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."
Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Oh grow up. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (Score:1, Insightful)
Bullshit. You can still search for whatever you want, you just need to specify that yes you really do want THOSE kind of images. I think this is a good thing. It shouldn't be easy to end up with porn in your search results by accident.
Re: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.
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.
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.
Re:Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a sad day when I have to switch to bing.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It is filtering out wikipedia content (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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:Oh grow up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn it, that takes away my plausible deniability. :)
Re:Relieved (Score:2, Insightful)
Google needs to get their ass in gear or they can go fuck themselves. Nobody will be using their services.