Naughty Images?

Google Images seems to have cleaned up their pictures a bit. I used to enjoy (in an infantile fashion) searching for such things as “Bottomless Bikini” and so on. I used to get a lot of remarkably explicit images. Now, not so much. They seem to have cracked down (I kill myself.) So, is there another decent – er, indecent – site to search for images, similar to Google Images, but with less self-censorship?

(I checked; my settings haven’t changed.)

Are you saying you search on ‘bottomless bikini’ and all you get is Google Images?

There are a bazzilion porn sites that are searchable. Well, so I’ve heard.

I’ve noticed that too, it used to be that just about anything you searched for would return porn, now you pretty much have to be searching for porn. How they went about doing that, I don’t know, but you’re much less likely to stumble across it by accident.

A few months ago my daughter (7) wanted to search Google for random pictures (look for Flower, look for Spongebob) it wasn’t until the third or fourth thing that I realized I wasn’t searching for, say, “Kitchen Chair” (yeah, she was just looking around the house) and finding, um, porn of it.

I seem to recall that, a while back, Google changed the way its image search filtered responses to make it harder to stumble upon nudity or other naughtiness unless you were specifically looking for it (by including the word “naked” or “porn” or something like that). There’s a GQ thread here from December: How do I turn Safe Search off on Google?; see especially Post #24 in that thread.

Despite what people are saying in that previous thread, this is not just an issue of settings. Google has changed its search procedures. You cannot set your Google search to the equivalent of the old “safe search off” setting because it doesn’t exist anymore.

Bing is your friend. You can change the Safe Search setting to “off” and you’ll get results like Google *used *to give.

I’m not sure what you mean. I just searched for “milf porn” and believe me, there were no shortage of returns. :confused:

Turned off safe search on Bing. Searched “bottomless bikini.” Clicked on “images.” Thanked the sdmb.

Hm. Good to know.

I looked up ‘tits’ in the name of science to see what came up, even with that almost nothing came up on google that is worse than R rated.

Ah, OK. Google Images.

Never mind…

ETA: I’m turning 51 shortly and I think my brain is now behaving differently. I’m serious.

Hm? No… Using Google Images, I used to search for “bottomless bikini” and see lots and lots of pictures of…well, people’s groinal areas. But now, the pictures are much tamer, much less explicit.

Aha! I’ll give it a try! (A few minutes later…) Yeah! That’s what was missing! Thank you!

(Um, of course, everyone understands, this was all an abstract issue involving search engine technology and image-categorizing algorithms, right?)

(“You’re not fooling anyone, you know.”)

They changed it so it only returns explicit results if you use certain keywords that make it… explicit… that you’re looking for dirty pictures. So if you search something like “bottomless bikini porn” or “bottomless bikini naked” it’ll return what you’re looking for.

In theory it should work better because people doing perfectly innocent searches for bottomless bikinis won’t get dirty stuff and people looking for dirty stuff won’t get boring non-explicit results, but it’s no fun for those who just like random nudity with our normal searches.

So, does Google have software that knows about body shapes and skin color and classifies images automatically? Or do they just count clicks from Uzbekistan, Chicago, and other places known to be overpopulated with sex-crazed men?

Google changed their search results a few months ago to try to prevent the outright porn from showing up on initial search. Here’s a previous thread on the subject.

Basically, you can still get what you want from Google Images, but your search terms have to be a bit more descriptive if you’re looking for NSFW stuff (like adding the terms “nude”, “naked”, or “porn”, for example).

In theory there may be people doing innocent searches for non-explicit bottomless bikini pictures but I have to imagine there’s very few of them. Most of the people searching for bottomless bikini pictures must expect and even want nude pictures. Google is deliberately skewing its search protocols to avoid this fact.

At the very least, google could make its “prude” setting the default but allow users the option of turning it off. People should be able to find what they’re actually searching for and not just what google thinks they should be searching for.

Interesting. I did an image search, scrolled to the bottom and clicked “switch to basic version.” It now says “moderate SafeSearch is on” at the top. When I click that, it gives me an option to turn on SafeSearch, but not get rid of the moderate bit.

Well, that’s interesting.

First, why does Bing spell SafeSearch with the same spacing/capitalization? Is SafeSearch a third-party product that both Google and Bing use?

Second, when I use the pull-down to change to Off or Strict, nothing happens–it still says Moderate (on Bing, that is). Weird.

“Bikinis” or “bottomless” separately could easily be part of an innocent, G-rated search. I don’t know how strong the AI would have to be to know that when you put them together you necessarily want naughty pics.

I came of age in the pre-internet era. We had to walk five miles uphill in the snow to see pictures of bottomless bikinis. I have trouble working up too much righteous indignation over the need to work a little harder to get hundreds of porn images to appear instantly at my fingertips.

This makes sense. And, even if it was solely out of prudery, well, hey, it’s their web-site; I’ll respect their rights. I just want… Well, you know what I want!

(“Give me smut and nothing but!”)

Fair enough; once I know that, it not only doesn’t undercut the delivery of real service, it enhances it!

Well, no, I never expressed indignation (or never meant to.) Just frustration, in the era of instant gratification, that I no longer was getting exactly what I wanted with almost no effort. We’ve all been spoiled. I remember having to go to a university library to find, say, a street map of the City of Marseilles. Now? Google Maps, Google Earth, it’s wonderful!

(Hm… Google Porn? I wonder…)