From: Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com>
> That is again the picking of an example. But
what do you expect to find? Say that someone actually > searches for an image of this practice. Should he find it at the last spot? An good search algorithm
> treats everything equal and delivers the closest matches. A search which is more intelligent would
> deliver images of showers first if you search for "shower", since it knows the difference between the
> terms "golden shower" and "shower". Thats how it should work. It's definitely not an error of the
> search engine itself, but it could be improved to deliver better matching results, without any
marking.
> Extending it to exclude marked content leads back to the basic question(s), which should be
> unnecessary.
I would expect that someone who has entered "shower" as their search terms is looking for images
of showers, and that someone looking for images of wet sex would enter "golden shower" as their
search term. So if we present an image of people urinating on each other in response to a search like
"shower", we violate the principle of least astonishment.
> Evidence would be a statistic in which it is shown how many people are actually happy with the results.
> With happy in the
meaning: "i will use it again and was not so offended to not use it".
One thing not to forget here is that we may turn away users who might otherwise contribute. If the users
that *remain* are happy, that does not mean that we have not lost many others, nor that those who
remained are representative of the broader population.
> If the naming of that images is a problem then we can just rename them to something more useful. We
> have templates and bots for that. Marking the images would not help in this case. But doing what we
> can already do, would be a simple and working solution: Rename it.
Difficult too; would you suggest giving all sexual images code names?
> Everyone should know that "Barbie" is a often used term or part of a pseudonym. That the search
> reacts to both is quite right. The word itself does not distinguish between multiple meanings. But thats
> again not the problem.
Someone entering "Barbie" as the
search term is probably looking for images of Barbie dolls, not images
of porn actresses like Lanny Barbie, Fetish Babie or Barbie Love. I think it's not unreasonable to expect
the latter group of people to enter both parts of the name.
> > One thing that might help would be for the search function to privilege files that are shown in top-
> > level categories containing the search term: e.g. for "cucumber", first display all files that are in
> > category "cucumber", rather than those contained in subcategories, like "sexual penetrative use of
> > cucumbers", regardless of the file name (which may not have the English word "cucumber" in it).
> Refining the search should definitely be an option. After reading Brandon's comment I must also
> wonder why it doesn't consider categories. That are the places where content is already pre-sorted by
> ourself. It would definitely worth the effort, since it would two things at once:
> 1. It would most likely give better results, even if the description or filename is not translated.> 2. Given a search function which finds content more effective, would also minimize the effect we
are
We are in agreement on that point. I've asked Brandon (on the gendergap list) if this would be a lot work,
but he has previously indicated that finding time to reprogram this might be difficult. Nevertheless, I
think it is something we should pursue. Anything you can do to help is appreciated.
> I'm a little against categories that are purely introduced
to divide
content in sexual (offensive) and non
> sexual (not offensive)
content. If the practice/depiction has a own specialized term than
it is acceptable.
> But introducing pseudo categories just blows up
the category tree and effectively hides content. If we
> implement the
first idea and introduce special categories, then we are effectively
back at filtering and
> non neutral judgment.
I don't think it makes sense to feature women with cucumbers inserted in their vagina in the top-level
cucumber category. Again, principle of least astonishment.
> PS: I was wondering which mail client you use. Usually the structure is destroyed and the order of
> mails (re:) is not kept, which makes it hard to follow conversations.
I know, it's a pain. This should be my last post to this list with the yahoo client; I've gotten myself a
gmail account and will use that from now on.
Cheers,
Andreas
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversial_content%2FBrainstorming&action=historysubmit&diff=2996411&oldid=2995984
[2]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069699.html
Am
17.10.2011 02:56, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
>
Personality conflicts aside, we're noting that
non-sexual search terms in Commons can prominently
return sexual images of varying explicitness, from
mild nudity to hardcore, and that this is different
from entering a sexual search term and finding that
Google fails to filter some results.
>
>
I posted some more Commons search terms where this
happens on Meta; they include
>
>
Black, Caucasian, Asian;
>
>
Male, Female, Teenage, Woman, Man;
>
>
Vegetables;
>
>
Drawing, Drawing style;
>
>
Barbie, Doll;
>
>
Demonstration, Slideshow;
>
>
Drinking, Custard, Tan;
>
>
Hand, Forefinger, Backhand, Hair;
>
>
Bell tolling, Shower, Furniture, Crate, Scaffold;
>
>
Galipette – French for "somersault"; this leads to a
collection of 1920s pornographic films which are
undoubtedly of significant historical interest, but
are also pretty much as explicit as any modern
representative of the genre.
>
>
Andreas