Hello, To me, this shows that the search engine is badly configured, or has a major problem. So fix it instead of creating a filter, which would have unwanted side effects. Having a good search engine would be within the WMF mission, creating a filter is not.
Regards, Yann 2011/10/12 Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@yahoo.com>: >> From: Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> >> > Someone on Meta has pointed out that Commons seems to list sexual image >> > results for search terms like cucumber, electric toothbrushes or pearl >> > necklace way higher than a corresponding Google search. See >> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-October/006290.html >> >> > Andreas >> This might just be coincidence for special cases. I'm sure if you search >> long enough you will find opposite examples as well. > > Tobias, > > If you can find counterexamples, I'll gladly look at them. These were the > only three we checked this afternoon, and the difference was striking. > > Here is another search, "underwater": > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=underwater&fulltext=Search > > > The third search result in Commons is a bondage image: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Underwater_bondage.jpg > > > On Google, with safe search off, the same image is the 58th result: > > http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=w&q=underwater+site:commons.wikimedia.org&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1095&bih=638 > >> But wouldn't it run >> against the intention of a search engine to rate down content by >> "possibly offensive"? If you search for a cucumber you should expect to >> find one. If the description is correct, you should find the most >> suitable images first. But that should be based on the rating algorithm >> that works on the description, not on the fact that content is/might >> be/could be controversial. > >> Implementing such a restriction for a search engine (by default) would >> go against any principal and would be discrimination of content. We >> should not do this. > > You are not being realistic. If someone searches for "cucumber", "toothbrush" > or "necklace" on Commons, they will not generally be looking for sexual > images, and it is no use saying, "Well, you looked for a cucumber, and here > you have one. Stuck up a woman's vagina." > > Similarly, users entering "jumping ball" in the search field are unlikely to > be looking for this image: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jumping_ball_01.jpg > > Yet that is the first one the Commons search for "jumping ball" displays: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=jumping+ball&fulltext=Search > > We are offering an image service, and the principle of least astonishment > should apply. By having these images come at the top of our search results, > we are alienating at least part of our readers who were simply looking for an > image of a toothbrush, cucumber, or whatever. > > On the other hand, if these images don't show up among our top results, we > are not alienating users who look for images of the penetrative use of > cucumbers or toothbrushes, because they can easily narrow their search if > that is the image they're after. > > Are you really saying that this is how Commons should work, bringing up > sexual images for the most innocuous searches, and that this is how you would > design the user experience for Commons users? > > Andreas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
