Am 17.10.2011 12:47, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: 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. 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". 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. The case of this image and others is already addressed in COM:PEOPLE. I also see no direct relation between this topic (keeping/deleting) and the search function and it's result. 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. I must remind you not construct special cases. Better spend the time in searching for good solutions, which don't need to discriminate content to give the best results as possible. That means, that it does it's job as intended. That needs a big quotation mark and is an unproven statement since the beginning of the discussion. Commons and Wikipedia are meant to represent the whole variety of knowledge. A search for words will eventually deliver anything that is called that way, ambiguous or not. That means you will find anything related, since the projects don't aim at a special audience. For example "kids". 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 talking about. 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. 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.