Googling rude images

[MrInBetween]

Originally Posted by knobby109

Just type in XXX after your search , get rid of the popup box and you're back to as it was before the changes.

The problem is defining 'before the changes'. In two previous posts in this thread I suggested methods which produced broadly similar results; but now the same searches produce quite different numbers of hits, and a different number again if you just add XXX. We don't really have a yardstick to measure against, so how will we know when we've got the 'real' method?

[MrInBetween]

For the past few months I've been happily using the method detailed at the top of the page, but today I find that selecting the German user interface language no longer seems to be bypassing safesearch.

[EDIT]
I have altered the search string in the post at the top of the page to reflect retroanalyst's discovery (in the post following this one); that is, changed 'de' to 'da'.

[retroanalyst]

Originally Posted by MrInBetween

For the past few months I've been happily using the method detailed at the top of the page, but today I find that selecting the German user interface language no longer seems to be bypassing safesearch.

Switching to Danish user interface helps - for now…

[exfarmer]

Change of plan. After taking advice from my colleagues I'm not going to merge the two threads but I have removed all the chat and posts about alternative search engines because this thread is about how to use Google and get around their SafeSearch changes. We can start a different thread for recommending other search engines if it's wanted.

[buttsie]

If this topic is to even be remotely useful people should at the very least be saying which country their in & what ISP their with as theres no telling how google is really acting all around the world

Its far too much of a generalisation to say everywhere is the same

Yes google have implemented changes,some very obvious
others more subtle (burying some content returns deeper or blocking them)

I have no issues getting the adult images on google using the simple xxx in any search

Personally i think folks would be wiser to seek out the original source forums / blogs / websites than rely on google which is little more than a parasite given its commercial deals it has going on - witness all the tube sites that spring up in any search and their nothing more than mirrors

Theres a search engine thread where folks can waffle on about their favourites

Just put anything you recommend into some sort of context so it has some relevance

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...search+engines

[MrInBetween]

Originally Posted by buttsie

If this topic is to even be remotely useful people should at the very least be saying which country their in & what ISP their with as theres no telling how google is really acting all around the world

Its far too much of a generalisation to say everywhere is the same

Yes google have implemented changes,some very obvious
others more subtle (burying some content returns deeper or blocking them)

I have no issues getting the adult images on google using the simple xxx in any search

Did you just insert 'xxx' into this post, or did I miss it the first time? I thought you were saying that explicit results weren't filtered by default in Australia, so I've been testing that out. Since I've done it, I'll present my findings anyway, as they illustrate the problem nicely.

Oh, er, MrInBetween: England, TalkTalk, ...Scorpio.

Google UK:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&safe=off&q="linsey+dawn+mckenzie"

Google Australia:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&safe=off&q="linsey+dawn+mckenzie"

Google Australia in Danish:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=da&tbm=isch&safe=off&q="linsey+dawn+mckenzie"

Google Australia with xxx:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&safe=off&q="linsey+dawn+mckenzie"+xxx

The first two produce similar, non-explicit results; the second two produce dissimilar, explicit results.

[MrInBetween]

Originally Posted by retroanalyst

Switching to Danish user interface helps - for now…

It was good while it lasted, but it returns non-explicit results now. I wonder why they took so long to bring it into line?

[MrInBetween]

Hmm. I thought you had to add a 'rude' term to the mix if you want explicit images, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If I Google Image Search 'Linsey Dawn Mckenzie' I get non-explicit images, but if I just add 'nurse' to this I get explicit ones.

[TheSharpEye]

Found this link in a similar discussion on another forum (and I've been using it for years):

Google Image Search uncensored
https://www.google.com/search?as_q=+...e=off&tbm=isch


And here it is in it's undisguised form:
h t t p s : / / w w w .google.com/search?as_q=+&svnum=10&hl=en&btnG=
Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&imgsz=&as_file type=&imgc=&
as_sitesearch=&safe=off&tbm=isch


I don't really know what it does, but it works amazingly well for finding
pic's and sites with lightly dressed women.

I will probably get you listed as a sex offender by the FBI or the Echelon, but
it is still well worth it!


.

[MrInBetween]

Something has changed. At the time I posted it, nearly a year ago, this:

Originally Posted by MrInBetween

Google UK:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&safe=off&q="linsey+dawn+mckenzie"

produced non-explicit results.

If, say, you now enter this string in the address bar of a clean Firefox profile (Fx28 as it happens), you get a few topless shots. But if you turn JavaScript off for Google (eg by installing the addon YesScript, and then clicking the icon that appears on the toolbar while you're looking at these results - or by any method you like), and then re-enter the string - well, spot the difference?