Google adjusts image search, won't show porn unless you ask for it

[BrianBosworth]

Google's tweaked its SafeSearch filter today — a feature that allows users to prevent explicit content from appearing in search results — making it less likely for some queries to return pornographic content. The change left many users confused and upset earlier today after the company appeared to be blocking explicit images even for users who have SafeSearch turned off. The change to image search requires users to be more specific when requesting explicit content, and now presents them with a pop-up warning if Google detects that a user is searching for explicit content for the first time.

The difference in search results is apparent when comparing Google's new image search algorithm to other browsers, and also to some of Google's international sites (like Google's German image search site, for example), which have not been updated with the new search rules. The Verge performed several cross-search engine tests and discovered that Google's new results are, in fact, quite different;

Google adjusts image search, won't show porn unless you ask for it (update) | The Verge

Google No Longer Allows You to Disable SafeSearch, and That Makes Google Search Worse | WebProNews

[SealLion]

Sometimes some forms of censorship are not a bad thing.

[SBfreak]

Good thing.I hate it when I try doing some work and google images just throws tits at me.

[slikrapid]

a few things:
- you think google cares about your kids and would go to such lengths to help out? think again
- you think google is concerned about an abundance of pornographic material in its search results? think again
- you think google is interested in providing you with the most relevant/objective search results? think again
- you think google manipulates search results due to high moral standards? think again
- you think such manipulation will benefit you and doesn't have an ulterior motive? think again

- did you notice its a form of censorship with a seemingly benevolent cause (remember losing freedoms for a little false security?)
- did you notice its a flawed solution from the start, ie. hyped & pretty much useless for the officially stated purpose (somehow i don't think they do it for the publicity alone)
- did you notice its again an opt-out adjustment (not opt-in as it should be, meaning default should be: show-all, optional: show-less)
- and a little history lesson with the last comment below:


some interesting comments:

It should be neither, “boobs” should give you the most RELEVANT results to that keyword. Period. Adding clothed, porn, or nude means it is searching for images that have those words along with boobs. That is NOT relevant to just “boobs.” And if its a switch to include explicit images then theyve just destroyed the relevant results for “boobs porn” which should be completely different than the generic results for just “boobs”

Also look up something specific like a porn star name or a title to a movie, it strips out all the relevant results and gives you a bunch of garbage nobody would ever search for (like family photos are some random picture of a truck). The term I searched for that wasnt explicit but very specific gave me a whopping 3 images of pictures of an arrow, a wedding, and clipart of a cartoon dog, going to Bing it had pages of what I meant, Google wasnt pushing the “relevant” stuff to the top, it was taking it all out completely.

It is chinese style censorship no matter how you look at it.

You have to be signed in though, meaning they store your filthy searches.

They are filtering results even if Safesearch is off. There is a way to stop filtering but its very confusingly worded almost as bad as Apple’s ad tracking verbiage. Also even with the filtering off the search needs to be explicit to bring up any adult content!

But by adding “porn” to a search term, you’re unnecessarily narrowing your search down to only images contained in sites that Google knows are labeled in its system as porn. And that would automatically exclude probably many of the most useful sites (fan sites, forums that allow explicit images, etc.).

The question is what “explicit” means for Google.
...
This point is being ignored. As well as porn these kind of “kid-friendly” filters have a history of blocking things like educational or “fringe” material

btw,
@SealLion: agreed
@SBfreak: its not the proper thread for that, but you're banned for being such a tit-magnet (at least for the virtual ones hehehe )