Google Image Search is not safe

[Rocks_91]

Even with strict Safe Search, Google Images shows up many images of prostitutes. Their safe search implementation is ineffective and definitely not safe.

Is their any alternative which is actually safe?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Even with strict Safe Search, Google Images shows up many images of prostitutes. Their safe search implementation is ineffective and definitely not safe.

Is their any alternative which is actually safe?

Dude, I work closely with those trying to crack Google’s search engine habits for the purpose of marketing, you want the truth?

No search engine is perfect. (Which can actually be a good thing, depending on your job.)

Though out of curiosity, I wonder what keyword you put in. I’ve had similar cases with many other alternatives to Google. There’s a reason why the big G remains on top.

 

[Lisa1967]

Even with strict Safe Search, Google Images shows up many images of prostitutes. Their safe search implementation is ineffective and definitely not safe.

Is their any alternative which is actually safe?

I’ve been using Bing and haven’t come across anything like that, but I am careful about what I search.

 

[Rocks_91]

I’ve been using Bing and haven’t come across anything like that, but I am careful about what I search.

I’m careful too, but when searching for fish and marine life gives you all that… I might try this Bing thing.

 

[LUVArchangelati]

I’ve had similar experiences :sad_yes: looking up picture of Our Lady to use in a slide show for Catholic Youth… utter filth. The other day I was looking for a painting of the Anima Sola (lonely soul … a soul in Purgatory) for a prayer video I was making and - lo and behold Strict Safe Search still pulled up disgusting images * …

You used to be able to report inappropriate images that slipped through… I don’t know if you still can (I don’t think so) …*

 

[Kithrus]

I’ve had similar experiences :sad_yes: looking up picture of Our Lady to use in a slide show for Catholic Youth… utter filth. The other day I was looking for a painting of the Anima Sola (lonely soul … a soul in Purgatory) for a prayer video I was making and - lo and behold Strict Safe Search still pulled up disgusting images * …

You used to be able to report inappropriate images that slipped through… I don’t know if you still can (I don’t think so) …*

You can but regardless do try not to blame Google.

 

[Christianus_Dei]

Bing is actually worse.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

I’m careful too, but when searching for fish and marine life gives you all that… I might try this Bing thing.

I find this very strange. I just did a Google image search using ‘fish and marine life’ and all I got were pictures of fish and marine life with an occasional scuba diver and person fishing.

 

[Rocks_91]

I find this very strange. I just did a Google image search using ‘fish and marine life’ and all I got were pictures of fish and marine life with an occasional scuba diver and person fishing.

Hi, possibly not in those exact keywords, but in many forms of keywords, problems do show up regardless of SafeSearch. I’m hesitant to put up exact keywords, innocent as they may be, because those who know the problems are there already know the problems are there.

I think, I’m not sure, but I heard that Google relies on ordinary groups of users to filter images. There was this one Google service I remember you could participate in that had something to do with image filters. That makes sense seeing the sheer volume of content Google has, but for safe browsing (depends on what your standards are), that is showing up to be inadequate. If someone has more info on what Google uses to filter images, please post.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

My experience is that Google uses previous searches to tailor a current search. If I look up “fabrics” and later “Seattle” my Seattle search might have fabric related stuff in Seattle.

ETA: I can use the same seach terms on two diffferent computers at work and the first page will have completely different results. this is frustrating when I have to go 2 or 3 pages in to find the website I was trying to reference.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I’ve been using Bing and haven’t come across anything like that, but I am careful about what I search.

I got gorgeous pictures of fish, a lot of them saltwater fish. I also got one image of fishsticks

 

[Rocks_91]

My experience is that Google uses previous searches to tailor a current search. If I look up “fabrics” and later “Seattle” my Seattle search might have fabric related stuff in Seattle.

ETA: I can use the same seach terms on two diffferent computers at work and the first page will have completely different results. this is frustrating when I have to go 2 or 3 pages in to find the website I was trying to reference.

That’s an option to tailor searches based on previous search history, and can be turned off if you look at some of the search settings. But that’s not what we’re talking about. I was talking about image search in Google with it’s ‘Strict SafeSearch’ mechanism, and wondered how exactly Google establishes whether a particular image gets into the results. Do they use a tag-based mechanism and who tags the images? I’m pretty sure there was a Google program where they had ordinary users participate in tagging/filtering images some way but I’m not sure if that’s related to this.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

That’s an option to tailor searches based on previous search history, and can be turned off if you look at some of the search settings. But that’s not what we’re talking about. I was talking about image search in Google with it’s ‘Strict SafeSearch’ mechanism, and wondered how exactly Google establishes whether a particular image gets into the results. Do they use a tag-based mechanism and who tags the images? I’m pretty sure there was a Google program where they had ordinary users participate in tagging/filtering images some way but I’m not sure if that’s related to this.

I found the fish without safe search. I wonder what your results would be with out SafeSearch. It might be a bug. but I honestly don’t know that much about Google. I don’t have tried to avoid their products up until I got my smart phone. It looks like I’ll have to sell my soul to google to use certain apps.

They don’t make it easy to find the search settings do they? I found SafeSearch but I didn’t see a lot of settings to change. Now I’ve run out of steam. Google really harshes my buzz.

And I’m not turning it on because I’ve read it can’t be turned off. Not taking any chances for when I do use it.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

I got gorgeous pictures of fish, a lot of them saltwater fish. I also got one image of fishsticks

Lol, me too. Very gorgeous pictures. If fishsticks are what I call fish fingers, I got that too

Rocks_91, I really don’t know how Google manages the safe search options and I haven’t heard about ‘ordinary’ people tagging images - would be very interesting to find out if that’s the case.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Lol, me too. Very gorgeous pictures. If fishsticks are what I call fish fingers, I got that too
(…)

I’ve never seen fish with fingers, only fins.

I’m sorry. I din’t sleep well last night and I’m punchy.

 

[Rocks_91]

Lol, me too. Very gorgeous pictures. If fishsticks are what I call fish fingers, I got that too

Rocks_91, I really don’t know how Google manages the safe search options and I haven’t heard about ‘ordinary’ people tagging images - would be very interesting to find out if that’s the case.

Ahh, I think I’m remembering this service from back many years.

Google Image Labeler is a new feature of Google Image Search that allows you to label random images to help improve the quality of Google’s image search results.

So that’s what I was remembering about ordinary users participating in tagging. It’s probably not related to their SafeSearch thing now that I think about it. but Google needs to better their SafeSearch definitely.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

I’ve never seen fish with fingers, only fins.

I’m sorry. I din’t sleep well last night and I’m punchy.

What?? You mean you haven’t seen the rare blue-spotted finger fish? It looks very pretty but has trouble swimming.