Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Google has altered SafeSearch. Pray they don't alter it further   (news.cnet.com ) divider line 271
    More: Stupid, Safesearch, search algorithms, Google Images, e-book reader  
•       •       •

22273 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Dec 2012 at 8:35 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



271 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-12 08:15:59 PM  
GIS may never be the same.
 
2012-12-12 08:27:58 PM  
I just noticed that. I am disappoint.
 
2012-12-12 08:37:42 PM  
Puritans FTW!
 
2012-12-12 08:38:11 PM  
To No Boobs
 
2012-12-12 08:38:46 PM  
Maybe now people will use Bing.
 
2012-12-12 08:38:54 PM  
To TYwelve.
 
2012-12-12 08:39:08 PM  
The company says the move is designed to ensure adult content is shown only to those who explicitly request it.

Nicely done.
 
2012-12-12 08:39:18 PM  
Sooooo. . .

Anyone got info on a good search engine that isn't run by a douchebag company?
 
2012-12-12 08:39:55 PM  
To the Chron-O-John! Bing!
 
2012-12-12 08:40:17 PM  
But slutty Asian cum junkies still returns the appropriate pics
 
2012-12-12 08:40:19 PM  
But, but, how will I still have plausible denial?
 
2012-12-12 08:40:38 PM  
It's about time Google put the Jesus (and possibly Mohamed) back in GIS.
 
2012-12-12 08:40:42 PM  
I'd post the "Challenge Accepted" pic, but GIS is failing me.
 
2012-12-12 08:40:49 PM  
So now I can't search for random word combinations to see what kind of porn it'll turn up? Damn you, Mountain View Chocolate Factory.
 
2012-12-12 08:40:54 PM  

EnglishMan: Maybe now people will use Bing.


Or perhaps DuckDuckGo will develop an adult version...
 
2012-12-12 08:41:06 PM  
GIS for "Jesus farking Christ" will never be the same
 
2012-12-12 08:41:31 PM  
In other news, Tumblr is down, leaving thousands without a date tonight.
 
2012-12-12 08:43:18 PM  

Peki: Sooooo. . .

Anyone got info on a good search engine that isn't run by a douchebag company?


AskJeeves
 
2012-12-12 08:43:38 PM  
makes it tougher to stumble across adult pictures, whether or not you're searching for them.

This is pretty farking stupid. If you're doing a search for pussy, chances are you're NOT looking for 528,000,000 images of Pussy Riot.
 
2012-12-12 08:43:47 PM  
In other news, Booble and Jughunter shares skyrocket.
 
2012-12-12 08:43:55 PM  
GIS for Anne Hathaway came back null. So sad.
 
2012-12-12 08:44:30 PM  

Kuroshin: I'd post the "Challenge Accepted" pic, but GIS is failing me.


That's not a challenge.

*)
 
2012-12-12 08:44:50 PM  
R.I.P. Google. You're no use to anyone anymore.
 
2012-12-12 08:46:54 PM  
Combined with the "improved" search filters (let's get rid of exact image size searches!), this is turning into a pile of suck.
 
2012-12-12 08:48:04 PM  
RIP rule 34
2009-2012
 
mjg
2012-12-12 08:48:37 PM  
Google is for losers.

Moved over to DuckDuckGo.com and haven't looked back.
 
2012-12-12 08:48:39 PM  

Canton: The company says the move is designed to ensure adult content is shown only to those who explicitly request it.

Nicely done.


Also: "where it wants users to work a bit harder.

/hehe
 
2012-12-12 08:50:34 PM  

WhippingBoy: R.I.P. Google. You're no use to anyone anymore.


Amen. Just like my cable service (we're old, not hip) that censors and bleeps broadcasts to a two adult household. Sometimes I feel life is not worth living.
 
2012-12-12 08:51:47 PM  
That's fine with me.

When I use Google, I'm usually not looking for porn, I'm looking for other things. It's not like there's any shortage of porn on the Internet!

Oh my, where can I possibly find porn now?
 
2012-12-12 08:52:34 PM  

phrawgh: It's about time Google put the Jesus (and possibly Mohamed) back in GIS.


Well, Mohammed was only into kiddie porn. Glad my diety didn't pick a kiddie diddler as his prophet.

Religion of (a 12 year old) piece!
 
2012-12-12 08:52:35 PM  
And in other news, Drew still hasn't added a discreet Foobies.com link to the Fark main page. And Foobies has great content.
 
2012-12-12 08:52:56 PM  
I didn't read the article but i think Im going to join the herd and say this sounds dumb, just from pieced together comments.

/lazy and watching A.H.S
 
2012-12-12 08:53:27 PM  

kendelrio: Canton: The company says the move is designed to ensure adult content is shown only to those who explicitly request it.

Nicely done.

Also: "where it wants users to work a bit harder.

/hehe


//p.s. i am capable of working the filters...*)
 
2012-12-12 08:53:32 PM  
No change, image search for "subby's mom nude' still shows a naked fat woman.
 
2012-12-12 08:56:17 PM  

bmihura: When I use Google, I'm usually not looking for porn, I'm looking for other things.



Like what? Porn?
 
2012-12-12 08:57:33 PM  
Also, doesn't this kind of defeat the whole purpose of safe search? I thought the point of turning it off was to find "explicit" images?
 
2012-12-12 08:57:49 PM  
Search for porn using Google Image Search today and you might not find much.

usasoccerstud.com
 
2012-12-12 08:58:23 PM  
I do not comprehend the objections to this move, especially as regards puritanical interests, which Google is not an advocate of nor biased for. This simply lessens the ability to accidentally view pornography. If someone wants to view naked people farking with each other or animals or whatnot, type precisely that in, the same as one would do with anything else.
 
2012-12-12 08:58:40 PM  

MarkMartinFan: No change, image search for "subby's mom nude' still shows a naked fat woman.


Oh lol.
 
2012-12-12 08:59:03 PM  
Actually that seems like a pretty decent feature. Not everyone is a porn hound, you guys.

I mean, well, everyone reading this is a porn hound. I meant other people. The "squares". Your Mom, for example. Ok bad example. Your Mom probably surfs for porn all day. But you know what I mean.
 
2012-12-12 08:59:31 PM  
If only Google would search for what I actually type instead of anything it feels like I might have meant, usually while ignoring the most important words. Having to specify exact words and inclusion every time gets to be a bit much, and even then it often ignores specifically included words. Perhaps if I were illiterate it'd be easier.

/Any regular web search term plus "TGP"
 
2012-12-12 08:59:40 PM  

Skywolf Philosopher: I do not comprehend the objections to this move, especially as regards puritanical interests, which Google is not an advocate of nor biased for. This simply lessens the ability to accidentally view pornography. If someone wants to view naked people farking with each other or animals or whatnot, type precisely that in, the same as one would do with anything else.


It's the principle of the thing.
 
2012-12-12 09:00:44 PM  

WhippingBoy: It's the principle of the thing.


What do you expect principals to do all day?
 
2012-12-12 09:00:45 PM  

Begoggle: RIP rule 34
2009-2012


For all your rule34 needs

/do I really need to say NSFW?
 
2012-12-12 09:00:57 PM  
To principal
 
2012-12-12 09:01:33 PM  

Skywolf Philosopher: WhippingBoy: It's the principle of the thing.

What do you expect principals to do all day?


Gotcha.
 
2012-12-12 09:02:23 PM  
Because I have such a difficult time finding porn on the internet.... Is there a bet on when porn on the internet will surpass the 50% mark of all content on the internet, or has it already happened?
 
2012-12-12 09:03:49 PM  
Hopefully someday they can make separate filters for gay and straight pr0n.
 
2012-12-12 09:03:54 PM  

Jument: Actually that seems like a pretty decent feature. Not everyone is a porn hound, you guys.

I mean, well, everyone reading this is a porn hound. I meant other people. The "squares". Your Mom, for example. Ok bad example. Your Mom probably surfs for porn all day. But you know what I mean.


Some people turn all the lights out, close the curtains, take the phone off the hook, turn the monitor, and peek out to make sure no one notices. Some people check /d/ on their 72" TV while blaring porn sound effects. But everyone, everywhere, eventually seeks porn on the internet.
 
2012-12-12 09:04:07 PM  

aremmes: So now I can't search for random word combinations to see what kind of porn it'll turn up? Damn you, Mountain View Chocolate Factory.


I have come across nekkid wimminz through Google image searches on several occasions while trying to find something completely unrelated. I don't really care as long as I'm on my home/work at home computers, but I'd be kinda pissed if that happened while on a school or work computer. You can get in tons of trouble for that (as I'm sure we're all aware).
 
2012-12-12 09:04:12 PM  

KungFuJunkie: Because I have such a difficult time finding porn on the internet.... Is there a bet on when porn on the internet will surpass the 50% mark of all content on the internet, or has it already happened?


It's never been less than 50%. The internet was invented for porn.
 
2012-12-12 09:04:14 PM  
Now I'm going to have to add "naked" to all my searches.

Just in case.
 
2012-12-12 09:04:21 PM  
Sounds like if I search for "tits" I still get tits, but if I search for "little red riding hood" I don't get porn.

I don't see the problem here.
 
2012-12-12 09:04:45 PM  
you just may need to be more explicit in your query if your search terms are potentially ambiguous.

C'mon, I just want to fap to it, I don't want to have to talk about it. It was working fine when my search terms were how about a little somethin' somethin' or yeah Google you know what I like you nasty minx.

If I have to be all explicit and properly format it like site:http://transformermidgets.com vintage bdsm "age 40..60" -"herve villechaize" it takes me out of the mood.
 
2012-12-12 09:06:09 PM  
I just noticed that Bing's "nice tits" has a lot better results than Google's "nice tits" all of a sudden.

Maybe Bing is good for something after all.
 
2012-12-12 09:06:33 PM  

natmar_76: Sounds like if I search for "tits" I still get tits, but if I search for "little red riding hood" I don't get porn.

I don't see the problem here.


Really?
 
2012-12-12 09:07:29 PM  

Peki: Sooooo. . .

Anyone got info on a good search engine that isn't run by a douchebag company?


duckduckgo

They don't build personal search filters, so if you call a friend and say 'search for spam duck heritage overture' they will get exactly the same results as you.

They also don't track, so you don't see ads for Taylor Swift popping up on the computer you share with your kid. Or your kid won't see ads for BBC cuckolds I guess.
 
2012-12-12 09:08:14 PM  

mjg: Google is for losers.

Moved over to DuckDuckGo.com and haven't looked back.


Sorry, I didn't notice you had it covered.
 
2012-12-12 09:08:52 PM  

Shrinkwrap: Combined with the "improved" search filters (let's get rid of exact image size searches!), this is turning into a pile of suck.


And the dilution of quotes... adding in "or" if your search returns no results as an "and" query.

Remember when google was a raw interface for geeks?
 
2012-12-12 09:09:11 PM  

Bacontastesgood: They also don't track, so you don't see ads for Taylor Swift popping up on the computer you share with your kid. Or your kid won't see ads for BBC cuckolds I guess.


I think it's the other way around...
 
2012-12-12 09:09:58 PM  
BTW this has got to be great for ornithologists.
 
2012-12-12 09:11:11 PM  

natmar_76: Sounds like if I search for "tits" I still get tits, but if I search for "little red riding hood" I don't get porn.

I don't see the problem here.


Actually if you search for tits you don't get tits, well, not naked ones anyway. It's basically what you used to get if you had safe search turned on.
 
2012-12-12 09:12:54 PM  
I noticed this today also.
Now if you do a search for a porn star, you have to add "porn" or something similar after the name to get to the good stuff.
Safe Search is now ON BY DEFAULT, even if you have it turned off.
This blows.
Why can't they give you an option to have it OFF by default?
Don't they know that the internet is for porn?
 
2012-12-12 09:13:08 PM  
But how will I find SFW pics of "jizz?"
 
2012-12-12 09:14:50 PM  
nooooooooooooooo.com
 
2012-12-12 09:15:42 PM  

that was my nickname in highschool: Hopefully someday they can make separate filters for gay and straight pr0n.


Want straight porn? Add "porn" to your query.

Want gay porn? Add "gay" instead.

Works pretty well from what I can tell.

/searching for "cock" gets you lots of roosters
//searching for "gay cocks" gets you so much more
///slashies come (giggity) in threes
 
2012-12-12 09:16:26 PM  

ReapTheChaos: natmar_76: Sounds like if I search for "tits" I still get tits, but if I search for "little red riding hood" I don't get porn.

I don't see the problem here.

Actually if you search for tits you don't get tits, well, not naked ones anyway. It's basically what you used to get if you had safe search turned on.


I think the complaint is that "naked" is just way too hard to type with one hand.
 
2012-12-12 09:17:11 PM  

WhippingBoy: I think it's the other way around...


I was trying to say if you're either not logged in to a google account, or leave it logged in to the same account while multiple people share a computer. Those were extreme examples, but at home I know when my wife is suddenly about to buy a new purse or when the kid has been super interested in pokemon, without checking the history.
 
2012-12-12 09:17:35 PM  

Bonanza Jellybean: But how will I find SFW pics of "jizz?"


Search for the cover of Metallica's "Load" album.
 
2012-12-12 09:17:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: Puritans FTW!


Or you know, kids. there are a lot fo children in the world. And while people babble about "The parents' responsibility" those parents need the tools to be responsible.
 
2012-12-12 09:17:54 PM  
So, can't you just... turn off Safe Search?

Or am I missing the joke behind the outrage?
 
2012-12-12 09:18:15 PM  
why don't people just remember their preferred site for the content that they want? I get annoyed when at work I search for something seemingly benign like "beach fill" which is a common thing for me to do and I get lots of other kinds of beach fills. Just not the one I'm looking for.

/red tube is not that hard to remember
// any better ones?
 
2012-12-12 09:18:29 PM  
Great.  Now how the bloody hell am I supposed to "accidentally" look at porn all day?
 
2012-12-12 09:19:54 PM  
Bing Images... still works
Yahoo Images... still works

Yeah, it's still not hard to find porn.

If you are having trouble finding porn on the internet, you aren't looking for porn.
 
2012-12-12 09:21:42 PM  
It is a sad day when "shaved beaver" returns pictures of hairless water-mammals.
 
2012-12-12 09:22:01 PM  
NEWSFLASH: Google tries to make its search results more accurate

*yawn*
 
2012-12-12 09:22:20 PM  

mikdeetx: In other news, Tumblr is down, leaving thousands without a date tonight.


The Tumblrs I follow aren't... but then again, most of them won't pass any SafeSearches.
 
2012-12-12 09:24:00 PM  
F*ck you, Google. I use Google extensively at work to do background investigations on people and companies, and I have never once accidentally found porn, despite some really weird search strings.
 
2012-12-12 09:25:28 PM  

Bonanza Jellybean: But how will I find SFW pics of "jizz?"


Try cum. You wont get what you think you would.
 
2012-12-12 09:25:50 PM  

Ehcks: So, can't you just... turn off Safe Search?

Or am I missing the joke behind the outrage?


It's more like adding an extra word every time you want to search for explicit images. All turning SafeSearch "off" does is allow you to see explicit images.

For example, and going back to my "cock" searches I mentioned:

*searching for "cock" gets you lots of roosters
*searching for "gay cocks" gets you so much more
*searching for "gay cocks" with SafeSearch on gives you PG-13 images again, though more on topic with gay themes (i.e., no roosters).

Replace "cock" with any query of your choice and "gay" with "straight" or "porn" for hetero images (if that's what you're into). Searching "tits" with SafeSearch on gives you "The word "tits" has been filtered from the search because Google SafeSearch is active." Turn SafeSearch off, you get in-shirt breasts, but nothing exposed. Add "porn" or "straight" to get the real deal (or fake deal, I guess).
 
2012-12-12 09:29:20 PM  

Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 34
2009-2012

For all your rule34 needs

/do I really need to say NSFW?


img546.imageshack.us

RULE 34 FAIL
 
2012-12-12 09:29:51 PM  

ariseatex: Ehcks: So, can't you just... turn off Safe Search?

Or am I missing the joke behind the outrage?

It's more like adding an extra word every time you want to search for explicit images. All turning SafeSearch "off" does is allow you to see explicit images after typing in an additional suggestive word.


FTFM. Preview is your friend, people.
 
2012-12-12 09:29:58 PM  
I fu(king knew it! It was at like 9pm eastern time
 
2012-12-12 09:30:14 PM  
When I seacched" GIF" Maria Moore yesterday I got much different results :(
 
2012-12-12 09:30:48 PM  

tetsuo02: It is a sad day when "shaved beaver" returns pictures of hairless water-mammals.


Shaved pussy agrees.

www.naughty-nature.com
 
2012-12-12 09:33:59 PM  

Ehcks: So, can't you just... turn off Safe Search?

Or am I missing the joke behind the outrage?


That's what's so stupid about it.
SafeSearch is always on....even if you have it turned off.
 
2012-12-12 09:35:31 PM  

stu1-1: Ehcks: So, can't you just... turn off Safe Search?

Or am I missing the joke behind the outrage?

That's what's so stupid about it.
SafeSearch is always on....even if you have it turned off.

To censor

 
2012-12-12 09:39:46 PM  
Problem with the new search results is that it returns ONLY explicit content, not a mix of everything that it finds.
 
2012-12-12 09:39:57 PM  
Oh, GOD, it the Pornageddon!
Does Google not understand how hard it is to turn safe-search off with one hand? Millions if not Billions of hours of jerking it will be lost in the outrageously time-consuming process,
Wait a second, people still jack it to pics???
 
2012-12-12 09:40:59 PM  

mjg: Google is for losers.

Moved over to DuckDuckGo.com and haven't looked back.


DuckDuckGo doesn't have its own image search engine, so who is the loser now, genius?
 
2012-12-12 09:41:02 PM  

KrispyKritter: WhippingBoy: R.I.P. Google. You're no use to anyone anymore.

Amen. Just like my cable service (we're old, not hip) that censors and bleeps broadcasts to a two adult household. Sometimes I feel life is not worth living.


Never ever watch Blazing Saddles on cable. Not worth the effort.
 
2012-12-12 09:42:11 PM  

Ehcks: So, can't you just... turn off Safe Search?


Try it. As another poster said, "It's basically what you used to get if you had safe search turned on."
 
2012-12-12 09:42:41 PM  
What are tubes?/
The internet is a series of tubes.
Porn tubes.
Try it with the filters
The googles do nothing.
 
2012-12-12 09:44:09 PM  

saturn badger:

Never ever watch Blazing Saddles on cable. Not worth the effort.


N[____]r
D{____}M
Sh[___]t

Peckerwood?
 
2012-12-12 09:44:30 PM  

cherryl taggart: But, but, how will I still have plausible denial?


This.
 
2012-12-12 09:45:38 PM  

Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 34
2009-2012

For all your rule34 needs

/do I really need to say NSFW?


Well, that site sucks.
 
2012-12-12 09:45:50 PM  
If their goal is to protect the children I have only one thing to say:child proof caps on medicine bottles.
 
2012-12-12 09:46:14 PM  

fullyfarked: cherryl taggart: But, but, how will I still have plausible denial?

This.


Plausibile deniability is everything, misspell intended.
 
2012-12-12 09:46:38 PM  
suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com
 
2012-12-12 09:47:08 PM  

red5ish: If their goal is to protect the children I have only one thing to say:child proof caps on medicine bottles.

To olden a thread

 
2012-12-12 09:48:49 PM  
img7.imageshack.us

Results with SafeSearch "off"
 
2012-12-12 09:50:12 PM  
So can we hold Google responsible for "explicit" images that pass the filters?
 
2012-12-12 09:50:19 PM  
Wait a minute... There is porn available on this Internet thing? For Free? How long has this been going on?
 
2012-12-12 09:51:25 PM  
big dicks, teen sluts, cum babes... um, I'm not even trying and it's the same old pile of NSFW or anywhere else. I've not adjusted my search (Safe search off) so I'm not sure what others are missing. Looks the same to me
 
2012-12-12 09:52:24 PM  

ReapTheChaos: natmar_76: Sounds like if I search for "tits" I still get tits, but if I search for "little red riding hood" I don't get porn.

I don't see the problem here.

Actually if you search for tits you don't get tits, well, not naked ones anyway. It's basically what you used to get if you had safe search turned on.


Add the word naked. Go ahead.

That is their point.
 
2012-12-12 09:52:56 PM  

Ehcks: So, can't you just... turn off Safe Search?

Or am I missing the joke behind the outrage?


Yes you are not getting it they are making NON-safe search safer.
 
2012-12-12 09:53:49 PM  
The real question here is "does someone have a job looking at and filtering out all of the 'porn', or does google have some sort of genital recognition algorithm?"
 
2012-12-12 09:53:50 PM  

edmo: big dicks, teen sluts, cum babes... um, I'm not even trying and it's the same old pile of NSFW or anywhere else. I've not adjusted my search (Safe search off) so I'm not sure what others are missing. Looks the same to me


Now search "dicks" or "sluts" or "babes". All these searches are G-rated.
 
2012-12-12 09:53:52 PM  

stu1-1: [img7.imageshack.us image 850x569]

Results with SafeSearch "off"


Hey that must be every Sash Grey picture on the internet where she is not nude.
 
2012-12-12 09:54:03 PM  

mikdeetx: GIS for Anne Hathaway came back null. So sad.


More sad? My GIS for Anne Hathaway earlier (prior to hearing about the search changes) made me think I was the victim of an elaborate prank on the part of my coworkers who assured this actually happened.
 
2012-12-12 09:54:27 PM  

tetsuo02: It is a sad day when "shaved beaver" returns pictures of hairless water-mammals.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-12 09:55:09 PM  

Coastalgrl: why don't people just remember their preferred site for the content that they want? I get annoyed when at work I search for something seemingly benign like "beach fill" which is a common thing for me to do and I get lots of other kinds of beach fills. Just not the one I'm looking for.

/red tube is not that hard to remember
// any better ones?


tubegalore

/you didn't here it from me
 
2012-12-12 09:55:09 PM  

Do the needful: The real question here is "does someone have a job looking at and filtering out all of the 'porn', or does google have some sort of genital recognition algorithm?"


My guess is it looks for dirty words on the site, porn site urls and maybe it looks for skin tones in the pics themselves. I bet it does the first 2 for sure but the last one is a maybe.
 
2012-12-12 09:55:57 PM  

saturn badger: Coastalgrl: why don't people just remember their preferred site for the content that they want? I get annoyed when at work I search for something seemingly benign like "beach fill" which is a common thing for me to do and I get lots of other kinds of beach fills. Just not the one I'm looking for.

/red tube is not that hard to remember
// any better ones?

tubegalore

/you didn't here hear it from me


//FTFM
 
2012-12-12 09:57:52 PM  
Am I the only person on Fark with a clean browser history?

/I mean, jeeze, I'd have thought Fark of all places knew how to hide porn use...
 
2012-12-12 09:58:43 PM  

natmar_76: Sounds like if I search for "tits" I still get tits, but if I search for "little red riding hood" I don't get porn.


news.bbc.co.uk
 
2012-12-12 09:58:48 PM  

ariseatex: edmo: big dicks, teen sluts, cum babes... um, I'm not even trying and it's the same old pile of NSFW or anywhere else. I've not adjusted my search (Safe search off) so I'm not sure what others are missing. Looks the same to me

Now search "dicks" or "sluts" or "babes". All these searches are G-rated.


I see your point but have noticed all you need to do is add an adjective. Try big dicks, naked sluts, and nude babes.

We'll just have to learn us some words...
 
2012-12-12 10:00:08 PM  
Fark gets no love.. they quote some loser on Reddit, but not Fark...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-12 10:00:37 PM  
Accidental porn is the best kind of porn. Why would anyone want to get rid of that!?!
 
2012-12-12 10:01:18 PM  
So on DuckDuckGo how do you do image searches?
 
2012-12-12 10:01:22 PM  

PsiChick: Am I the only person on Fark with a clean browser history?

/I mean, jeeze, I'd have thought Fark of all places knew how to hide porn use...


Fark of all places is full of people that have no shiats to give over their browser history.
 
2012-12-12 10:01:53 PM  

edmo: ariseatex: edmo: big dicks, teen sluts, cum babes... um, I'm not even trying and it's the same old pile of NSFW or anywhere else. I've not adjusted my search (Safe search off) so I'm not sure what others are missing. Looks the same to me

Now search "dicks" or "sluts" or "babes". All these searches are G-rated.

I see your point but have noticed all you need to do is add an adjective. Try big dicks, naked sluts, and nude babes.

We'll just have to learn us some words...


Adjectives are the most evil of words. Only heinous scum use those filthy adjectives.
 
2012-12-12 10:02:25 PM  

Nuclear Monk: Accidental porn is the best kind of porn. Why would anyone want to get rid of that!?!


exactly. It's "holy crap, there is porn of this!" - 3 hours gone
 
2012-12-12 10:06:58 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-12 10:08:15 PM  
Well, that completely kills the whole point of GIS. It's pronounced "JIZZ", right?
 
2012-12-12 10:08:49 PM  

Nuclear Monk: Accidental porn is the best kind of porn. Why would anyone want to get rid of that!?!


People that want you to stop masturbating.
 
2012-12-12 10:09:19 PM  

saturn badger: ReapTheChaos: natmar_76: Sounds like if I search for "tits" I still get tits, but if I search for "little red riding hood" I don't get porn.

I don't see the problem here.

Actually if you search for tits you don't get tits, well, not naked ones anyway. It's basically what you used to get if you had safe search turned on.

Add the word naked. Go ahead.

That is their point.


The point is, why should you have to? If people search for tits, I guarantee you 99.99% of them aren't looking for small birds, and that .01% that are should have the god damn common sense to turn safe search on.
 
2012-12-12 10:09:45 PM  
Hello Bing!

/Gonna miss ya, Google.
 
2012-12-12 10:09:55 PM  

I knew something was up when I GIS'd "granny creampie" and all that came up was pictures of pastries.


PICTURES OF PASTRIES

 
2012-12-12 10:10:25 PM  

Corvus: So on DuckDuckGo how do you do image searches?


By using another search engine.
img15.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-12 10:11:31 PM  
Can someBODY PLEASE FIND THE ANNE HATHAWAY HOO-HA PICS WTF!

/ Farking Google, of all the days to pull this shiat
 
2012-12-12 10:11:48 PM  
Someone else alluded to this, but here's the issue for me. I keep safe search turned off, not because I'm actively looking for porn (or maybe I should say, even when I'm not actively looking for porn) because I don't want my searches filtered. When I search for something, I want to see ALL the results in the order that the algorithms say best match my search terms. Now I get those results with the adult stuff stripped off, or I can add a term to get ONLY the adult stuff. There's no way to just get an unfiltered list of what I'm looking for.
 
2012-12-12 10:12:50 PM  
BAAAAWWWWWWWW!!! Google took away all my porn!!!! BAAAAWWWWWW!!!!

Seriously, that is what some of you sound like. Nobody really used GIS to search for porn anyway, unless they were looking for a specific image. There are just too many other, better alternatives to GIS when looking for porn.
 
2012-12-12 10:13:01 PM  

Mr. Ekshun: If only Google would search for what I actually type instead of anything it feels like I might have meant, usually while ignoring the most important words. Having to specify exact words and inclusion every time gets to be a bit much, and even then it often ignores specifically included words. Perhaps if I were illiterate it'd be easier.


If they just had a little link under the search asking me, "Did you want to search for "XYZ?" And then have my results for YXZ I'd be totally fine with it. Instead I have to add "+YXZ" and "-XYZ" to the search and possibly be blocking pages I want that happen to include both terms. I don't even know the correct syntax for inclusion, and I don't think their page on operators is current.
 
2012-12-12 10:15:28 PM  

tetsuo02: It is a sad day when "shaved beaver" returns pictures of hairless water-mammals.


farm1.staticflickr.com
 
2012-12-12 10:16:41 PM  

Do the needful: ...or does google have some sort of genital recognition algorithm?"


img152.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-12 10:17:30 PM  
Google screwed up GIS when they changed the page layout and took out the image info (unless you scroll all the way to the bottom of your eight page search results and click to restore the legacy view). They wanted to be all cool and pretty (like Bing). This decreased the utility of GIS for many users.
Then they started fooling with the UI and now they've changed the filter interface.
They pester you to use Chrome, they pester you to sign up for Google+.
Are they trying to drive away users? Seriously, they are not improving things, they are fixing what ain't broke.
 
2012-12-12 10:18:28 PM  
In other Google related news, word is that Google Maps for iOS is to be released tonight.

Source
 
2012-12-12 10:18:47 PM  
They didn't alter Safesearch. Their altered their entire search algorithm. Doesn't make matter if you have Safesearch on or off. You'll have to use keywords that tells Google you're really looking for porn. I think they suggest to actually use ther word 'porn'.
 
2012-12-12 10:19:45 PM  

saturn badger: Add the word naked. Go ahead.

That is their point.


Do a search for blowjob.
 
2012-12-12 10:19:51 PM  

Peki: Sooooo. . .

Anyone got info on a good search engine that isn't run by a douchebag company?


Duckduckgo.com
 
2012-12-12 10:21:10 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Nuclear Monk: Accidental porn is the best kind of porn. Why would anyone want to get rid of that!?!

People that want you to stop masturbating.


Ceiling cat and Christine O'Donnell.
 
2012-12-12 10:21:30 PM  

generallyso: blowjob.


www.lolphotos.net
 
2012-12-12 10:22:05 PM  

saturn badger: Coastalgrl: why don't people just remember their preferred site for the content that they want? I get annoyed when at work I search for something seemingly benign like "beach fill" which is a common thing for me to do and I get lots of other kinds of beach fills. Just not the one I'm looking for.

/red tube is not that hard to remember
// any better ones?

tubegalore

/you didn't here it from me


coughxhamstercough
 
2012-12-12 10:23:25 PM  
Meh. GIS for Midget Clown Porn still seems to work the same.
 
2012-12-12 10:24:30 PM  

Podmore: Someone else alluded to this, but here's the issue for me. I keep safe search turned off, not because I'm actively looking for porn (or maybe I should say, even when I'm not actively looking for porn) because I don't want my searches filtered. When I search for something, I want to see ALL the results in the order that the algorithms say best match my search terms. Now I get those results with the adult stuff stripped off, or I can add a term to get ONLY the adult stuff. There's no way to just get an unfiltered list of what I'm looking for.


Yes. They should have a "do not filter either way" option. I couldn't stand google instant nor google suggestion taking over my browser's autocomplete, but at least they left a way so I don't have to use them (http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0). Perhaps they have or will put in a way to disable this new "feature" as well. 

Also, what's up with Google forgetting my preferences a couple times a month?
 
2012-12-12 10:24:47 PM  

generallyso: saturn badger: Add the word naked. Go ahead.

That is their point.

Do a search for blowjob.


Most men are always searching for one of those.
 
2012-12-12 10:24:52 PM  
Darn. I was wondering why I couldn't get a real shot of butthole tattoo girl this morning.
 
2012-12-12 10:24:58 PM  

stu1-1: Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 34
2009-2012

For all your rule34 needs

/do I really need to say NSFW?

[img546.imageshack.us image 850x421]

RULE 34 FAIL


You forgot the underscore.
 
2012-12-12 10:24:59 PM  
How about just an "Unsafe search" option where when checked it returns nothing but porn.
 
2012-12-12 10:26:20 PM  
Sigh. Every change they make makes using google more odious. Last time it was the farking mail change, now this. Anyone know how to send them feedback without parceling out a bunch of my life to google farking feedback tm?

Pic related, it's what they've been sucking of late.

knowledgering.com

Oh, and hi to Nathan, Walter, Brett, Steve, John, other John, Joe and any of my friends I'm forgetting who work for them. Seems like half the people I know now.
 
2012-12-12 10:26:29 PM  
This sucks. Just bring on that Mayan 2012 apocalypse, I don't care anymore

lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-12-12 10:27:40 PM  
Don't ya just love being treated like little Puritan kids?
 
2012-12-12 10:28:17 PM  
An image search for 'boobs' with safesearch off returns two moobs on the first page. THIS is the bug that must be fixed, hear that, Google?
 
2012-12-12 10:28:36 PM  

Cyno01: How about just an "Unsafe search" option where when checked it returns nothing but porn.


img202.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-12 10:29:52 PM  
If anyone knows me from sports threads, you'll know that this is crippling.
 
2012-12-12 10:31:49 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: tetsuo02: It is a sad day when "shaved beaver" returns pictures of hairless water-mammals.

[farm1.staticflickr.com image 300x380]


omg... roflmao!

+1
and another
+1
 
2012-12-12 10:32:39 PM  

diaphoresis: Fark gets no love.. they quote some loser on Reddit, but not Fark...

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]


Well, they tend to pick up stories sooner than Fark does. If it makes you feel any better, even the users over on Reddit think it's ridiculous that news stories are quoting some random asshat on an internet forum.

/Fark is more readable
//Reddit feels like some monster child of LiveJournal comments
 
2012-12-12 10:33:53 PM  

LordJiro: stu1-1: Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 34
2009-2012

For all your rule34 needs

/do I really need to say NSFW?

[img546.imageshack.us image 850x421]

RULE 34 FAIL

You forgot the underscore.


What he said. Have to use _ to separate words.
 
2012-12-12 10:34:08 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: mikdeetx: GIS for Anne Hathaway came back null. So sad.

More sad? My GIS for Anne Hathaway earlier (prior to hearing about the search changes) made me think I was the victim of an elaborate prank on the part of my coworkers who assured this actually happened.

jaytkay: Can someBODY PLEASE FIND THE ANNE HATHAWAY HOO-HA PICS WTF!

/ Farking Google, of all the days to pull this shiat


Here ya go. NSFW
 
2012-12-12 10:34:40 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Meh. GIS for Midget Clown Porn still seems to work the same.


Should I click or shouldn't I....

no.. I don't think I will...

/Still creeps me out to watch Stephen King's IT
 
2012-12-12 10:37:26 PM  

Earguy: If anyone knows me from sports threads, you'll know that this is crippling.


Damn it.
 
2012-12-12 10:38:28 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: generallyso: saturn badger: Add the word naked. Go ahead.

That is their point.

Do a search for blowjob.

Most men are always searching for one of those.


I loved giving BJs... then he left me for a 20 yr old...

/I hope he **** in a ****** with a ***** stuck up his ***
//My significant other loves me for who I am
 
2012-12-12 10:40:43 PM  
Google: you've done evil.
You're dead to me now.
 
2012-12-12 10:40:53 PM  

Cyno01: How about just an "Unsafe search" option where when checked it returns nothing but porn.


I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newslettercontribute to your kickstarter*.

diaphoresis: Danger Avoid Death: tetsuo02: It is a sad day when "shaved beaver" returns pictures of hairless water-mammals.

[farm1.staticflickr.com image 300x380]

omg... roflmao!

+1
and another
+1


www.theburnettplayground.com

This is the best example ever of just how frakking asinine this is. 

On the plus side, googling "google sucks donkey balls" returns a forum of hate for the new mail layout.

*I am inordinately proud that I thought of this
 
2012-12-12 10:41:31 PM  
warner-carter.com
 
2012-12-12 10:45:01 PM  

Dr._Love: Cyno01: How about just an "Unsafe search" option where when checked it returns nothing but porn.

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newslettercontribute to your kickstarter*.

diaphoresis: Danger Avoid Death: tetsuo02: It is a sad day when "shaved beaver" returns pictures of hairless water-mammals.

[farm1.staticflickr.com image 300x380]

omg... roflmao!

+1
and another
+1

[www.theburnettplayground.com image 194x200]

This is the best example ever of just how frakking asinine this is. 

On the plus side, googling "google sucks donkey balls" returns a forum of hate for the new mail layout.

*I am inordinately proud that I thought of this


That is just bizarre... Gonna google that next.. lol
 
2012-12-12 10:48:00 PM  
no wonder "peachez bj" turned up a bunch of pics of someone else besides what i was looking for.

oh well. I know where my stuff is.

I mean...

WHAT??
 
2012-12-12 10:48:08 PM  
I'm going to complain to whitehouse.com!
 
2012-12-12 10:49:02 PM  
 
2012-12-12 10:52:10 PM  
bookmark
 
2012-12-12 10:53:26 PM  

ReapTheChaos: saturn badger: ReapTheChaos: natmar_76: Sounds like if I search for "tits" I still get tits, but if I search for "little red riding hood" I don't get porn.

I don't see the problem here.

Actually if you search for tits you don't get tits, well, not naked ones anyway. It's basically what you used to get if you had safe search turned on.

Add the word naked. Go ahead.

That is their point.

The point is, why should you have to? If people search for tits, I guarantee you 99.99% of them aren't looking for small birds, and that .01% that are should have the god damn common sense to turn safe search on.


About all I have to offer is if it's too much trouble for you use a different search engine.
 
2012-12-12 10:53:38 PM  
Dogpile.com
 
2012-12-12 10:54:59 PM  

thisiszombocom: But slutty Asian cum junkies still returns the appropriate pics


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-12 10:57:30 PM  
Halp! I'll never be able to find porn again!!!!

Actually, I'm okay with this. Safe search should be "safe".
 
2012-12-12 10:58:38 PM  
What, did the porn search engines hand over a bucket full of cash?
 
2012-12-12 10:58:59 PM  

stu1-1: [img7.imageshack.us image 850x569]

Results with SafeSearch "off"


Lot of deep-throating on Google UK. Looks like they haven't made the switch yet for non-US engines.
 
2012-12-12 11:02:03 PM  
I invite you all to follow up on the donkey balls thread to further push Google into their new place. A farewell for that beaver shavers!!  
There will be pics. Oh yes, there will be pics.
 
2012-12-12 11:02:38 PM  

Happy Hours: Halp! I'll never be able to find porn again!!!!

Actually, I'm okay with this. Safe search should be "safe".


You didn't actually read the article, or any of the comments in this thread for that matter, did you?
 
2012-12-12 11:05:12 PM  

rebelyell2006: Lot of deep-throating on Google UK. Looks like they haven't made the switch yet for non-US engines.


1.bp.blogspot.com
images.icnetwork.co.uk
 
2012-12-12 11:06:40 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Nuclear Monk: Accidental porn is the best kind of porn. Why would anyone want to get rid of that!?!

People that want you to stop masturbating.


Look, if you're going to stage an intervention, just do it...don't get all passive-aggressive with the search engine settings.

/but please knock first, k?
 
2012-12-12 11:08:07 PM  
Well, if it means not hiving my childhood raped when doing GISs for TaleSpin references if Fark threads, so much the better.

/Seriously what the fark is wrong with some people?
//Why, WHY WHY would you ever draw a picture of Col. Spigot getting orally satisfied by Baloo, much less post said picture on the internet?
///Sick fark raped my childhood.
 
2012-12-12 11:10:18 PM  
need help finding pr0n on teh intertubes? well isn't that special. try tblop.com NSFW
 
2012-12-12 11:11:13 PM  
media.nola.com 

/Problem Solved
 
2012-12-12 11:17:33 PM  
I would think that since Google records all my searches in order to "personalize" my browsing experience (and sell me stuff) they would know what I want when I'm looking for porn and not give me this.
img534.imageshack.us 
I can't fap to that.
 
2012-12-12 11:17:41 PM  
Use https://startpage.com
 
2012-12-12 11:24:22 PM  

red5ish: I would think that since Google records all my searches in order to "personalize" my browsing experience (and sell me stuff) they would know what I want when I'm looking for porn and not give me this.
[img534.imageshack.us image 414x336] 
I can't fap to that.


*SHUDDER*
 
2012-12-12 11:26:29 PM  
Coworker had his laptop connected to a projection screen. He didn't know what a goatse was. He found out real fast.
 
2012-12-12 11:27:30 PM  
Well at least now I can search for images of "manholes" without needing eyebleach
 
2012-12-12 11:27:57 PM  

generallyso: saturn badger: Add the word naked. Go ahead.

That is their point.

Do a search for blowjob.


img19.imageshack.us

The Sad Truth
 
2012-12-12 11:29:19 PM  
There's always Rule 34. If you know where to look for it.

i112.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-12 11:31:48 PM  

ReapTheChaos: natmar_76: Sounds like if I search for "tits" I still get tits, but if I search for "little red riding hood" I don't get porn.

I don't see the problem here.

Actually if you search for tits you don't get tits, well, not naked ones anyway. It's basically what you used to get if you had safe search turned on.


I searched for tits and got tits.
 
2012-12-12 11:32:06 PM  

ReapTheChaos: Happy Hours: Halp! I'll never be able to find porn again!!!!

Actually, I'm okay with this. Safe search should be "safe".

You didn't actually read the article, or any of the comments in this thread for that matter, did you?


Of course not. This is fark. Why should I read anything more than the headline?
 
2012-12-12 11:35:15 PM  

Happy Hours: ReapTheChaos: Happy Hours: Halp! I'll never be able to find porn again!!!!

Actually, I'm okay with this. Safe search should be "safe".

You didn't actually read the article, or any of the comments in this thread for that matter, did you?

Of course not. This is fark. Why should I read anything more than the headline?


Okay, based on your comment I actually read the farking article. WTF are you talking about? I stand by my original comment. Safe search should be "safe".

And yes you can still find porn on the internet, even using Google.
 
2012-12-12 11:35:19 PM  

stu1-1: Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 34
2009-2012

For all your rule34 needs

/do I really need to say NSFW?

[img546.imageshack.us image 850x421]

RULE 34 FAIL


FAIL FAIL

There's plenty of Family Guy porn out there, including a live-action spoof:

Trailer [SFW, aside from XXX in the tile]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPW2ODorU98
 
2012-12-12 11:36:43 PM  

gerbilpox: stu1-1: Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 34
2009-2012

For all your rule34 needs

/do I really need to say NSFW?

[img546.imageshack.us image 850x421]

RULE 34 FAIL

FAIL FAIL

There's plenty of Family Guy porn out there, including a live-action spoof:

Trailer [SFW, aside from XXX in the tile]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPW2ODorU98


gerbilpox: stu1-1: Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 34
2009-2012

For all your rule34 needs

/do I really need to say NSFW?

[img546.imageshack.us image 850x421]

RULE 34 FAIL

FAIL FAIL

There's plenty of Family Guy porn out there, including a live-action spoof:

Trailer [SFW, aside from XXX in the tile]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPW2ODorU98


I know...that's why I figured it would be a good test.
 
2012-12-12 11:38:11 PM  
Double quote?
How'd that happen?
 
2012-12-12 11:39:22 PM  

Peki: Sooooo. . .

Anyone got info on a good search engine that isn't run by a douchebag company?


If you want relevant results, you use Google. I can construct a search for porn in whatever language I want as long as it's in google translate. I have done this with good results. I have no problem with this. Google's basic idea of giving you a better defined output to your search results is a laudable goal. I don't want American porn results filling up my search results when I'm looking for something in Polish or Hungarian, thanks.

However, if you are a technologically impaired duck, and want porn, lots and lots of porn, use Bing with the kiddie filter off. No, really, it's the best search engine for vague searches that will always turn up porn that isn't even SEOed.

All the brouhaha and claims of censorship are utter nonsense. Learn how to construct a search.
 
2012-12-12 11:41:58 PM  
I was searching for pictures of Seth MacFarlane having forced bondage sex with a pack of feral kangaroos but no luck.

Now I'm going to have to get to work with PhotoShop. It's not like this stuff makes itself.
 
2012-12-12 11:45:40 PM  
First they came for the porn, and nobody cared. Then they came for the...
 
2012-12-12 11:47:15 PM  

saturn badger: Coastalgrl: why don't people just remember their preferred site for the content that they want? I get annoyed when at work I search for something seemingly benign like "beach fill" which is a common thing for me to do and I get lots of other kinds of beach fills. Just not the one I'm looking for.

/red tube is not that hard to remember
// any better ones?

tubegalore

/you didn't here it from me


The Big List of Porn. Relevant and reliable

NOT SAFE FOR WORK AT ALL
 
2012-12-12 11:47:27 PM  
I actually like this. I use the image search at work to hunt for images to use in class, and the last thing I need is that stuff popping up on the computer screen. Seriously, if you're using google image search for that stuff you're doing it wrong.
 
2012-12-12 11:55:38 PM  

Happy Hours: Happy Hours: ReapTheChaos: Happy Hours: Halp! I'll never be able to find porn again!!!!

Actually, I'm okay with this. Safe search should be "safe".

You didn't actually read the article, or any of the comments in this thread for that matter, did you?

Of course not. This is fark. Why should I read anything more than the headline?

Okay, based on your comment I actually read the farking article. WTF are you talking about? I stand by my original comment. Safe search should be "safe".


SafeSearch always WAS safe. The stupidity is that they now made non-SafeSearches safe too.

Get it now?
 
2012-12-13 12:05:34 AM  
In other news google maps for iOS is here. Hallelujah.
 
2012-12-13 12:12:21 AM  
img194.imageshack.us
Nothing is safe.
 
2012-12-13 12:14:54 AM  

stu1-1: Happy Hours: Happy Hours: ReapTheChaos: Happy Hours: Halp! I'll never be able to find porn again!!!!

Actually, I'm okay with this. Safe search should be "safe".

You didn't actually read the article, or any of the comments in this thread for that matter, did you?

Of course not. This is fark. Why should I read anything more than the headline?

Okay, based on your comment I actually read the farking article. WTF are you talking about? I stand by my original comment. Safe search should be "safe".

SafeSearch always WAS safe. The stupidity is that they now made non-SafeSearches safe too.

Get it now?


Actually, I don't get it and as a test I just opened up a tab and went to Google and typed in "porn". Yep, the porn is still there. It must really suck if you type in something like "Asian Orchids" and don't immediately have an explicit photo of a Thai hookers pussy thrust in your face, but maybe some people would prefer that.

There are plenty of reasons to hate Google. This is not one of them.
 
2012-12-13 12:18:54 AM  

Happy Hours: Happy Hours: ReapTheChaos: Happy Hours: Halp! I'll never be able to find porn again!!!!

Actually, I'm okay with this. Safe search should be "safe".

You didn't actually read the article, or any of the comments in this thread for that matter, did you?

Of course not. This is fark. Why should I read anything more than the headline?

Okay, based on your comment I actually read the farking article. WTF are you talking about? I stand by my original comment. Safe search should be "safe".

And yes you can still find porn on the internet, even using Google.


But they didn't make safe search safer, safe search works the same way it always has. What they did was make searches that have safe search turned OFF safe too. Do a GIS search for blowjob with safe search turned off, you wont get what you think you will.

Also, its not actually about porn, I never use Google to search for porn anyway, I just want non filtered search results. Hell half the fun of doing a GIS was seeing some of the wacky shiat that would come up in a seemingly innocuous search.
 
2012-12-13 12:21:55 AM  
yandex.com

english version of most popular russian search engine, they give no farks

or, more appropriately, lots of farks in this case
 
2012-12-13 12:22:15 AM  

Happy Hours: stu1-1: Happy Hours: Happy Hours: ReapTheChaos: Happy Hours: Halp! I'll never be able to find porn again!!!!

Actually, I'm okay with this. Safe search should be "safe".

You didn't actually read the article, or any of the comments in this thread for that matter, did you?

Of course not. This is fark. Why should I read anything more than the headline?

Okay, based on your comment I actually read the farking article. WTF are you talking about? I stand by my original comment. Safe search should be "safe".

SafeSearch always WAS safe. The stupidity is that they now made non-SafeSearches safe too.

Get it now?

Actually, I don't get it and as a test I just opened up a tab and went to Google and typed in "porn". Yep, the porn is still there. It must really suck if you type in something like "Asian Orchids" and don't immediately have an explicit photo of a Thai hookers pussy thrust in your face, but maybe some people would prefer that.

There are plenty of reasons to hate Google. This is not one of them.


But what about when you find out about some hot actress so you google her name, but you don't want to feel like a creep by typing '"insert actress here" naked' so you just enter her name hoping screen caps of a movie she got naked in shows up? But now with Google's change you just get a ton of red carpet pictures and no carpet pictures? This may be the rise of Bing.
 
2012-12-13 12:25:56 AM  

Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 34
2009-2012

For all your rule34 needs

/do I really need to say NSFW?



I tried "albino" and "albinos" and "albinism", and guess what? Nothing. As usual. I've never found albino porn. It's like the endless quest of the internet.
 
2012-12-13 12:34:26 AM  

natmar_76: ReapTheChaos: natmar_76: Sounds like if I search for "tits" I still get tits, but if I search for "little red riding hood" I don't get porn.

I don't see the problem here.

Actually if you search for tits you don't get tits, well, not naked ones anyway. It's basically what you used to get if you had safe search turned on.

I searched for tits and got tits.


No you don't, you get a page full of these:

images.nonexiste.netwww.picanese.comwww.demotivationalposters.org 

While worth a look, I think anyone doing a search for tits (with safe search turned off) would be expecting a little more than that.
 
2012-12-13 12:36:40 AM  

ReapTheChaos: Do a GIS search for blowjob with safe search turned off, you wont get what you think you will.


Yeah, I just tried that and yeah - the search results were more or less what I would expect. It wasn't all porn - the #1 result was from Cosmopolitan magazine giving advice to girls on how to give blow jobs. The one thing missing seemed to be how to adjust my "Safe Search" settings.

Oh wait, that's still there too and even though it wasn't as easy to find as it had been in the past the default is still "Moderate" and porn and blow job advice did come up readily when I typed in "blow job".

Google isn't going to stop returning search results for porn. After all, I'm repeatedly told the only thing on the internet is porn and lolcats.

Yeah, this is farking stupid and if Google wants to make you ask for porn before they provide you with links to porn I'm okay with that. But they didn't even make me ask for porn when I typed in "blow jobs". There was a link right there on the first page of results. And I'll repeat that that was with the default settings which are still set to "Moderate". 

If you don't like Google (and there are plenty of reasons not to like them) don't use them. Try Lycos. Just for gits and shiggles I just went there and typed in "blow jobs". To their credit there was even a link offering employment which I didn't see on Google.
 
2012-12-13 12:37:08 AM  

Froonium: Don't ya just love being treated like little Puritan kids?


They are just getting ready for the new laws that are coming.
 
2012-12-13 12:39:35 AM  

stu1-1: Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 34
2009-2012

For all your rule34 needs

/do I really need to say NSFW?

[img546.imageshack.us image 850x421]

RULE 34 FAIL


"tinker bell"
No results.

FAIL
 
2012-12-13 12:54:39 AM  

Farnn: But what about when you find out about some hot actress so you google her name, but you don't want to feel like a creep by typing '"insert actress here" naked' so you just enter her name hoping screen caps of a movie she got naked in shows up? But now with Google's change you just get a ton of red carpet pictures and no carpet pictures? This may be the rise of Bing.


Oh please. If you feel like a creep for asking Google or any other search engine for naked pics you've got issues. Yeah, they're tracking you and your ISP is tracking what sites you visit too Wait, you didn't think Google knew what links you clicked even when you just searched for "Mila Kunis" instead of "Mila Kunis Naked"?

If that bothers you, you're probably someone who used to go to adult bookstores in a raincoat and sunglasses and very shyly bought the latest copy of Hustler and prayed to God that no one saw you.

Nobody really cares what you search for except for marketers and they aren't interested in you personally. Do you think they're going to knock on your door and say "I saw you were searching for transexual midget porn" and laugh at you?

So go ahead and type in what you want in your search engine.
 
2012-12-13 12:57:57 AM  
ANY.

You missed '....any....'.
 
2012-12-13 12:58:11 AM  

Happy Hours: Try Lycos. Just for gits and shiggles I just went there and typed in "blow jobs". To their credit there was even a link offering employment


Employment...giving blowjobs? Hey, if you think it's a feature, go for it, man!
 
2012-12-13 01:02:09 AM  
Fantastic, not you can go to the 8th page of results before hitting porn instead of the 5th.
 
2012-12-13 01:08:26 AM  
Isn't porn like 80% of what the internet is used for?
 
2012-12-13 01:08:26 AM  

Sid_6.7: Happy Hours: Try Lycos. Just for gits and shiggles I just went there and typed in "blow jobs". To their credit there was even a link offering employment

Employment...giving blowjobs? Hey, if you think it's a feature, go for it, man!


Hey, it says 18,208 Blow Jobs available on #######.com It comes up as the first search result on Lycos now. It was only the 3rd result the first time I checked. You farkers have been hitting Lycos, haven't you?

As a side note, I just learned that Andy Warhol made a movie called Blow Job in 1963.
 
2012-12-13 01:25:42 AM  

WhippingBoy: Peki: Sooooo. . .

Anyone got info on a good search engine that isn't run by a douchebag company?

AskJeeves


Eudele
 
2012-12-13 01:27:16 AM  

Happy Hours: As a side note, I just learned that Andy Warhol made a movie called Blow Job in 1963.


You can watch it at the Andy Warhol museum in Pittsburgh.

That place is weird as hell.
 
2012-12-13 01:30:28 AM  

Fano: WhippingBoy: Peki: Sooooo. . .

Anyone got info on a good search engine that isn't run by a douchebag company?

AskJeeves

Eudele


i140.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-13 01:56:58 AM  

ReapTheChaos: natmar_76: ReapTheChaos: natmar_76: Sounds like if I search for "tits" I still get tits, but if I search for "little red riding hood" I don't get porn.

I don't see the problem here.

Actually if you search for tits you don't get tits, well, not naked ones anyway. It's basically what you used to get if you had safe search turned on.

I searched for tits and got tits.

No you don't, you get a page full of these:

[images.nonexiste.net image 250x350][www.picanese.com image 250x350][www.demotivationalposters.org image 250x350] 

While worth a look, I think anyone doing a search for tits (with safe search turned off) would be expecting a little more than that.


Scroll down a little and you'll find some. Throw in naked and you'll get all of the tits.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "That's so much more work." I know. I feel your pain. However, we're living in a tough economy. This isn't 2004 anymore. So get on the right side of the field, son. Start pulling for the team, go the extra mile and type in "naked" before you type in "tits". I know that's a lot more work, especially when you're typing one handed, but maybe some of our internet friends pull themselves up by their bootstraps, shave their neck beards, put down their Doritos and their double XP Mountain Dew, and just do it.
 
2012-12-13 02:00:26 AM  

natmar_76: ReapTheChaos: natmar_76: ReapTheChaos: natmar_76: Sounds like if I search for "tits" I still get tits, but if I search for "little red riding hood" I don't get porn.

I don't see the problem here.

Actually if you search for tits you don't get tits, well, not naked ones anyway. It's basically what you used to get if you had safe search turned on.

I searched for tits and got tits.

No you don't, you get a page full of these:

[images.nonexiste.net image 250x350][www.picanese.com image 250x350][www.demotivationalposters.org image 250x350] 

While worth a look, I think anyone doing a search for tits (with safe search turned off) would be expecting a little more than that.

Scroll down a little and you'll find some. Throw in naked and you'll get all of the tits.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "That's so much more work." I know. I feel your pain. However, we're living in a tough economy. This isn't 2004 anymore. So get on the right side of the field, son. Start pulling for the team, go the extra mile and type in "naked" before you type in "tits". I know that's a lot more work, especially when you're typing one handed, but maybe some of our internet friends pull themselves up by their bootstraps, shave their neck beards, put down their Doritos and their double XP Mountain Dew, and just do it.


Thanks for your understanding during the process of going backwards.
 
2012-12-13 02:16:37 AM  

Zombalupagus: stu1-1: Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 34
2009-2012

For all your rule34 needs

/do I really need to say NSFW?

[img546.imageshack.us image 850x421]

RULE 34 FAIL

"tinker bell"
No results.

FAIL


you have to use an underscore for all spaces. so don't search for tinker bell search for Tinker_Bell. took me a while to figure that out when i started using paheal years ago.
heres the diresct link for tinker bell, there are 14 pages. NSFW, NSF childhood purity
/for gods' sakes, there's Persepolis rule 34
 
2012-12-13 02:20:06 AM  
I'm glad I'm not the only one that is pissed
 
2012-12-13 02:29:46 AM  

stu1-1: SafeSearch always WAS safe.


Nah. I've done legit work-related searches that resulted in a stray porn pic
 
2012-12-13 02:34:39 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Thanks for your understanding during the process of going backwards.


I hear you. I, too, am outraged at the extra 0.2 seconds it takes to specify that I don't just want tits, but I want completely nude tits. This isn't why I fought in the internet wars of 1999. This isn't the future I wanted for my children. My entire life has been moving towards a future where pornography is more and more immediate and accessible, not slightly LESS completely convenient and easy. I'm outraged like you are, internet compatriot.

I had a dream, friends, I had a dream that everything was pornography. I had a dream that web browsers only showed breasts, mammaries, pubes, vulvas, flesh of the hottest sweatiest kinds. No Amazons, no video games, no politics, just sweaty smelly pornography, all day, every day. I had a dream, and this is not that dream. Tomorrow I'm organizing a million nerd march on Washington D.C. We are going to take this country by the throat and WE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL OUR DEMANDS ARE SATISFIED.

But until then, my friends, and I know this is difficult for all of us, but we're just going to have to take that 0.199 seconds to type in "naked" before our image searches, or at least that we want to see "hairy pussies", not just plain old "vaginas".
 
2012-12-13 02:35:47 AM  

Sid_6.7: Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 34
2009-2012

For all your rule34 needs

/do I really need to say NSFW?


I tried "albino" and "albinos" and "albinism", and guess what? Nothing. As usual. I've never found albino porn. It's like the endless quest of the internet.


Third result, xvideos has a list. First one looks like more like Edgar Winter than you'd ever want.
 
2012-12-13 02:37:07 AM  
and the keyword was 'albino porn.' ain't rocket science
 
2012-12-13 02:55:48 AM  
I don't mind the extra click to find titties. It means less bullshiat about my pervert coworkers gawking at my screen when a search for pallet racks brings up fat chicks with watermelon tits
 
2012-12-13 03:04:52 AM  

natmar_76: Sounds like if I search for "tits" I still get tits, but if I search for "little red riding hood" I don't get porn.

I don't see the problem here.


1st set you're likely to get a mix of avian and mamarrian.

2nd set sounds bound for clitoral examination for me.
 
2012-12-13 03:47:39 AM  

moothemagiccow: stu1-1: SafeSearch always WAS safe.

Nah. I've done legit work-related searches that resulted in a stray porn pic


So now you may get a stray porn pic even with it turned off. Yeah, that was really needed.
Google already had a feature where you could lock the SafeSearch on to protect the kiddies.
I guess that wasn't sufficient.

img844.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-13 04:20:29 AM  
Didn't read the whole thread, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, search-by-image is utterly broken.

Nice going, guys.
 
2012-12-13 04:23:40 AM  
img100.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-13 04:36:57 AM  
porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn still provides many porny gis results, one in particular that appears to be a rather distressing torture-porn image on the first page.

Interestingly, what I'm most interested in: gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay turns up a whole bunch of images, non of which are erotic in any way, except for the third photo, which is of a beautiful nekkid wet gentleman in a bathtub, but with nothing more than a bare hip showing.

That does seem to be a new development; previously that particular gis would have been nothing but turgid dicks and prolapsed assholes.
 
2012-12-13 05:37:34 AM  
You'll get over it.
 
2012-12-13 06:22:25 AM  
I can't believe they've chosen to reroute that much traffic to Bing. "Path of least resistance" comes to mind.
 
2012-12-13 06:41:23 AM  

Max Awesome: porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn still provides many porny gis results, one in particular that appears to be a rather distressing torture-porn image on the first page.


Unless you refuse to allow cookies from Google. In that case Moderate SafeSearch is unturnoffable and the first result is the cover from something called "PG Porn" which I consider potentially more distressing than your result.

/Don't be evil.
 
2012-12-13 07:12:20 AM  
Turning off 'safe Search' was the fist thing I learned to do on Google.

Do we still really think nudey pictures will turn children into monsters or basket cases?
 
2012-12-13 07:57:55 AM  

natmar_76: StoPPeRmobile: Thanks for your understanding during the process of going backwards.

I hear you. I, too, am outraged at the extra 0.2 seconds it takes to specify that I don't just want tits, but I want completely nude tits. This isn't why I fought in the internet wars of 1999. This isn't the future I wanted for my children. My entire life has been moving towards a future where pornography is more and more immediate and accessible, not slightly LESS completely convenient and easy. I'm outraged like you are, internet compatriot.

I had a dream, friends, I had a dream that everything was pornography. I had a dream that web browsers only showed breasts, mammaries, pubes, vulvas, flesh of the hottest sweatiest kinds. No Amazons, no video games, no politics, just sweaty smelly pornography, all day, every day. I had a dream, and this is not that dream. Tomorrow I'm organizing a million nerd march on Washington D.C. We are going to take this country by the throat and WE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL OUR DEMANDS ARE SATISFIED.

But until then, my friends, and I know this is difficult for all of us, but we're just going to have to take that 0.199 seconds to type in "naked" before our image searches, or at least that we want to see "hairy pussies", not just plain old "vaginas".


3/10 for being vaguely amusing in your trolling. You still are deliberately avoiding the main principles involved:

1. Plausible deniability - it is basic human nature to feel more comfortable with the guilty pleasure of a search that brings explicit results for a non-explicit term. Most cultures have taught us from childhood for centuries that nekkid peepulz are naughty, so even though your intellect says "I can look up adult things with no shame", your gut says 'you are burning in hell for typing 'naked'".

2. Filtering algorithms - the real crux of the issue for most web-fluent people, really - no one likes the idea of their search being cherry picked before delivery, porn or otherwise. Aside from the obvious censorship concerns, this tactic says two things to the consumer: A) You are not smart/adult enough to make your own decisions, and B) because you have no control or knowledge about the filtering being used, you have no way of knowing or controlling what you are not being allowed to see, even on searches that are more specific in nature because those searches are also being filtered. How do you know some non-porn search is complete when images may get improperly tagged as porn by this filter?

I have nothing against the filtering, per se - but I think it sucks that Google is going all 1984 and not allowing people make their own decisions to turn the filter off if desired.

/stepping down from the troll feeding stand
 
2012-12-13 08:05:20 AM  

Captain Swoop: I have nothing against the filtering, per se - but I think it sucks that Google is going all 1984 and not allowing people make their own decisions to turn the filter off if desired.


If it's not in anticipation of potential new laws, for our protection, I'm going with money. Too many have been gaming GIS for a while and Google wants to get paid.
 
2012-12-13 08:11:28 AM  
It's not how far they went this time that disturbs me. It's how far will they go next time? They're establishing the idea that they should arbitrate what you see. That's dangerous, especially when you're talking about such a ubiquitous presence as Google.
 
2012-12-13 08:32:06 AM  

Sid_6.7: Yuri Futanari: Begoggle: RIP rule 34
2009-2012

For all your rule34 needs

/do I really need to say NSFW?


I tried "albino" and "albinos" and "albinism", and guess what? Nothing. As usual. I've never found albino porn. It's like the endless quest of the internet.


Sounds like a business opportunity for you!

Make it happen! This is America for Christ's sake!
 
2012-12-13 08:36:53 AM  

bubo_sibiricus: saturn badger: Coastalgrl: why don't people just remember their preferred site for the content that they want? I get annoyed when at work I search for something seemingly benign like "beach fill" which is a common thing for me to do and I get lots of other kinds of beach fills. Just not the one I'm looking for.

/red tube is not that hard to remember
// any better ones?

tubegalore

/you didn't here it from me

The Big List of Porn. Relevant and reliable

NOT SAFE FOR WORK AT ALL


So we're back to 1998, wonderful.

Vagina is all kinds of non porn, naked vagina, still no porn, but pussy lips is all porn.

This change is a lot stupider than it looks. Trying a few more searches it seems the only real winners of this game are goddamn memey macro pics.
 
2012-12-13 09:00:28 AM  
Eh, maybe bing is not so good either. "Pussy lips" brought an adult content warning, which is fine, and the results were fine, but on mobile you can't click through to the page it's on - but there's a "share on Facebook" link? WTF?!
 
2012-12-13 09:02:02 AM  
I like the suggestion of the new Google Categories:

- Safe Mode On
- Safe Mode Moderate
- Safe Mode Off
- FIND PORN
 
2012-12-13 09:06:46 AM  
Peki


Sooooo. . .

Anyone got info on a good search engine that isn't run by a douchebag company?

Start page
Dog
Duck
belkko
 
2012-12-13 09:08:02 AM  
faaaarrrrk.

Fark blocked "start page" URL in my post

it is https : // startpage.com /
 
2012-12-13 09:29:02 AM  
Want shocking try Audrey Hollander. I didn't even know that woman owned clothing. (Other than fetish wear, of course.)
 
2012-12-13 10:03:06 AM  

EnglishMan: Maybe now people will use Bing.



In frusteration, I did, and found that Bing is the penultimate porn search engine. I love it.
 
2012-12-13 10:03:38 AM  
Yeah, Bing became my new search engine today.

I've had some interesting searches for PS stuff I do. I don't want content filtered in such a draconian manner. 

You've changed Google. You're not the search engine I used to know.
 
2012-12-13 10:56:30 AM  

KrispyKritter: WhippingBoy: R.I.P. Google. You're no use to anyone anymore.

Amen. Just like my cable service (we're old, not hip) that censors and bleeps broadcasts to a two adult household. Sometimes I feel life is not worth living.


Many years ago we were in a motel in Utah. There wasn't much on, we were watching a rather stupid R-rated movie, bare boobies everywhere. The mildest profanity was being bleeped, though.

Mr. Ekshun: If only Google would search for what I actually type instead of anything it feels like I might have meant, usually while ignoring the most important words. Having to specify exact words and inclusion every time gets to be a bit much, and even then it often ignores specifically included words. Perhaps if I were illiterate it'd be easier.

/Any regular web search term plus "TGP"


How do you specify that a word must be included these days?

japantheman: I actually like this. I use the image search at work to hunt for images to use in class, and the last thing I need is that stuff popping up on the computer screen. Seriously, if you're using google image search for that stuff you're doing it wrong.


Yeah, I think it's the right approach also. While I'm normally not in a situation where I need to worry about someone seeing my screen I have gotten tired of the porn that tends to flood image search queries in the grey area.

BHShaman: I like the suggestion of the new Google Categories:

- Safe Mode On
- Safe Mode Moderate
- Safe Mode Off
- FIND PORN


I would rename the last one "Safe Mode: Explicit".
 
2012-12-13 11:09:36 AM  
 
2012-12-13 11:41:40 AM  
The porn shortage will be dreadful.

/eyeroll.jpg
 
2012-12-13 11:59:34 AM  
This far in and it hasn't been asked yet? I don't have a reason to waste my life jacking off to sexual images, but for everyone that does, why the hell isn't there a pr0n search engine? It's surprising, really.
 
2012-12-13 12:11:09 PM  
I don't get what's different. I just typed in knockers with "moderate" search on and I got 3 rows of chicks in bikinis a couple of rows of door knockers, then a mix of bikinis, door knockers and a single self shot of a penis...

Safe search off - Tons of tits ! Massive, naked tits, many looking like a painters radio.. covered in 'arry

So... what has happened exactly?
 
2012-12-13 12:11:34 PM  

Skywolf Philosopher: This far in and it hasn't been asked yet? I don't have a reason to waste my life jacking off to sexual images, but for everyone that does, why the hell isn't there a pr0n search engine? It's surprising, really.


Login: Skywolf Philosopher (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What's TotalFark?)
Fark account number: 790136
Account created: 2012-06-05 17:24:43
 
2012-12-13 12:20:34 PM  

Skywolf Philosopher: why the hell isn't there a pr0n search engine?


There was. It was Google image search.
 
2012-12-13 12:26:55 PM  

Moonk: you have to use an underscore for all spaces.


i_stand_corrected
 
2012-12-13 01:21:54 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
lotusblossom9.files.wordpress.com
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-13 01:32:04 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Skywolf Philosopher: This far in and it hasn't been asked yet? I don't have a reason to waste my life jacking off to sexual images, but for everyone that does, why the hell isn't there a pr0n search engine? It's surprising, really.

Login: Skywolf Philosopher (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What's TotalFark?)
Fark account number: 790136
Account created: 2012-06-05 17:24:43


ERMAGERD! he's only been here for SIX MONTHS and yet he is POSTING! what the Hell is this sight coming to!
 
2012-12-13 01:59:22 PM  

croesius: StoPPeRmobile: Skywolf Philosopher: This far in and it hasn't been asked yet? I don't have a reason to waste my life jacking off to sexual images, but for everyone that does, why the hell isn't there a pr0n search engine? It's surprising, really.

Login: Skywolf Philosopher (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What's TotalFark?)
Fark account number: 790136
Account created: 2012-06-05 17:24:43

ERMAGERD! he's only been here for SIX MONTHS and yet he is POSTING! what the Hell is this sight coming to!


You seem slow.
 
2012-12-13 03:25:02 PM  
I think those of you who don't see a problem with this are missing the bigger picture. Google already had a safe search option that did exactly what this new filtering feature does, filter out explicit images in your search, so what was the point of this to begin with?

I just want unfiltered search results, if it includes the occasional explicit image thrown in the mix then so be it, at least I knew I got an unbiased search result based on what's out there.

Who knows what kind of side effects this kind of filtering will have. Suppose I do an image search for something and it filters out something that was completely relevant to my search because it had some element of porn, nudity or sex to it? Now the question is, what would I have to add to my search to get that image included? If I'm not looking for porn that is.

Purely as an example, go to Google image search, make sure safe search is turned off, and type 'blowjob'. You'll basically get a page full of people blowing compressed air in their faces. Now try some other terms, like 'blowjob porn', 'blowjob sex', 'blowjob nude' and 'blowjob adult'. All of those will get you the graphic images you would assume they would, but surprisingly each and every one will return completely different image results.

My point is this, porn surfing aside, who knows what the results of this change will have on your searches. I've always found I get the best results when I use as few words possible. If I didn't get what I was looking for with one or two words, only then would I expand my search. If there is such a drastic differences to the example I gave above how am I to know I can trust any search to be an unbiased representation of what's available on the internet?

Google already had a safe search option for those who didn't want to see dirty pictures, there was absolutely no reason to make this change! I know it's easy to say just use Bing or some other search engine, but I liked Google! I've used it for years and it pisses me off when something I've come to rely so heavily on makes a change that basically renders it useless.
 
2012-12-13 03:39:34 PM  

saturn badger: Actually if you search for tits you don't get tits, well, not naked ones anyway. It's basically what you used to get if you had safe search turned on.

Add the word naked. Go ahead.



Sounds like a dare. Challenge accepted! Be back in a few months...
 
2012-12-13 04:35:53 PM  
So, were people having a problem with putting their Google search options on the default "Moderate safe search" or the "Completely safe search" options? Or were parents upset that their unsupervised kids were googling naughty pictures and instead of monitoring their kids they screeched at Google?
 
2012-12-14 12:14:15 AM  

Do the needful: The real question here is "does someone have a job looking at and filtering out all of the 'porn', or does google have some sort of genital recognition algorithm?"


Yes, actually, it is a job a human does. The job is a "search engine evaluator" and it's something I'm trying to get in to. I've failed the exam once already :( It's not just porn, though. It's every mundane thing someone might type in to a search engine. You click the link and rate the page on how well it fits the request.
 
2012-12-14 07:58:16 AM  

Canton: The company says the move is designed to ensure adult content is shown only to those who explicitly request it.

Nicely done.


Like anyone that is looking for tits, is looking up that old math guy.
 
2012-12-14 01:06:20 PM  
coffeescholar.files.wordpress.com

/270 comments in a no dr. perry cox. shame!
 
2012-12-14 06:06:21 PM  
Um,

Sometimes what you can't see and have to think about is the sexiest thing of all...

*)
 
Displayed 271 of 271 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report