and the advertisement you get everywhere.
A friend of mine thought they might have bed bugs. I searched for bedbugs-- suddenly many familiar sites are spamming me with bedbug ads.
I did some stock searches. Suddenly I'm getting ads for stock sites everywhere i go.
It felt a bit inappropriate and creepy on certain sites.
Anyway- so say I want to see nude pictures of the latest starlet. Suddenly, I'm getting a lo
Re: (Score:3)
Your argument in favor of censorship presumes a society where censorship is enforced by law. Try to come up with an argument where censorship is beneficial based on its own merits. I can't find one.
SEX IS BAD (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know that is not the argument he is making at all. Unless you believe that is the sort of thing your child would seek out.
Protecting children can go to far, I am sure you can think of cases like that from when you were growing up. In high school you could alway tell the strict parents by their kids, their sons were always near alcohol poisoning at any party they went to and to say their daughters were promiscuous was putting it lightly.
He is only suggesting that it is your place not google's to protect
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Censorship is not parenting. Censorship is the abdication of parenting. Your job is to equip the kid to deal with an ugly world, not to shield him from it.
And yes, I don't believe that seeing goatse actually harms anyone of any age, gender, sexual preference, or religion in any significant way. Momentary disgust will not scar your child for life.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm both liberal and realist. She'll see it. But some of it really isn't for public viewing, right? So not censorship, just better user control. For all involved
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Do your protect your kids from violence too or just sex?
Neither. But the crux of the matter is, if they're not actively looking for it, there's no reason they should be exposed to it. Which is what Google's move is all about...
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Man, I hope you're a troll
Look, I was wanking daily by the time I was 12, I had access to porn years before that (probably at 8 or 9), and by that I mean magazines -- physical printed porn. This was before having internet in a household was common place, and I was one of the good kids (never had disciplinary problems, had to be home by 9:30pm, etc etc) and was a relatively late bloomer compared to my peers. Kids making out at parties started at 10ish. My first pregnant classmate was at 13. I'm currentl
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting censorship idea: self-incrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
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..
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, the value of their services are becoming less compelling. There is little reason why I need to allow sustained cookies, or cookies at all. Given that they have stated they will delete accounts not attached t
Coming soon! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Already exists:
http://support.google.com/images/answer/1325808/ [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Already exists:
http://support.google.com/images/answer/1325808/ [google.com]
Yea, from that:
A better reason to not utilize this "service" (read: moneygrab), I have not seen.
Re:Coming soon! (Score:5, Informative)
go to images.google.com
drag image to the search box
you're welcome
Grandma Said He Used to Be Attractive (Score:2)
Google Image Search: Attractive Dick Van Dyke
Oh dear god!
Yes you are (Score:2)
Fading star (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, who's up for a new toy: The Porn Search Engine.
Hopefully Wikimedia Commons will follow suit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hopefully Wikimedia Commons will follow suit (Score:5, Funny)
Bastard, I just tried searching for toothbrush on Commons, and found no such thing. Now I feel cheated.
This is too funny (Score:4, Funny)
Old Search: gay tentacle porn
New Search: porn, type: gay, variety: tentacle, participants featured: 5, color: full, aspect_ratio: 16:9, results: many
Re: (Score:2)
Porn. Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.
Bing (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Bing (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So, what am I going to see when I search for "creampie"?
Re: (Score:3)
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/calen
Re: (Score:2)
It's NOT NOT NOt a question of looking for porn...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Wait, what? (Score:2)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=anything+but+porn [lmgtfy.com]
Meh, close enough.
But that was the best feature. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Epic Fail (Score:2, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:So... tell me how to be more explicit? (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, you need to put a magic word "porn" in your search query.
'blowjobs' gives you the results you saw
'blowjobs porn' gives exclusively the results you were looking for.
Good! I think. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Couldn't Google have just made this new searching mode the new "Moderate" then and still left people the option of setting SafeSearch to "Off" and having it behave the way it did before.
That's the problem with this new method. Supposedly you just have to use more precise search terms to get those explicit results, but "explicit" is a subjective term to start with and now there's now way to simply see ALL the results the spiders find without someone's judgement of where an image belongs.
Add an option for unfiltered no filtering? (Score:2)
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.
Systematic of a sidetracked company? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I just (Score:2)
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
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank goodness... (Score:2)
It's about time. It has been quite embarrassing when my family and I go online to search for photos of our missing dirt farming friend, Mr. Sanchez.
The mayans where half-right (Score:2)
Fixed Google reply: "We are censoring your adult results."
Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
I just did a search for rimjob, and there wasn't one explicit result.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
No. Censorship would be if they barred you from seeing it all together.
Incorrect; censorship is defined as "The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts." (per Google).
What you're referring to is a mandatory boycott, which is a type of censorship, but not reflective of the overall meaning of the word.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
In the interests of fairness Google should offer an Unsafe Search option.
Re: (Score:2)
It amounts to censorship. Enough said.
I believe the correct response is, "That word doesn't mean what you think it does."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Yup.
Frog. Pot. Slow Boil.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Bullshit. You can still search for whatever you want, you just need to specify that yes you really do want THOSE kind of images.
Here's the inherent problem, in 2 parts:
A) What's the definition "THOSE kind of images?"
and
B) Who gets to do the defining?
If you think on it long enough, you'll realize why I'm right.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They already are...
http://www.google.com/search?q=goatse&tbm=isch [google.com]
Re:Relieved (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't mind them doing this if they also offered an "unsafe" option - filter out all the bland images that never offended anybody.
"Ebony and Ivory" (Score:3)
You don't get Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney. :-)
"Say, say, say what you want, but don't play games with my affection..."
Re: (Score:3)
While I don't disagree with the sentiment you do have one error: Google image search by resolution is still available, just buried. You have to click on "Search Tools"->Larger than... and select one. If you want one that's not listed, just select one and change the biw variable before the #
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that context would be used by Google to determine that. Remember, they have all the text from every web page in the world to use to approximate context. Those particular variations of word spellings are tied more to animals and birds. Especially when the words are used close together.