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!

CmdrTaco posted more than 13 years ago | from the scouring-the-net-for-eye-candy dept.

News 147

Ever since Scour faded from the surface of the net, finding a good source of images has been tought to do. Fortunately Google has stepped up to the plate by working on an Image Search Engine. A variety of people submitted it, and although it is in beta testing, it seems quite functional and very cool.

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

Re:Tried it, liked it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#123046)

It also returns results based on the text (and hopefully context) of the page that the image is contained on. Note that results don't always have your search parms in their path.


it's wonderful (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#123047)

this is so neat. I can send a link to someone & they can view 9,000 pictures of my city. Hey moderators, it can actually be used for things other than porn. geesh. :-)

I wish you could search by stuff besides keywords (2)

ry4an (1568) | more than 13 years ago | (#123048)

I wish you could search by something besides filename and keywords. A shape based search like Eikon [] ( ) would be nice.
-- (2)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 13 years ago | (#123049)

I look through [] to find random images [] for websites. Although most of the photos on there are not free (in the GNU sense), they do store copyright permissions for each image so you can check. (I haven't yet found a way to filter searches so only free images show up.)

Filenames (2)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 13 years ago | (#123050)

Until now, it hasn't really been important to choose meaningful filenames for images. But now you should make sure to pick long, descriptive names (probably with lots of underscores) so that Google will find them.

Also if Google uses 'alt text' to help the search, that's another good reason to add it to your images.

I wonder whether they will apply the page-ranking algorithm to client-side imagemaps with 'label' text?

Thumbnails (3)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 13 years ago | (#123052)

As a modem user I would like an option for smaller thumbnails. Something like a 64x48 maximum size, reduced to 16 colours or fewer would be good. Then you could display all the matching results on a single page without it getting too big - another good thing for modem users (clicking through pages of results is too painful).

Try entering "Bill Gates" (5)

JoeBuck (7947) | more than 13 years ago | (#123053)

Cool ... if you ask for pictures of Bill Gates, the top two lines have several versions of the mug shot from when he was busted in New Mexico in his early 20s.

Re:Previews of Images != Good (1)

mitheral (10588) | more than 13 years ago | (#123056)

Just turn off images in your browser if you don't want to see the previews.

Re:Video Store Raided For Selling Imported DVDs (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 13 years ago | (#123060)

Damn, and I just used the last of my mod points, too. That is so begging for a "-1, Offtopic whining about not getting an article posted"...

Didn't get posted? Boo-hoo. Try instead.



Re:Only English (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 13 years ago | (#123061)

Hey, it is still in beta; I'm sure they'll add support for other languages in due course.



Re:Bet this dies soon (3)

Tim C (15259) | more than 13 years ago | (#123062)

I can't see commercial porn sites caring, to be honest. After all, they all require you to login, and so google isn't going to get anything at all from them (unless they start buying accounts, which would go down like a lead balloon...)

They might be a little miffed that this will make it easier for people to find the stuff they want for free, but so what? Them's the breaks; if you charge people for something they can get for free elsewhere, don't expect to make too much money.



Re:Useful for Slashdotters (2)

jawad (15611) | more than 13 years ago | (#123063)

Can't seem to find it [] . (Do you dare to click that link?.

And Lycos? (2)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 13 years ago | (#123064)

Lycos already provides such a facility. You can check it out at [] .

Re:Holy shaved ****, Batman! (1)

augustz (18082) | more than 13 years ago | (#123065)

The wonders of pasting a face on a body. Incredible...

It really sucks. (1)

AeiwiMaster (20560) | more than 13 years ago | (#123066)

Even when mature content filter is Off.

It is allmost impsible to find any good porn!

I have tried sex,nude,xxx only when I searched
for hardcore did I find a few good pictures ;-)


Re:Tried it, liked it. (2)

Neon Spiral Injector (21234) | more than 13 years ago | (#123067)

It seems it bases the matches on name and content on the page.

Try searching for cmdrtaco, I laughed my ass off at some of the stuff.


Only English (1)

kentheman (24620) | more than 13 years ago | (#123068)

If the search doesn't work for you, try setting English as your language.

So far for borderless Internet...


Re:Only English (1)

kentheman (24620) | more than 13 years ago | (#123069)

True, but for now you have to change it, so I thought I'd help in case some people couldn't figure out for themselves :-)

BTW, have you tried the newly added languages? Hacker, Bork, Bork!, and more ... quite +1, Funny


Re:useless, or not? (1)

boarder (41071) | more than 13 years ago | (#123074)

Dude, you rock. I had actually been to this website about a year ago looking for it, but they didn't have it then. Thanks.

useless, or not? (5)

boarder (41071) | more than 13 years ago | (#123076)

I just did a rather varied bevvy of searches on this and came up with very mixed results.

The first search was for "dog on a bike" just to look for a very obscure and odd picture item. Lo and behold, the 15th or so picture is of a dog sitting on a motorcycle. I was really excited at how well it worked. The rest were pictures of either dogs and/or bikes, which is understandable.

Next search was for "standing in the rain" to find a common picture of a specific scenario. The results were not so good. I did find pictures of people standing in the rain, but I found more drawings and things that had nothing to do with rain.

Next I played around with the 'mature content filter' and searched for "bath tub." I got about 20000 pictures of bath tubs and showers and the like, but not one porn pic. Although I guess this is good if you're shopping for bath tubs, it did miss a large segment of people looking for pics of women in a bath tub. I'm sure if you did a search for "hardcore porn", you'd find hardcore porn, but I'm at work and I'd get in trouble for doing that.

The final search was for a SPECIFIC picture that would make this search engine pretty useful. My father is looking for the poster of Barney Fife sitting on a big motorcycle. It's a funny poster, but we haven't found it anywhere (I have found the picture at some sites, just not the poster). I did multiple searches for "barney fife," "fife bike," "fife motorcycle," barney motorcycle,"... you get the picture. Almost every picture that came up was a banner-ad type picture advertising different websites. Only when I searched for just "barney fife" did I find pictures of barney fife. Otherwise, I would ONLY get little icons and other useless graphics. No motorcycles or barneys at all. I even got a graphic for an anti-DVD website.

The useless graphics and icons were prevalent in every search I did. I'm guessing if you're searching for a graphic of something like a smiley face, this would be helpful. Otherwise, it was only marginally interesting. (2)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 13 years ago | (#123077)

Actually, while this is probably more useful for the non-skin variety of image than, I somehow feel that Mr. Taco was talking about the 'pink' variety of image. I don't recall there being much media on Scour besides the pornographic variety, sadly.

I might as well provide Taco with a link to help him out. KaZaA [] (despite the gay name) has all the functionality of scour, plus some.


Jeez, that didn't take long (1)

Flounder (42112) | more than 13 years ago | (#123078)

search for xxx, turn off mature content filter, BLAMMO! []

So, when will be filtered by CyberCensorNetMommy?

Re:Bet this dies soon (2)

Zulfiya (44302) | more than 13 years ago | (#123079)

Seriously, how often do you want to search for some other specific picture?
Well, people doing graphic design who are too cheap to buy clip art collections could use it.

I just took three minutes and found something I could use... (1)

greenrd (47933) | more than 13 years ago | (#123080)

Not! Have you ever read the GPL?

Re:Well, what you can you say? (1)

greenrd (47933) | more than 13 years ago | (#123081)

Indeed. Unless Google has some human-level artificial intelligence technology up their sleeve, their reputation is going to be seriously tarnished by inevitably turning up porn results for innoccent searches.

Re:Google's following Yahoo (3)

interiot (50685) | more than 13 years ago | (#123082)

I noticed this. At work.

Much as I loathe adult filters, I wish they had one for this service, just so I don't get the random fellatio image on my screen at work.

Like (5)

British (51765) | more than 13 years ago | (#123083)

THe one thing that I like this over is a frickin' DIRECT LINK to the image in question.

With, you have to go to the actual web page, which sometimes doesn't even have the iamge. I'm assuming its because the web page in question has changed over time(since it was last indexed by altavista), or is such a heavily dynamic website, you'll have to scrounge thru the site to get it.

With google, it's just TWO clicks away to steal someone else's work. I'm happy. Again, google rules for search engines.

it's a wonderful (1)

thomkt (59664) | more than 13 years ago | (#123084)

now it's that much easier to find p0rn, and no pop-ups

Re:Bet this dies soon (1)

skware (78429) | more than 13 years ago | (#123087)

Snurfle. Google is easy enough to use for porn anyway. Just try searching for .jpg and as long as there is not a hugely popular actress with the same first name, you will get a tonne of porn in the results, whether you want it or not. At least the images search engine allows you to mask out the porn images.

interesting ramifications (2)

passion (84900) | more than 13 years ago | (#123090)

I've been wanting to write an open sourced image search engine for a long time, I guess that now I can just try to join the google team.

One idea that I had was to use optical character recognition (like many scanners do) to pull out possible words... much like the portrayal of Neo when he was searching for Morpheus.

This is a technology that can widely expand the usefulness of searching tools, but can also invade people's privacy. Let's say that your local paper publishes your photo... now anyone in the world can see what you look like.

Re:Well, what you can you say? (1)

psychofox (92356) | more than 13 years ago | (#123093)

If this takes off, how long do you think it will take until all the pron sites start calling every single image on their page titillating names, with huge alt tags? Alternatively, they may call them 1.jpg 2.jpg 3.jpg Then they will start calling their salacious images things like "summersday.jpg" "sunset.jpg" and "concorde.jpg" i.e. things people might genuinally search for. I don't think google would handle that very well.

Re:Well, what you can you say? (1)

psychofox (92356) | more than 13 years ago | (#123094)

Thats was pretty badly worded. I'll try again:

Things they could do to boost hits include

1) Give their images salacious filenames/alt tages
2) Give their images innocuous, but popular filenames/alt tags

Things they could do to hide their images:

1) Give their images names like 1.jpg 2.jpg etc.

Very cool, but what about copyrights? (2)

TomatoMan (93630) | more than 13 years ago | (#123095)

This is indeed very cool; I've been starved for clip-art for a Scoop site I'm running, and easily found a lot of images that I could use. But doesn't this technology make it a little too easy to steal copyrighted work? The images are provided out of context with no instructions about appropriate use. People would probably quite naturally think the images were free for the taking, especially when removed from their home pages.

I'd love to use some of the images I found right away, but know that I probably shouldn't, or that at least I should research each one individually and try to find out what its appropriate use/copyright status is. But Most People(tm) won't do that, and I wonder if this is going to lead to some kind of Napster-like backlash.

Maybe we need to develop an XML "copyright_status='public-domain'" attribute for images, and try to get people to use it? (Sure, that'll happen.)


Re:Thumbnails (2)

TomatoMan (93630) | more than 13 years ago | (#123096)

This would require google to save every image it indexes, shrink it down, reduce color, and save it on their machines so that you can see it

No, it wouldn't require them to save anything; it can be done on the fly by the server with a little coding. The resulting image is transmitted and immediately forgotten, existing only in the user's browser cache. It takes some computation time, so that may be too big a burden for the server to handle on a large scale, but it can be done.


First thing to look for is... (1)

drnomad (99183) | more than 13 years ago | (#123098)

Kitty porn! [] . Second hit when you type porn...

I don't think so. (2)

twitter (104583) | more than 13 years ago | (#123099)

The images are not free because:
Webcore Labs arbitrairlly limits distribution at it's sole discretion.
Webcore Labs arbitrairlly limits use at it's sole discretion.

The software is not free because:
It may not be used for any purpose, at the discretion of Webcore Labs.
It may not be transfered without Webcore Labs permision.
It almost certianly can not be modified.

It would be unwise to include use any of their images without modification. I prefer to make my own images when I need them or use truely free images.

Prohibition of sale != GPL. Sell what you want, just distribute the source code and don't tell people what they can and can not do with their computers.

Thank you for presenting this piece of their liscence. I don't agree with the way they like to share things.

What goes around comes around, I guess... (2)

benenglish (107150) | more than 13 years ago | (#123100)

People are submitting what they saw on "The Screensavers" last nite? Mercy. I thought Slashdot drove their content, not the other way around.

What's next? Barking cats?

So long (1)

smyle (108107) | more than 13 years ago | (#123101)

I'm about to submit [] to f'd company [] , since that's the only thing I (or anybody else I know) have used them for.

As fast as Google is (even under the slashdot effect), I think I just visited Ditto for the last time.
-- (4)

ThePurpleBuffalo (111594) | more than 13 years ago | (#123102)

Keep in mind that there is also IStockPhoto [] . All images are free for use, similar to the GPL.

Beware tpb

Bet this dies soon (2)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 13 years ago | (#123104)

Hmm. Probably 90% of the searches on this will be porn. Seriously, how often do you want to search for some other specific picture?

The commercial porn websites won't like it, and Google will have a hard time justifying this service for hunting down porn. I just don't see it making financial sense. (something Google is pretty good at understanding)

So in other words, grab all the pics you can now. :-)

Try Ditto (2)

legLess (127550) | more than 13 years ago | (#123105)

A friend of mine writes image-recognition code for Ditto [] (formerly Arriba Vista). They've been providing this same service for over 2 years.

Google is amazing, and I'm sure that their search will be better eventually (if it isn't already), but this is a difficult field, and it's nice to have options. Give them a look.

"We all say so, so it must be true!"

NO!!! (1)

mill5ja (139259) | more than 13 years ago | (#123109)

Oh, weak! The worst picture of myself, ever, is the only one (out of I would say 20 or 30) that comes up! How lame is that?

Think of all the hot chicks that are going to look me up and go "ewww, nasty"!


-jason m has better image search (1)

xp (146294) | more than 13 years ago | (#123110) [] has an image search engine feature that is just as good and in fact the interface is much cleaner.


Re:Google's following Yahoo (1)

BitchAss (146906) | more than 13 years ago | (#123111)

bah - my search [] returned very little in the way of self-loving-fun.

Great start, but... (1)

Atom Tan (147797) | more than 13 years ago | (#123112)

Where's the "Filter Non-Adult Content" option?

Altavista has a search. (1)

derrickh (157646) | more than 13 years ago | (#123113)

Altavista [] already does this.

Mad Scientists with too much time on thier hands

Oh dear... the Kerslappage is HUGE. (2)

TheLocustNMI (159898) | more than 13 years ago | (#123114)

Where I work, we have a term for finding embarassing things on the web from people we know... it's "Kerslap!". It's a little like ego-surfing [] , except in reverse.

Imagine what you could find for "CmdrTaco" or "JonKatz" through this amazing search engine? Naked photos? Embarassing drunken pee-pee shots? Oh yes. All this and more....

Great! (2)

RedOregon (161027) | more than 13 years ago | (#123115)

Excellent... a resource that was really needed!


Go-ogle! an image search engine, huh? (1)

vandelais (164490) | more than 13 years ago | (#123116)

that's all. Go-ogle!

Mature content filter (1)

JonasH (183422) | more than 13 years ago | (#123123)

What we really want is a reverse mature content filter, isn't it? - ultimate pr0n search engine :o) Oh well, at least it's better than using *cough* altavista for finding images. -- Rasher

Beta Testing + Slashdotted (1)

DigitalDragon (194314) | more than 13 years ago | (#123124)

Linking to their beta test is going to give Google load testing of their dreams.

Tried it, liked it. (2)

egjertse (197141) | more than 13 years ago | (#123126)

Yep, good quality for a beta product, and quite accurate as well. Lacking some functionality, like refining searches etc. (akin to Altavistas "find similar" option).

Recognizing images by their name is rather inaccurate though, I wonder if there's some manual editing involved, or if they use ImageMagick or something to try and determine the pictures contents by pattern matching ;) (more than 40% greens == probably a landscape photo...)

Re:Thumbnails (1)

rattid (214610) | more than 13 years ago | (#123128)

This would require google to save every image it indexes, shrink it down, reduce color, and save it on their machines so that you can see it. Just shrinking the width height tags (obviously) wont help.

Its a cool idea, and Im sure they _could_ do it. But I dont think they will.

Re:Great! - Resource? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#123129)

No, this is way too cool to be a resource, must be a new toy! (c=

All your .sig are belong to us!

CmdrTaco Search Result! (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#123130)

I think someone [] needs a PR firm...

All your .sig are belong to us!

Amazingling... (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#123131)

I still can't find any of my pics on the web. But then it is beta.

Most annoying is that it finds a mess of images with weirdo domain names my DNS has never heard of (and it's heard of a _lot_!)

All your .sig are belong to us!

This is amazing! (1)

bziman (223162) | more than 13 years ago | (#123133)

This has to be the BEST image search engine I've ever seen! A search for CmdrTaco [] returns SIXTEEN images!

Well what do you know... (1)

wbav (223901) | more than 13 years ago | (#123135)

... an image serach engine.

A brief search of Babylon 5 brought up what I wanted, but also an image of a dollar bill. What must be happening is google is doing their word search either in the alt tags of images or on the page in such a way that it grabs the correct images. Kudos to the google team. Once again you prove that you are "The Geek's Search Engine"

Now if only there was a good way to sort all these naked women. ;o)


Google's following Yahoo (1)

unformed (225214) | more than 13 years ago | (#123136)

with Porn!

I wonder.... (1)

kenthorvath (225950) | more than 13 years ago | (#123137)

... how long will it be before the trolls start linking to google images of GoatSex?

search strings are cool (1)

BroadbandBradley (237267) | more than 13 years ago | (#123139)

like this:
in Mozilla, create a bookmark for:
edit bookmark properties and add keyword images
now I can type
images subject
to search for images on that subject. I'm a happy surfer.

Holy shaved ****, Batman! (1)

Bonker (243350) | more than 13 years ago | (#123141)

Type in Anna Kournikova....

Get This []

Re:Holy shaved ****, Batman! (1)

Bonker (243350) | more than 13 years ago | (#123142)

The link seemed to stop working shortly after I typed it in... Filtering of some kind? I doubt it, but if you do the search, you can still see the image this points to only five down in the list.

hope they have good filters.. (1)

ardiri (245358) | more than 13 years ago | (#123143)

+what_i_want -goat -se :)

IPO? (1)

ardiri (245358) | more than 13 years ago | (#123144)

we all know that there is a load of money in the porn area.. maybe this is just perfect timing for google's IPO?

Text images (1)

samrolken (246301) | more than 13 years ago | (#123145)

Most pictures on teh web are pictures of text...

Buggy? (1)

daniel_isaacs (249732) | more than 13 years ago | (#123146)

This is really cool. Search for Albert Einstein and get a ton of nice pics. But, search for "daniel isaacs" and get 3 pages of web button GIFs.

Previews of Images != Good (1)

bahtama (252146) | more than 13 years ago | (#123149)

Oh great, it gives previews. I have a hard enough time searching for "Mangrove" trees on google in front of grandparents without worrying about something pr0n related popping up! And now this! :)


Best Search Ever. (1)

bahtama (252146) | more than 13 years ago | (#123150)

This is worthy of a 'rotflmao' ,check out the search for our very own CmdrTaco [] . I love the first result. This makes it much easier to stalk your favorite online personalities! Can you say, "All your pictures are belong to us?" I thought you could. :)


Re:Best Search Ever. (1)

bahtama (252146) | more than 13 years ago | (#123151)

A followup to my last post. This is way offtopic, but after looking at the first image result, I stumbled across this page [] , which is FUNNY. I'm about to pee my pants.. Oops, too late! The last picture on the last page is the best. It is every Slashdotters worst nightmare!


Useful for Slashdotters (2)

bahtama (252146) | more than 13 years ago | (#123152)

This is perfect! I had heard this rumor that there is this fabulous picture out there but all I know about it is that the word goat is associated with it. I had better search for it right now! :P


This is very cool (2)

Lede Singer (253091) | more than 13 years ago | (#123153)

I don't know how many times I've spent hours (on my connection) trying to find a tolkien image, or a cool desktop theme. I am pleased that once again Google has stepped up to the plate and beat the competition. I'm interested to see where else the net takes us as these "dotcommers" fall away and truly intuitive people keep the industry fun.

Re:Great! (2)

matrix29 (259235) | more than 13 years ago | (#123156)

Altavista SUCKS! Google has just amazed me again.

I did a search for "Teddy Bear". In other search engines the image has to have "Teddy" or "Bear" in the file name. This has returned accurate and useful results for files named "Bruno.jpg", "14b483eev.jpg", "Tbb1.gif", and "cinamonted.gif".

I have never seen a search engine that was USEFUL in any manner for image searching without the filename EXCLUSIVELY having one of the search terms. All alternately named files are never returned.

Google, you are still the best!
(Now drop those stupid "common word" exclusions if they are in quotes. That is a really dumb way to make the search engine less useful.)

Re:Mature content filter (1)

suwain_2 (260792) | more than 13 years ago | (#123157)

He he, this would actually be easy to implement remotely -- have something search for something without the filter, then with the filter. And if the image is only found in the unfiltered gallery, you can see it... :-D

There've got to be less geeky ways, though. :)

Re:spellcheck ??? (1)

suwain_2 (260792) | more than 13 years ago | (#123158)

I intially thought you were just trolling / griping about a small typo, but then I realized something. This is the exact same word that I read earlier, and thought it said "taught". And the sentence made no sense with the word "taught" in it.

Just make sure you don't implement the MS Office spell checker; it's done wonders as far as finding a word with the completely opposite meaning... This could really be a problem, though; I don't know that we want something completely automatic, 'cuz even the best Linux software is bound to make mistakes occasionally...

slllllooooooowwwwwww? (2)

suwain_2 (260792) | more than 13 years ago | (#123159)

It's real slow. I doubt that a major site like Google - which probably has more traffic than /. - would be slashdotted.

I'm hoping that they're having temporary server problems or something; I've really come to love the "Found 123,456,789 results in 0.11 seconds" speed; a server (okay, a massive cluster of them) can find thousands and thousands of links, put them in dynamically generated webpages, and send them to me, on teh opposite side of teh US - in less time than it takes me to read my hard drive!

Hehe, searching for things like "bob" produces interesting results; it's pictures of a ton of people named Bob. And a hand coming out of an apple...

no link? (2)

kilgore_47 (262118) | more than 13 years ago | (#123160)

why doesn't google link to this from They don't have a link to on their main page either! I understand they're going for the "simple" look, and thats cool, but shouldn't they have some little text links somewhere on the front page? I only know about both these services because of /.! Granted, they are reaching a decent audience this way, but they ought to mention it on


dissapointed (1)

nanojath (265940) | more than 13 years ago | (#123161)

>seems quite functional and very cool. I don't know - I did a search on pr0n and it only came up about 2% filthy smut.

Re:Very cool, but what about copyrights? (1)

raoulortega (306691) | more than 13 years ago | (#123166)

Already too many of the comments here seem to be from people who assume that all of these images are free for the taking.

On another note-- they are only cataloging images that appear in static pages. On my webserver I've got an online database of images, and the only of them appeared in my searches was the one I use on the title page.

spellcheck ??? (1)

capoccia (312092) | more than 13 years ago | (#123170)

finding a good source of images has been tought to do.

there really needs to be some kind of spellcheck implementation added to the posting system because this kind of thing just happens too often.

Bored with your projects?
Try Einsteinium []

Re:I've just had a weird idea. (1)

exi7 (315026) | more than 13 years ago | (#123171)

Altavista actually used to do this on their own image search engine. It was sometimes accurate, most often not.

I just did a search for an image in altavista and that feature no longer appears. It was very interesting while it lasted. (2)

GenericUser (317373) | more than 13 years ago | (#123172)

IStockPhotos license is not similar to GPL. It prohibits redistribution of pictures, among many other things.

From their licence [] :

It is prohibited to rent, transfer, distribute or grant any rights in the software, the images contained within the archive and/or the accompanying documentation in any form to any person without the written consent of Webcore Labs Inc., prior to the act.

Ya know Taco... (1)

SumDeusExMachina (318037) | more than 13 years ago | (#123173)

If it really matters so much to you, you COULD just pay for a subscription to a porn site.

This kicks ass! (1)

Chakat (320875) | more than 13 years ago | (#123174)

Finally, a site that searches through and gives you just pictures. 'Scuze me while I go do some a href="">" heavy research"

Works well (1)

Quizme2000 (323961) | more than 13 years ago | (#123175)

I've been using the image search for google the past week or so for a current project. I would like to see some additional search fields for size and format, but you can enter it as a string right now. Also being able to see the page it came from is great for searching, but I can see it being easily abused to drive traffic to a site. Oh searching tips: The mature content filter actually works and always click the link to see the omitted results of your search if your just browsing the thumbnails.

Scary (2)

HisMother (413313) | more than 13 years ago | (#123176)

I have an unusual last name. If I type it into the search box, four pictures of me and my family appear.

Not sure I like that at all.

Re:Google's following Yahoo (2)

Magumbo (414471) | more than 13 years ago | (#123177)

They do. It appears to be on by default, and works pretty good as far as those things go. I searched for "cunt" and didn't see too much pr0n. Turn it off and you see some *cough* interesting stuff.

The cunt coloring book was my favorite.


What's the big deal ? (2)

SandmanCL (444428) | more than 13 years ago | (#123178) has been around for a long time now, more than a year I think.

Re:Google going to broad? (1)

actiondan (445169) | more than 13 years ago | (#123179)

Google seem to implementing their various search engines in a sensible way - as separate services under the Google banner, rather than tryin gto create one super-service that does everything.

The addition of the newsgroups search has not adversly affected the stanard Google search and I don't expect that this image search will either.

I'm glad that, in expanding their services, Google are sticking to what they know(search engines) rather than offering a whole load of other services (as others have done in the past).

Google is still the best webpage search engine by far, due to it functional, minimal philosophy. If they can take that design philosophy to other types of search then thats a good thing.

Re:This is news? (2)

actiondan (445169) | more than 13 years ago | (#123180)

I get a javascript error on so I can't comment on how well it works...

I think the point is that the Google service is searching the whole web (well, as much as it can) for images rather than an archive of stock images.

Re:Why do we need it (1)

AmericanInParis (452140) | more than 13 years ago | (#123181)

What you're looking for can be found in the photo archive on [] . It has 15,000 copyright-free photos, the archive can be searched using keywords, and there is a similar photo search function that's neat. In addition, the archive is community indexed (currently, two-thirds of the archive has been indexed). Very cool!

Well, what you can you say? (2)

Violet Null (452694) | more than 13 years ago | (#123182)


No, wait. Too obvious.

This is cool - almost as cool as FTP search engines [] . I'm really surprised it's taken this long for another search engine to replicate scour, given the drive to differentiate yourself from all the other search engines out there.

Excellent! (1)

Blue Aardvark House (452974) | more than 13 years ago | (#123183)

It's smooth, fast and delivers a lot of images per search.

"A picture says a thousand words" never rang truer.

This is news? (1)

sl0ppy (454532) | more than 13 years ago | (#123184)

Sites like have had search engines like this for quite a while: Stock Photo Search [] -- ( for the link scared) ...

Not to mention cool things like the Font Search [] -- ( for the link scared).

tought to do? (1)

Unknown Bovine Group (462144) | more than 13 years ago | (#123187)

Amazing how similar tough and tought look and how different they sound eh?

Why do we need it (1)

roxytheman (463262) | more than 13 years ago | (#123188)

But what can we use these pictures for? As I see it, most of them are copyright magazines and newspapers? OK, I can use them in my birthday invitation without being sued...
What about a GPL image search engine?

Google going to broad? (1)

roxytheman (463262) | more than 13 years ago | (#123189)

Google recently accuired (usenet search engine) and now they are adding an image search engine. (and they have linux search engine, FreeBSD search engine and so on) ..
Are they making an effort in the wrong places and spending money on all kinds of little weird thingies making their service bloated?
I always use google because it is soooo much faster and precise than the others.,,,

Re:Why do we need it (1)

roxytheman (463262) | more than 13 years ago | (#123190)

OK we got :-) ... any more?

use in gpl software (1)

roxytheman (463262) | more than 13 years ago | (#123191)

snipped from the lisence:
It is prohibited to rent, transfer, distribute or grant any rights in the software, the images contained within the archive and/or the accompanying documentation in any form to any person without the written consent of Webcore Labs Inc., prior to the act. You may not use (or allow anyone else to use) any of the images in this archive in any form of fraudulent, pornographic, defamatory, immoral, infringing or illegal material, the determination of which is left to the sole discretion of Use of images in any type of "for sale" products is forbidden.
Does this mean use in GPL-software is OK? Anyway I would like to see LGPL image archives too... ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?