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.
Thread beginning with comment 544885
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
About time
by MightyPenguin on Wed 12th Dec 2012 22:47 UTC
MightyPenguin
Member since:
2005-11-18

Children and adults should not have to wade through explicit content they are not looking for. Kudos.

Reply Score: 8

RE: About time
by Jutsu on Wed 12th Dec 2012 22:58 in reply to "About time"
Jutsu Member since:
2006-02-22

You have SafeSearch for that. I'm not sure how this will pan out, it'll depend on the explicit vs safe terms, I guess.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: About time
by henderson101 on Thu 13th Dec 2012 09:52 in reply to "RE: About time"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

+1. Safe search is also on by default. What we don't need, as adults, is hand holding by the Pilgrim Fathers. Is Google now going to extend this to Youtube and all the Girlies making FAP-bait titillation videos to get hits and drive their ranks/income with little or no real talent? e.g. channels like:

http://www.youtube.com/user/iwantmylauren
http://www.youtube.com/user/MissHannahMinx

I don't care that they exist, I don't care that they are mainly used by teenaged boys to fap at, but where do you draw the line?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: About time
by Delgarde on Wed 12th Dec 2012 23:06 in reply to "About time"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Yes, as a default, hiding adult material is just sensible. Yes, you can make arguments about censorship and overly-sensitive attitudes, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that no parent wants their kids accidentally finding porn because they went looking for pictures of cats...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: About time
by Neolander on Thu 13th Dec 2012 06:53 in reply to "RE: About time"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Yes, as a default, hiding adult material is just sensible. Yes, you can make arguments about censorship and overly-sensitive attitudes, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that no parent wants their kids accidentally finding porn because they went looking for pictures of cats...

Blame the designers of modern English for putting two meanings on the word "pussy" ;) No search engine will ever fix that without some HEAVY censor.

(Actually, in French, we also have a cat-related word with extra meanings, makes me wonder if associating cats with sex is a general feature of European languages... or if it's just because we have spent so much time fighting with the Brits that we have ended up stealing some language constructs along with the women and booty.)

Edited 2012-12-13 06:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: About time
by fmaxwell on Fri 14th Dec 2012 18:11 in reply to "RE: About time"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

Yes, you can make arguments about censorship and overly-sensitive attitudes, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that no parent wants their kids accidentally finding porn because they went looking for pictures of cats...


I'm sick and tired of all of the "think of the children!" whining. If you're so damned concerned that you kid might see something sexual, then don't leave them to crawl the Internet unsupervised. It wasn't created for children.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: About time
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 12th Dec 2012 23:28 in reply to "About time"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

But what if someone clearly shows their intent by, for example, searching "blowjob?" You can't get much more exact in what you want to search for unless you try the more scientific term "fellatio." In either search, you will get next to nothing relevant to the search query and there is nothing in the options to correct this.

Try typing "pussy" and not only will you not see what most adult men think about when they think of the word pussy, you won't even get any pictures of cats! What a joke. Failing "titties," even typing "nipples" will bring up next to nothing. I don't use Google to look up porn myself (there are much better sites and ways of obtaining it), but I have always been 100% against censorship.

If the religious people don't want to view this stuff, fine, but to be pushing this censorship onto everyone that uses the U.S. Google search site to search is bullshit. There is not even an option to get rid of this offensive behavior. If there was (as there in fact was before this crippling update), there would be no problem.

Edited 2012-12-12 23:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: About time
by Morgan on Thu 13th Dec 2012 03:28 in reply to "RE: About time"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

...I have always been 100% against censorship. If the religious people don't want to view this stuff, fine, but to be pushing this censorship onto everyone that uses the U.S. Google search site to search is bullshit. There is not even an option to get rid of this offensive behavior. If there was (as there in fact was before this crippling update), there would be no problem.


I'm with you 100% on this. While I don't care to see boobs mixed in with normal image searches, I don't think Google should be this aggressive about it. I can be my own net nanny, thank you.

Of course, there are other search engines out there...until Google swallows them up anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: About time
by henderson101 on Thu 13th Dec 2012 10:08 in reply to "RE: About time"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30


(1)"blowjob?"
(2)"fellatio."
(3)"pussy"
(4)"titties,"
(5)"nipples"


Terminology is also an issue here.

(1) is pretty universal. But is it blowjob or blow job? I bet the two get different results.
(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.
(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.)
(4) sounds like a child's term to me. We use "tits". I'd have gone with norks, boobs, nips.
(5) nipslip would be the more helpful term, surely?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: About time
by andydread on Thu 13th Dec 2012 10:12 in reply to "RE: About time"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

But what if someone clearly shows their intent by, for example, searching "blowjob?" You can't get much more exact in what you want to search for unless you try the more scientific term "fellatio." In either search, you will get next to nothing relevant to the search query and there is nothing in the options to correct this.

Try typing "pussy" and not only will you not see what most adult men think about when they think of the word pussy, you won't even get any pictures of cats! What a joke. Failing "titties," even typing "nipples" will bring up next to nothing. I don't use Google to look up porn myself (there are much better sites and ways of obtaining it), but I have always been 100% against censorship.

If the religious people don't want to view this stuff, fine, but to be pushing this censorship onto everyone that uses the U.S. Google search site to search is bullshit. There is not even an option to get rid of this offensive behavior. If there was (as there in fact was before this crippling update), there would be no problem.



Yep I did a search for pussy and did not even get any cats and nothing explicit unless you want to call the pic of Jesus giving the finger explicit. Next I put NSFW in front of the word pussy and woaaaa. I didn't get cats but lots and lots of pussy pics. Next I tried the search term "pussy hole" and that was noting but pure porn pics even more explicit results than "NSFW pussy". I also tried the term "creampie" That result was noting but porn purely explicit "creampie" pics. a search for doggie style returns mixed results but no XXX stuff however putting the word porn before doggie style and you get exactly what you searched for nothing but XXX doggie style....interesting. Its seems a bit inconsistent because the term "creampie" returned purely explicit pics without having to put "porn" or "NSFW" in the search
edit: Similarly a search for "cuckold" reveals nothing but changing the term to "wife cuckold" and you get exactly that XXX wife cuckold and nothing else.

Edited 2012-12-13 10:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: About time
by siraf72 on Fri 14th Dec 2012 14:48 in reply to "About time"
siraf72 Member since:
2006-02-22

Spot on!

It's far too easy to stumble on adult content without even trying to. I think anyone who has kids will welcome this.

Edited 2012-12-14 14:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: About time
by fmaxwell on Fri 14th Dec 2012 18:15 in reply to "About time"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

Children and adults should not have to wade through explicit content they are not looking for. Kudos.


Children and adults should not have to wade through religious content they are not looking for, but I don't see you arguing that Google should be blocking images of Jesus Christ being tortured to death.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: About time
by antwarrior on Mon 17th Dec 2012 13:27 in reply to "About time"
antwarrior Member since:
2006-02-11

I sort of agree. If you reduce the argument to that of protecting a child and making it slightly harder for adults to find pornography ( which they have every right to), then I am for controls. I don't think the changes have made it more difficult to find adult material and the debate over synonyms is a bit silly (IMHO)...

Reply Parent Score: 1