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 544963
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Totally Predictable...
by galvanash on Thu 13th Dec 2012 06:50 UTC
Member since:

The reaction to this is just ridiculous. Google wants to target the largest audience they can, this is going to be popular with at least 75% of their user base - the highly vocal minority of course is going to scream bloody murder because they will (irrationally) think their rights are being violated or something, or that this is a form of censorship - not bothering to actually stop and think about why Google is doing this...

Im sorry to break it to you, but Google forcing you to add the word "porn" to you searches in oder to actually see stuff that is deemed by most people to be pornographic is NOT infringing your rights. That is all you have to do... add the word "porn". Is that really such a burden?

Its a practical solution to a real problem. This isn't about censorship or about "the children" - its about ensuring that it is difficult to accidentally get search results that might be objectionable to some people. That is the ENTIRE point, keeping people form accidentally getting porn in their results. SafeSearch does not accomplish this, because it is a global flag - sometimes you want porn, but that doesn't mean you want your computer to ALWAYS display it (even when you kids are using it)... Its a sensible default with a simple override.

It is the equivalent of having to type "rm -f" when deleting a file- you add -f when you are sure that is what you want. Same thing here. Add "porn" when you are sure that is what you want.

ps. Im an atheist. I have kids, but Im not at all a prude (and this will work for like 2 more hours to keep kids from the porn anyway - they will figure it out before most of the adults do). Even still, this makes total sense to me and I don't see any problem with it at all.

Mod me down if you like.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Totally Predictable...
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 15th Dec 2012 05:12 in reply to "Totally Predictable..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:

"Tittyfucking porn" sound a bit... overstated and redundant, doesn't it?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Totally Predictable...
by galvanash on Sat 15th Dec 2012 08:29 in reply to "RE: Totally Predictable..."
galvanash Member since:

Did you even try? If you are explicit enough, and "tittyfucking" is pretty explicit, you don't need to add a qualifier at all - it works as is (assuming safeSearch is turned off).

The algorithm may not be perfect, but it is pretty good. Words that may have non-pornographic meanings (for example, "fuck" is commonly used as an expletive) are handled by default in a manner to filter out pornographic content, you have to be more specific in order to get them to return pornography

For example, "stupid fuck" filters out almost all porn images (although a few get through), "redhead fuck" doesn't - lots of porn!

Is that really so bothersome? I really think everyone has just had a knee-jerk reaction to this feature - it is actually quite logical to me, no politics involved...

Reply Parent Score: 2