Awesome! can you do this with videos as well please! |
I noticed this today as well, I didn't bother posting because I hardly use the image search and didn't know how new it was.
I like it, it's lot better than before |
Yes I believe it's pretty new, I noticed this in through Page2rss on July 1st.
http://page2rss.com/9899b9656ec0d0b3a082b6b810c2f826/4472910_4473427 |
Under the drop-down box there is a link to "More about safe search", but the explanation is wrong. It says that "safe search" doesn't apply to image search, although it certainly does. You can see the effect by searching for, say, boobs with the different search levels.
"Safe search" returns no results for "boobs", suggesting that it is filtering the search term rather than the results (because there are plenty of "safe" results to that query). |
> It says that "safe search" doesn't apply to image search,
> although it certainly does.
Roger, what do you see when you click the explanation link in the drop down box? I get a help entry which does mention image search, too:
<<* Moderate filtering excludes most explicit images from Google Image Search results but doesn't filter ordinary web search results. This is your default SafeSearch setting; you'll receive moderate filtering unless you change it.
* Strict filtering applies SafeSearch filtering to all your search results (i.e. both image search and ordinary web search).
* No filtering, as you've probably figured out, turns off SafeSearch filtering completely.>>
I get http://images.google.com/intl/en/help/customize.html#safe which redirects to http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35892 |
That was so unfriendly sending user to some extensive 'preferences' page with 50 options where on the bottom of the page user can change them... and it is only local setting connected with cookie on local machine.
Sometimes you expect such a large company to move faster but things like those may remain for ages till they improve them. It is obviously not very 'important' part of google strategy and image search started to improve in last few months. It seems that somebody who works in that department was scared of massive layoffs... or somebody new came in who takes care of it. |
Philipp: sorry, I mixed up the phrases "safe search" and "strict filtering" and didn't make myself clear. I'm seeing the same help entry as you.
But the point I was trying to make still applies. The help text implies that moderate filtering applies "SafeSearch" to image search but not web search, and that strict filtering applies "SafeSearch" to both of them. I think that is how SafeSearch worked when it was first introduced:
"None": No filtering
"Moderate": Filter the image results but not the web results
"Strict": Filter both kinds of results
But now, for image search, "Moderate" and "Strict" seem to work quite differently. "Moderate" seems to be judging the individual images (presumably based on captions, file names, surrounding text etc) while "Strict" seems to be censoring based on the search terms.
For example, a "Strict" search for [tits] should return pictures of birds (blue tits, great tits etc) but it returns nothing. How else are you going to find the pictures of the birds?
I think there's a big difference in search quality between "don't show me certain kinds of images in the result" and "this search term is being blocked". |
WebSonic is right, I've seen it July, 1st 2009. |
I concurr, it's pretty new, wasn't there a week or so ago. That said, since when is unrestricted viewing of Tricky Dick considered "safe" rhetorical Q.
http://blogoscoped.com/files/google-safe-search-toggler.png
|
Hi, Now you can search images based on colors.
Website: [googleimages.co.in/]
[unlinked] |
Google also added, apparently in some test an "Report Offensive Images" which is now gone. |
And this is now visible, more info on the blog from Ionut.
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/07/report-offensive-google-images-results.html |
