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 544892
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: About time
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 12th Dec 2012 23:28 UTC 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[3]: About time
by danger_nakamura on Thu 13th Dec 2012 22:41 in reply to "RE[2]: About time"
danger_nakamura Member since:
2011-06-21

While I don't care to see boobs mixed in with normal image searches


Speak for yourself! :-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

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[3]: About time
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 13th Dec 2012 11:28 in reply to "RE[2]: About time"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

(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

RE[3]: About time
by Gone fishing on Thu 13th Dec 2012 11:43 in reply to "RE[2]: About time"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

.(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)


Odd your English and you think c*nt is so obscene you censored it.

Sorry after posting I find it was OSnews

Thom OSnews is censoring C.U.N.T


Edited 2012-12-13 11:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

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[3]: About time
by henderson101 on Thu 13th Dec 2012 22:16 in reply to "RE[2]: About time"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

I got Jesus with "moderate on" (my usual setting), but with Safe search off, I get all the trimmings on the UK pages.

Reply Parent Score: 2