On 10/12/2011 7:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Maarten,
The problem to solve is that people who are looking for an image of a
cucumber or a children's toy
may not appreciate being presented with an image where the item in
question is used for masturbation.
It's a general issue that
Hoi,
When you want to know about a subject like this, what do you learn at
Brittanica... also when I search for ejaculation at my Wikipedia there is no
word spelled like that.
This has become such a silly subject. It makes no difference to state that
there is controversial content. There is
Hi Andreas,
Op 11-10-2011 23:36, Andreas Kolbe schreef:
Maarten,
That sounds like the most plausible answer to me to date. We know that
sexual images are among the most popular in Commons.
knip
This is something the personal image filter would (in part) address.
We could also have a look
for multimedia searches in the Wikipedias
(e.g. http://www.webcitation.org/62OEEbIub ).
Cheers,
Andreas
From: Maarten Dammers maar...@mdammers.nl
To: commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 20:38
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Commons search function vs
We are wondering on Meta[1] what criteria the Commons search function uses to
establish the order of search results displayed.
To give some examples, searching for pearl necklace in Commons shows a woman
with sperm on her neck as the first image result:
--
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:22:37 +0100 (BST)
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
Subject: [Commons-l] Commons search function vs. Google
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
1318346557.48784
On 11 October 2011 16:53, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know how Google does it, but I'd bet that our search prioritises by
word order in the description. So a description that starts Pearl Necklace
comes before A white pearl necklace. If you amend the
Hi Andreas,
Op 11-10-2011 17:22, Andreas Kolbe schreef:
Why is our listing so different from the one in Google, and why are
sexual images so much higher up in our listing of search results?
My assumption is that the popularity (either incoming links or number of
clicks) might be taken into
(in part) address. We could
also have a look at our search algorithm.
Andreas
From: Maarten Dammers maar...@mdammers.nl
To: commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2011, 21:04
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Commons search function vs. Google
Hi
