Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Dec 2012 22:03 UTC
Google A change to anything related to Google Search - the product so many of us rely on - is never going to go by unnotoced. This time around, Google has altered Image Search for US users to alter the way it handles that ever so important aspect of the web - adult content.
Permalink for comment 545009
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: About time
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 13th Dec 2012 11:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: About time"
Member since:

(2) is a scientific term. It won't get you any porn, unless Google explicitly substitutes a more colloquial term. I'd have though you would get mainly medical journal and sex manuals.

Yes, but my point was that you cannot get any more blunt and downright to the point than that. And the space? Come on--it's highly common to be spelled both ways, so no matter what at least a few pictures should pop up.

(3) I'd never think to use that term to search for sex related issues. It's not the usual word we use in the UK. I'd actually use minge, vag, fanny, c*nt or twat (though twat is more used as an insult.)

On the Google site for the United States, before this change, if you just typed in "pussy" with the censoring turned off, almost everything would be be nudity and sexual. Now... there's still no cats, and none of the "other" pussy, but the results are now loaded with pictures of fully-clothed women and other random crap--which doesn't make sense in either sense of the word. No, no clothed crotch shots that I could find in my 25 seconds testing their newly-neutered image search function either.

(4) sounds like a child's term to me. We use "tits". I'd have gone with norks, boobs, nips.

Tits, titties, boobs, boobies, hooters, jugs, melons, rack, breasts--whatever, there are countless slang words and they're all referring to the same thing. And unlike jugs, melons and rack, titties should be obvious enough to the point that something relevant shows up.

(5) nipslip would be the more helpful term, surely?

The intention was, if "titties" shows clothed ones with covered nipples, then surely "nipples" should result in actual, uncovered nipples. But even that didn't work. Plus, nipslips are not even porn; I was specifically using words that would normally be guaranteed to result in tons of nudity and actual porn. Searching for nipslips wouldn't be a very good way of putting the new engine to the test.

Ironically, if you add "naked" or "nude" to any single one of the search terms I've tried, you will in fact have struck the porn jackpot, and pictures that are expected (for the most part) will dominate the results. Additionally you will get a different set of images depending on the modifier you use, but it'll pretty much all porn. But is it really necessary to complicate things and make it seem to "not work" to anyone actually seeking this stuff? This new image search simply doesn't work as it's expected (put another way, it doesn't work how it should), no explanation why not, and again--no option to bring common sense functionality back.

Clearly the search terms I tested (potential exception: pussy, due to multiple meanings) are perfectly descriptive to be found with the "naked" and "nude" modifiers, which just confirms once again that Google is trying to censor the Web for their users. Yes, even "fellatio" with these modifiers works, though as expected don't expect to find much decent ("blowjob" returns poor results too, though).

Edited 2012-12-13 11:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3