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 Image Index Just Not Updated

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the breaking-news dept.

Google 411

We ran a story earlier today about the lack of Abu Ghraib photos in Google's image index. We now have a response from Google stating that the image index simply hasn't been updated recently, as well as a fairly convincing demonstration from a Slashdot reader: Rahga writes "I put together a page that counters the 'Google Censors Abu Ghraib Images' story. It is the tale of a Morgan Webb picture on images.google.com that's been driving a ton of traffic to my webserver 7 months after it was removed." The Abu Ghraib story broke in April 2004 (and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004), so Google's index is indeed quite far behind.

cancel ×

411 comments

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

I can vouch for this (5, Informative)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749327)

Like I mentioned in this post [slashdot.org] , I can vouch for this.

For the longest time, the search for my name on Google images would bring up really old images and it would never update them. So, in order to test this, I just removed those images and used a redirect (this was about 3-4 months ago) -- Google still did not update the pictures.

However, my academic page at my school did show up pretty soon, although it was created just recently. What more, it even showed the image of my latest schedule, and not an earlier one as in the other case.

So I guess Google probably uses some kinda weird algorithm to determine which sites are likely to be dynamic, and which are not -- and update/not update them accordingly.

Besides, everytime there's been a problem/censorship (say, due to DMCA) -- Google has been nice enough to notify the users during the search. Not to mention the amount of scalability doing something like this would require of them (which makes even less sense if they were the ONLY ones asked to do so).

So all in all, just a false alarm, I suppose.

Re:I can vouch for this (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749376)

I still get more traffic trying to find a site that I dont even host anymore than for my actual site... So I can see how this happened, but it still makes me sad, somehow :(

--
JS

Re:I can vouch for this (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749513)

So wait, you mean ...

I'm guesing that this is another case of our administration confusing "National Security" with "Politically Undesirable".

It isn't that the Bush administration told Google to remove the photos and then Google did it? I mean, when I saw that I was like "Yeah, that must be it. No doubt about it. That's gotta be it. There is no other possibility."

Rob Malda is well over 14 -- Posting shit like that is embarrassing. Does he think it's cool?

Re:I can vouch for this (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749566)

yes indeed, here is an old image that hasnt been updated in quite some time [ferris.edu] , i can vouch for this as well.. why doesnt google index this kind of content? i think it pertains to everyone in the slashdot community as a whole.

Re:I can vouch for this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749593)

So I guess Google probably uses some kinda weird algorithm to determine which sites are likely to be dynamic

What is weird with looking at the "Expires: "-header?

Re: Google sensorship defending Linux (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749652)

Ok, not really. But following a long running and very successful troll on slashdot ($699 sco license fee), my co-workers and I started calling open source people teabaggers.

Well, the other day, I was doing some work on Linux and I decided to change my MSN name accordingly, however, I couldn't find any decent pictures on google concerning teabagging... (snif)

SHOCKER: Yahoo! Search Better than Google (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749693)

The shocker in this story is not that Google is censoring images. The shocker is that Yahoo! Search [yahoo.com] outperforms Google.

Google deserves to lose since it prefers H-1B workers and other foreign workers over American citizens. More than 30% of Google's workforce is current or former H-1B holders.

By the way, if you want to keep updated on the current news, visit Yahoo! News [yahoo.com] . It is the best in the business and, on election day, even provides a free audio stream of Fox News Radio, which is America's news source.

Re:I can vouch for this (3, Interesting)

aristofanes (413195) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749740)

How does their explanation account for the fact that the pictures WERE available; but have since been removed?
Re:Google just sucks (Score:2)
by l0ungeb0y (442022) on Sunday November 07, @01:35PM (#10747505)
(http://www.musecube.com/l0ungeb0y/ | Last Journal: Monday February 09, @06:38PM)

No, that's not the case at all. Google had plenty of Abu Ghraib pics not too long ago. Now they are gone.

Take off your tinfoil hats! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749334)

Google's just using old information. It's not some giant government conspiracy. (I'm looking at you Taco.)

Oh no... (1, Funny)

mikael (484) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749341)

... now I need to update my p0rn collection...

Re:Oh no... (1)

tin foil hat dude (791617) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749672)

Does this belong in the YRO section?

is having fresh pr0n a right? or a priv?

Either way... (2, Funny)

Moofius.the.Cow (828077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749749)

...it's definately a perv.

Can you say dupe? (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749343)

Seriously why does this need a new story? What was wrong with the update posted to the previous article summary?

Re:Can you say dupe? (5, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749382)

Seriously why does this need a new story? What was wrong with the update posted to the previous article summary?

Because in journalism there's a tradition of printing retractions for mistakes made on page A1 on a future page A1 in order to give the takeback as much exposure as the mistake. Slashdot leveled a rather serious charge of censorship against Google that quickly was proven not to be true.

Furthermore, there's a new piece of news coming out of this mess: Google's being quite slow on the refresh of the image search database.

Where's The Apology?? (3, Insightful)

Pave Low (566880) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749521)

CmdrTaco knowingly and falsely insinuated that the Bush Administration and Karl Rove had something to do with this. Instead of saying "I'm sorry", michael just had to insert another bit of gratitutous Bush-bashing for no reason, and just noted that google is just slow to update.

Michael and the rest of the editors had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this lame and uncontrite retraction because it was so untrue.

If you pay him Michael will say anything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749567)

Just ask Roland!

Stop insinuating that Michael has any kind of principles!

Please give us an apology for doing so!

Re:Where's The Apology?? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749614)

Word. I don't think I have ever seen suck a clear-cut case of bias on any type of quasi-news site. Ever.

When they put that second anti-bush link in the retraction I was amazed.

Whatever. This was a cool site once as you could get info that wasn't generally known. The politics have always been lame but lately I think it's taking over any other use the site has. Does the anti-Bush crew not get that it just makes you all look weak and weaker the more and more you jam your sentiments into places they don't have relevance. Well, I guess you all did it with Linux ("Can't open the peanut butter? You should try Linux!") so you think it's okay to do with politics. Not that being raised wrong is any real excuse, but I guess the point is there really isn't any reason to expect that you will do any better.

Not that this is the only tech news site, of course ...

Re:Where's The Apology?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749702)

Not that this is the only tech news site, of course ...

This is a tech news site?!

Re:Can you say dupe? (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749527)

But Slashdot already printed a retraction on A1 in the original story while it was still there. In fact, it's only 5 stories down. Anyone who reads the /. homepage even semi-regularly would not miss it.

Sure, /. made a mistake but they already corrected it.

Re:Can you say dupe? (1)

Delta Vel (756242) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749560)

I missed it, and I read semi-regularly.

Re:Can you say dupe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749561)

It is far more responsible if Slashdot takes out the nessecary space to fess up and say "We were wrong" than to hide it away near the bottom of the page, where, despite what you think, most people will not see.

Re:Can you say dupe? (1)

mshiltonj (220311) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749577)

But this is slashdot! What does this thing you call "journalistic tradition" have to do with slashdot?

Re:Can you say dupe? (1)

contradyction (672874) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749576)

Seriously why does this need a new story? What was wrong with the update posted to the previous article summary?

When you wrongly accuse someone of doing something nasty with a front page article on a website that gets millions of hits a day it's only fair that you correct yourself on the with an article just as big. Newspapers and the like may not operate this way, but they should.

Not everyone reads old articles for updates (2, Insightful)

dj42 (765300) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749583)

Had I not happened to login to /. just now, I would have been left with a considerably worse impression of my favorite search engine than now because of the old story. The fact they even responded to slashdot demonstrates something to me. I used Altavista as my primary in the nineties since it came out, and only last year converted to Google. I still use many, but Google is my choice nowadays, and I'd hate to see them censoring. That would IMMEDIATELY cause me to switch search engines. The fact that the article was wrong is just as big as a story as the original, if not MORE significant, since the mistake could have mislead thousands upon thousands of readers.

Re:Not everyone reads old articles for updates (1)

kormoc (122955) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749768)

Google does censor some things, when you hit upon one tho, it says rather nicely that they can't allow you to do that and explain why, if it's a dmca violation or what not. I don't mind them censoring things as long as they tell you when they do.

Google not always a leader. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749355)

At least google isn't the best at everything!

It was the Jews (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749357)

Just because Slashdot says it doesn't make it true (5, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749360)

This just goes to show that /. groupthink isn't always on target, and Google isn't the all-spidering oracle we think it is either.

Google's image search is not to be confused with Google's news search. If you search for Lyndie England against the news search, one of the pictures in question comes up in a thumbnail next to the first set of results. Google had plently of coverage of the Abu Ghraib story on its news pages, and its web search also has plenty of coverage of the topic. If Google was intentionally censoring, you think they woulda tagged all their search engines in the process.

For Google to be 6-months or more behind on reindexing their image storage to me seems about right. The link rot on the image search is starting to get annoying, but we've seen worse from the likes of Alta Vista in the past. Webcrawling seems simple but it's a very bandwidth intense process, and that means it costs money. Image spidering is even more expensive because pictures take up a whole lot more bitspace than HTML docs.

So, move that Slashdot story from earlier today from the Censorship category to the Almighty Buck category. That's the real reason why the pictures weren't there.

It's been a problem for a while now (2, Informative)

hate_this_nick (699884) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749361)

I have been trying to update the picture that google images has of me, but for at elast 8 month google will index the html page and ignore the image. This is a new image, with new name etc.

Re:It's been a problem for a while now (-1, Troll)

rduke15 (721841) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749442)

This is a new image, with new name etc.

New name? Did you get a new gender as well?

Seo Competition (1)

g_bowskill (801731) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749366)

This explains why some people I know entering a google seo competition aren't having any luck with the google images part of the competition! Does anybody have any ideas/news/links to information so we have an idea if it is likely to be updated anytime soon? Also, does anyone know if its all images or if images from news sources get updated more regulary?

Did they think before they spoke? (-1, Troll)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749381)


It's as if Google managers said this:

"We were not trying to hide photos the Bush administration wants you to forget. We are just a poor quality search company."

Was I the only one who read that as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749402)

Did they think before they smoked?

Okay, I'm sure the answer to that is yes, but anyhow.. freudian slips are sometimes insightful if not insiteful.

Re:Did they think before they spoke? (1)

SimonShine (795915) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749677)

In spite of the lack of the politician garbage speech one could expect stating that it's not as bad as we think, they actually did replace the problem, I think, with one of less severity, and one that only requires technical competence to deal with.

Re:Did they think before they spoke? (2, Interesting)

flabbergast (620919) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749680)

Its better than trying to hide their mistakes. No matter what a company does today, they're going to get crap for it. So, let's say they don't they blame it on some obscure thing, or the DMCA or something equally idiotic. Then, all our friends here on /. jump up and say "That's so stoopid! My buddy and I could do a better job with a beowulf cluster!" But, when the company is transparent, as we like them to be, then we rail on them again for not being as cool as we thought they were.

Why so long? (5, Interesting)

moofdaddy (570503) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749383)

Anyone have any ideas why they would be updating their image index so infrequently? Could it be because of the size of the files they are dealing with?

Re:Why so long? (3, Insightful)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749684)

Because there is a LOT of stuff on the web?

If you don't like how the professional search engines work, you can always run your own spiders, I guess...

Google's got some bugs to work out (3, Interesting)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749391)

They have some bugs to work out. A search on "to be or not to be" typically produces from 2 to 3 error results in the first ten. That is, if you search on the phrase (including quotes) you get page results that do not contain the phrase.

Re:Google's got some bugs to work out (4, Interesting)

skraps (650379) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749447)

They also consider the text of links that point to a particular page. The search terms don't need to appear on the page.

where does it say this? (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749562)

Where does it say this? When I read the documentation, it mentioned that the "pages linked to" was used for ranking, not results.

I've seen bogus/irrelevant listings like this many times before in Google. Altavista results tend to be more relevant/accurate. However, there are much fewer of them.

Re:Google's got some bugs to work out (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749591)

If you view the cached page, you'll see a message in the header: "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: to be or not to be". That's how you can tell.

Re:Google's got some bugs to work out (2, Informative)

blether (817276) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749464)

That's not a bug. Suppose lots of sites link to page X, and many of the links contain the text "to be or not to be". Then Google will think page X has something to do with "to be or not to be", even if page X doesn't contain that text.

It is a bug. Check this out. (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749714)

From Google's own top-level documentation:

"To enter a query into Google, just type in a few descriptive words and hit the 'enter' key (or click on the Google Search button) for a list of relevant web pages. Since Google only returns web pages that contain all the words in your query, refining or narrowing your search is as simple as adding more words to the search terms you have already entered..."

Look at the emphasized words. It clearly states that the results will contain the query. They do... sometimes.

Re:Google's got some bugs to work out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749657)

Who doesn't? How can you expect one search engine to do everything perfectly with present technology?

Who doesn't? Here's who (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749674)

"Who doesn't? How can you expect one search engine to do everything perfectly with present technology?"

The technology is not rocket science. Altavista.com has returned 100% accurate/relevant results for years. It still does. Google has a lot more results, so I use it instead, but is it too much to ask for to filter out bogus/irrelevant results from the returns?

Rights? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749399)

Why is this "Your Rights On-Line"???

Since when does google have to do anything other than what they wish?

Lame...

dogpile.com? (4, Informative)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749401)


It is a fairly minimialist search engine that searches Google, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, About, LookSmart, Overture and FindWhat. I tried it a few times and find it occasionally returns a few more useful results than Google, and doesn't have an annoying clutter of ads.

(I supposed if it did I wouldn't know, I have mozilla configured to block even flash ads, and my firewall is configured to route most known ad servers to 127.0.0.1)

Wow... (5, Funny)

Moofius.the.Cow (828077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749407)

And here we were, expecting Google to deliver us the latest in free pr0n images and thumbnails, and it's been shafting us with old crap the entire time!

Yeah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749425)

So, uh, know any good up-to-date pr0n crawlers?

In other news (5, Funny)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749410)

The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!
Oh wait.
Nevermind.

non-story? (5, Informative)

mark_lybarger (199098) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749418)

(and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004)

maybe the mass media isn't covering the prision over there in the sandy beach, but it's not all quiet, and definately deserves attention of those not deployed over there.

americans are still dying every day in that prision (which is controled by the americans). american troops are deployed in and around that prision sometimes for months at a time with no productive mission other than to be deployed so a general or such can get another stripe on their shirt. this is what our tax dollars are being used for.

there's units that have their own cooks but can't use them due to contracts with another food supply "company". what are these cooks doing? not a damn thing. there's people who are budgeted for a years deployment, but have replacements aready there. what happens to these troops? they get re-deployed to another closer area. these aren't the full time troops either, these are the reservists who are being forced to sit on their arse in the desert.

by the way, there's policy in abu-grabib now that photos MUST have faces digitally distorted. meaning if a solder takes a photo of someone who's leg has been blown off, make sure there's no face in the picture. i'm not even sure if they're aloud to send photos out w/o permission these days.

sign up folks, it's in the name of democracy after all.

Re:non-story? (1, Insightful)

DankNinja (241851) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749453)


Hatred makes people believe that every problem is caused by the target of their hate. Hence, *everything* is a conspiracy. In all reality, the original story was just a ploy by Taco to bash US policy. Slashdot is slowly turning into a left-wing version of Fox.

Re:non-story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749478)

turning? I think it "turned" several years ago.

Re:non-story? (5, Insightful)

mitchus (797970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749587)

Slashdot is slowly turning into a left-wing version of Fox.
Yes, excellent comparison. Fox also allows critical discussion of the news in situ. Fox also updates erroneus news with immediate apologies. Last but not least, Fox viewers are also of above-average intellect and critical judgment.

the original story was just a ploy by Taco to bash US policy
Who had the tendency towards conspiracy theories again? :)

Re:non-story? (1)

DankNinja (241851) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749608)

When has slashdot ever not complained about the US?
(even pre-Bush)

Re:non-story? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749701)

Maybe they complained before, but it is only *after* Bush that criticism and free speech is frowned upon. I will report to my re-education center really soon now(tm).

Re:non-story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749499)

I know the parent spews a view commonly held here at /., but it IS offtopic.

Re:non-story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749517)

the topic (as brought up by the /. editor) is regarding abu grabhib's recent news attention.

To the world, it is the biggest story. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749506)

Those who vote for Bush are 100% sure that they are right, and will ignore even extreme examples of government corruption. United States soldiers have been armoring their own vehicles, for example.

Re:To the world, it is the biggest story. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749738)

Why do you hate America so much?

fp 7rol7kore (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749437)

thBis exploitation, has been my only

slashdot accomplishes something! (5, Interesting)

BortQ (468164) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749438)

I am pretty happy with the outcome of this story. Good on google for answering the allegations. Even when they must reveal some disparaging facts about their image search by doing so.

sniff (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749457)

...and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004...

Nothing like a little editorializing, eh? I'm feeling for you guys, I really am. Trust me.

Re:sniff (1)

chyllaxyn (592599) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749485)

*golf clap*
tru.dat

No Wonder Google Images Results are Always Broken (1)

thejackhmr (643947) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749459)

This absurd latency must explain why image results by Google's image search are regularly broken and missing.

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (5, Interesting)

mrbrown1602 (536940) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749481)

/. is always so quick to jump on anything that screams vast right wing conspiracy... and this time they got egg on their face. GOOD.

Re:Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749516)

Much of the media is pretty biased towards the left even though they are mostly owned by the right. I don't understand why we can't have non-partisan media.

Re:Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749703)

Much of the media is pretty biased towards the left even though they are mostly owned by the right. I don't understand why we can't have non-partisan media.

The same reason we buy hot coffee and iced soda -- there isn't much of a market for moderate viewpoints or tepid drinks.

Old index indeed... (5, Interesting)

Rgb465 (325668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749490)

If you do a google image search for "www.google.com", one of the first results you get is an image of Alyson Hannigan. That image resides on my server.

I havent the foggiest idea how that image got associated with the string "www.google.com", no why it would be ranked so high. I havent linked to that image directly in over a year, and only on a page that Google shouldnt be trowling for images anyhow.

BTW, a good 70% of the traffic to my server is people looking for that image.

Re:Old index indeed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749595)

::select:: ::rightclick:: ::"search with google images":: ::click:: ::click::

GAAAAAH!

Erik Estrada BAD!

Re:Old index indeed... (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749612)

BTW, a good 70% of the traffic to my server is people looking for that image.
Understandably!

As your page points out though, an out of date image search can have very dire consequences....

What? (2, Insightful)

VivianC (206472) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749497)

The Abu Ghraib story broke in April 2004 (and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004)

How did this become a non-story? Are you saying that the press will no longer keep running it since it no longer helps Kerry? Did Bush pardon the soldiers involved? Were the prisoners freed and given settlements? Maybe it's a non-story now for the media, but it is still a story for those involved and for everyone smeared by the broad brush.

It's michael, ignore him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749519)

He was inserting his political bias where it didn't belong, as usual. Basically he's saying that since Bush was re-elected, it's not important.

Re:It's michael, ignore him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749541)

No kidding. Slashdot needs to get rid of some of its political propaganda drones(Taco and Michael). I'm sick of all of the Yellow Journalism.

Re:It's michael, ignore him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749760)

Yeah Taco will leave Slashdot for sure. Next time you hope Ballmer and Gates leave Microsoft while a certain Mr. Torvalds gets a keyboard allergy.

Why didn't you write your opinion honest and and said in plain english: Dissent is unpatriotic. Bush is our supreme leader and those who disagree should be removed from their jobs, by force if neccessary and not be able to reach a wide audience.

Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein President. This free speech zone was brought to you courtesy of Lynndie England.

Re:What? (1)

trolman (648780) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749747)

How did this become a non-story?

Because michael cannot use this type of propaganda to change voter opinion any longer.

General elections were Nov 2nd.

E'4! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749518)

sta[gnaNt. As Linux

From the 'article' (1)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749529)

(very end) - Almost any picture of Morgan Webb on your website will draw at least 2,000 hits per month. Too bad that doesn't help any who don't already have a photo since Google hasn't udpated in seven months. Oh well.

Egg on all your faces.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749530)

Every one of you kept yelling censorship despite those of us who thought there would be a far more logical reason for the lack of images..

Maybe you all could do a bit with some logic and reason and less paranoia?

(PS - I'm not a republican and voted against Bush, if that matters to you)

Re:Egg on all your faces.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749557)

It doesn't matter. If you criticize anyone criticizing Bush, for any reason, you are automatically censored on slashdot.

Time to vote with our feet... (1)

Morosoph (693565) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749532)

To quote myself here [slashdot.org] :
Customers need to be able to make informed choices, and in this case there is flagged a strong possibility of censorship. Or incompetence in that their engine really should have picked these up.

Either way, it's valuable information. People know that Google is less likely to be able to find images that they wish to locate, and this is the kind of feedback that consumers need to be able to make rational decisions.

I'd suggest that using an alternative image search is likely to bring you better results :-)

non-story? (-1, Flamebait)

fermion (181285) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749551)

and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004

I think it still is a story. It is just that 51% of the U.S. citizens, many of whom are assumed to call themselves christians, care more about who marries who than whether the US is living up to Jesus's expectations of not torturing people. Or did all those people not go and see the passion? Or did that movie merely validate torture? I wonder how many of those voters have broken their promise to god with a divorce?

Re:non-story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749588)

I think it is more simple than that; a lot of moderates who were potential Kerry voters probably got turned off by all of the bitter anti-bush stuff.
(Michael Moore,et al). The fact that if you don't like Kerry means you are automatically labeled a right-wing fundamentalist doesn't sit well with some people.

Re:non-story? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749711)

I completely understand that. But a vote for Bush is a vote against human rights. It wasn't true in 2000, but it is true today. He is ignoring the geneva convention and siding with the bigoted folks against a fellow group of humans. It is the same thing as when the Baptists broke apart because they could't stand to be in the same room as a nigger.

If one could not vote for Kerry, that does not mean that one had to vote for Bush. 1 or 2% shift to independents would have still likely given bush the election, but he would not have a mandate.

I am sorry, but in the same way that bush labels all liberal as people who waste money and are soft on crime, I feel perfectly willing to label all Bush supporters as haters and soft on drugs and willing to sell thier sell out thier own country if there is a profit in it.

Yuo F!ail It (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749564)

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749571)

Someone went to the effort to actualy proove this?

Ever hear of plausible deniability? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749573)

Here you go, [wikipedia.org] if not.

HTH

But wait, if Google's index is this bad ... (0)

YetAnotherName (168064) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749606)

... do we have a right to now say, "Google is teh sux0rz?" (Somehow, I don't think so, especially since "to google" is now a verb and all. We'll all get through Google's slow index, somehow, be it through community support, religion, outreach groups, or otherwise.)

Taco, You Lazy Slut (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749615)

Put down the fanzines and do some actual work, eh? Or just resign; it's better than this half-assed job you've been doing since you were bought out. Jeezus H. Christ, you are an embarassment to the industry. You make Katz look like Woodstein. I cringe for you, you are so frickin' lazy! And I thought _I_ was lazy. Slopp, sloppy, sloppy, you are just plain sloppy and lazy.

Can't I moderate a Slashdot article (-1, Redundant)

mpw2k (538410) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749643)

-1 Redundant

Re:Can't I moderate a Slashdot article (1)

mpw2k (538410) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749673)

Wow, that was the "perfect" moderation.

Re:Can't I moderate a Slashdot article (1)

KenBot_314 (744719) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749753)

should be -1, Troll for
...and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004...

Slashback? (1, Offtopic)

schmiddy (599730) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749683)

Whatever happened to that feature "Slashback", where updates to older stories would all be posted together in a condensed form.

I know this is probably a little offtopic and I'll get modded as such, but I'd very much like for this feature to be brought back. I don't think an update to a few-hours old story like this demands its own front page story -- especially when the main story even says "Update" and links to Chris D's comment. Same goes for the "X prize paid" story.. why should it be news that the X prize group actually paid up the money, they've publicly acknowledged on their site that SS1 won the prize for some time now.

Keep the clutter off the main page and save it for real stories.

Glad to have the facts. (1)

Slavinski (713970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749698)


I am no conspiracy theorist so I am glad to have the
facts before rushing to any judgement. Score 1 for research.

The Slashdot story rules (5, Funny)

michaeldot (751590) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749710)

Since the editors seem to have momentarily forgotten:

  1. Google, Apple, Novell are the good evil corporate conglomerates.
  2. Microsoft, SCO, MPAA are the bad evil corporate conglomerates.
  3. Profit!

What?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749724)

I don't believe this for five seconds. I am sure I've been able to pull images of L England out of Google Images before, for a photoshop competition or something similar. Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?

Re:What?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749741)

For the fifty millionth time... Google Images uses images from Google News while they're in the index. So while a story is happening, you can find current event images. Once they expire from the News index, though, you have to wait for Images to re-index them and that is slow.

Huh what? (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749731)

The Abu Ghraib story broke in April 2004 (and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004)

To simpletons in the American electorate, that might be true. But, if anything, Nov 2nd made the story much more relevant to about a billion muslims who view it as proof positive that the current US government may talk a good story, but where it counts, in real life, their actions are a whole lot different.

Flamebait redux (1)

DanielMarkham (765899) | more than 9 years ago | (#10749757)

I asked two questions in my posting on the first slashdot article

1) What does the way slashdot runs their search engine have to do with the administration? Answer: nothing.

2) Does someone have an automated search engine tester?

I'd still like to see the answer to the second question. Now that we have a vast army of search engines competing for our use, who is going to rate and rank them?

Google's indexing problems look like a great opportunity for some of the other engines.

Slashdot biased? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10749762)

Isn't it funny how Slashdot is so quick to assume that the Bush administration is sensoring something of which they have absolutely no control over?

I suppose Slashdot is just another liberal propaganda machine taking tips from CBS.

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>