All,
The election closes in less than an hour. If anyone still needs to vote, please head over to metawiki and cast your votes.
Regards, Jyothis.
My Malayalam Wikipedia page http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jyothis Metawiki page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jyothis
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:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=p...
The same image is way down in a Google search (with safe search off) for pearl necklace on Commons:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cucumber+site:commons.wikimedia.org&um=...
Searching for "electric toothbrushes" in Commons shows a woman masturbating with a toothbrush as the second image result:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=e...
The same image turns up in Google as well (with safe search switched off), though not as one of the first results:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cucumber+site:commons.wikimedia.org&um=...
Searching for "cucumber" in Commons shows a woman with a cucumber up her vagina on the first page of search results:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=c...
Doing a Google search for cucumber on Commons (with safe search off) does not bring this image up among the first hundred or so results:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cucumber+site:commons.wikimedia.org&um=...
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?
Andreas
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming
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 account. See http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top to see what people like to click on on Commons and cross reference that with the images that show up high in the search results.
Maarten
Maarten,
That sounds like the most plausible answer to me to date. We know that sexual images are among the most popular in Commons.
Some similar searches:
Underwater:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=u...
(The bondage image is not among the first 50 in Google with safe search off).
Jumping ball:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=J...
(That image is first in Google as well, even with strict safe search enabled.)
This is something the personal image filter would (in part) address. We could also have a look at our search algorithm.
Andreas
________________________________ From: Maarten Dammers maarten@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 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 account. See http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top to see what people like to click on on Commons and cross reference that with the images that show up high in the search results.
Maarten
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
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 at our search algorithm.
That sounds like a solution to a problem, but you didn't actually state the problem. What's the problem you're trying to solve?
Maarten
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.
I asked Brandon about the search algorithm; he told me he had just answered the same question here:
http://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikimedia-Commons-w...
There are some comments from Pete Forsyth at that link as well; he noted that the same search results also appear for multimedia searches in the Wikipedias (e.g. http://www.webcitation.org/62OEEbIub%C2%A0).
Cheers, Andreas
From: Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl To: commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 20:38 Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Commons search function vs. Google
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 at our search algorithm.
That sounds like a solution to a problem, but you didn't actually state the problem. What's the problem you're trying to solve?
Maarten
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
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 content on Wikimedia Foundation sites is often not safe for a wide range of ages. For instance, consider the video on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejaculation
This isn't something you'd see in the encyclopedia Britannica. People often think of Wikipedia as a family-friendly place that's good for education, and that's true for about 99.8% percent of it, but somewhere around the 1-in-1,000 levels you find stuff that would have trouble with some people's idea of "community standards."
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 controversy in so many ways and it is clear that the reasons for controversy are not universal.
If anything I am pretty pleased that this whole issue is no skin of my nose. It is a no win situation or an all lose situation. The people who are against controversial content will be unhappy with what they will consider halfbaked. The people who allow for controversial content will be unhappy because they will find frustrated by what they consider an obtrusion. ' Commenting ad nauseam that there is controversial content is as bad. It does not help.
PS Yes I am frustrated. Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2011 14:27, Paul Houle paul@ontology2.com wrote:
** 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 content on Wikimedia Foundation sites isoften not safe for a wide range of ages. For instance, consider the video on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejaculation
This isn't something you'd see in the encyclopedia Britannica.People often think of Wikipedia as a family-friendly place that's good for education, and that's true for about 99.8% percent of it, but somewhere around the 1-in-1,000 levels you find stuff that would have trouble with some people's idea of "community standards."
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l