You cannot really blame a search engine for that, the images are shown from the search engine cache and if the page has not been indexed after it was changed, this is bound to happen. it happens with Google too.
Apperantly, I noticed that out of first 8 results on Google, 2 pair of images were very similar. I think they should try to avoid the repetition in the results (atleast on the same page.)
They are most probably the same image under two different names, hence indexed twice but I could be wrong. Also you may see that the file sizes are different, one is 14k and the other 15k.
Abhi claims that MSN search does not have a content filter, which is not true. MSN search engine DOES have a content filter, which actually works better than Google.
The difference between grayscale and black and white images MIGHT confuse a layman as the grayscaled images are generally called black & white images. Yahoo and MSN are taking search for dummies approach.
That's right, thanks for the point... :)
I understand that no software can be 100% accurate in checking explicit stuff, but Google doesn’t say that on the settings page. Both Yahoo and MSN have put the disclaimers by their safe search settings and in MSN & Yahoo if you try to remove the content filtering, it asks you to “Agree” a disclaimer. This doesn’t affect the user experience a lot, but can definetly avoid lawsuits.
Yup, always avoid the green legal monster... ;)
On the other hand Google produces a link with a parameter “safe” if safe=active it means the safe search is on, but if safe=off then it means no filtering at all. It is really a cool feature as one can customize the searches and even use them dynamically. The only problem with this is that it overrides the user’s settings.
Thanks for this point too... :)
Well that's all, I guess. and thanks for pointing out the points missed and the errors... :)
Poonam
· 4 years ago
interesting..only one comment but 630 visits! wow :smile:
Abhi - I haven't read your comment, will reply later.
Tom Strong
· 4 years ago
How about a comparison to another multimedia search engine like http://www.gofish.com.
Gaurav
· 4 years ago
>good review. however, i would like >to discuss some points here:
Thanks!
>I am confused here, why would you >think so, Britney has millions of >pictures on the web and Google is a >living proof of it.
Actually it would have been appropriate if I wrote unique. A lot of time same image is used in various wallpapers...etc, may be she has a lot more. It was just a guess
>You cannot really blame a search >engine for that, the images are >shown from the search engine cache >and if the page has not been indexed >after it was changed, this is bound >to happen. it happens with Google >too.
I am not blaming MSN for that, but suggesting that it is possible that, it may not be really indexed but some kind of feed uploaded and it got errors, obviously its just a possibility. The cache thingy is also possible.
>They are most probably the same >image under two different names, >hence indexed twice but I could be >wrong. Also you may see that the >file sizes are different, one is 14k >and the other 15k.
I think they are different images, but very similar. The texture and color is a bit different.
>I have already talked about the >mistake here.
I read this comment on your site "welcome to my site. thanks for the info. i noticed that after reading your comment. unfortunately MSN doesn’t give you choice whether or not to block pornographic images, which isn’t very good for a search engine" I concluded that you mean, there is a safesearch for word search but not photo? Is that what you meant?
Tim Jowers
· 4 years ago
Thanks for the article. Search seems to be by keywords in the name and not site content, page content, or (the goal) image content. Is that right?
Susan Lundy
· 4 years ago
I'm a newbie...(my first comment) and I must say...thank you for doing this!!
Gaurav
· 4 years ago
I am gonna update the article in few minutes.
Tom Strong - I never heard of it before, I think it has a lot of options, I'll definetly look at it sometime later.
Tim Jowers - I am sorry I didn't get you. Do you mean if I searched for the words "britney spears" (without qoutes) or if I searched for a specific website?
Susan Lundy - You are most welcome.
abhi
· 4 years ago
concluded that you mean, there is a safesearch for word search but not photo? Is that what you meant?
I meant Image Search. Try searching something pornographic in MSN, nothing will come up and there is no choice either.
Gaurav
· 4 years ago
There is, I just searched something which MSN considered as "Sexually explicit" and didn't return any result, not even the regular search, but when I changed my settings to no filtering, it displayed a lot of results and images.
Edit: They introduced the languages too.
mskadu
· 4 years ago
I have referenced your post in my latest blog entry and have add some further comparisons by myself. Pl. do take a look.
Govind
· 4 years ago
Hmm, google got famous with its simple looking interface. Have to see, how MSN will be received. :)
All Comments
I am confused here, why would you think so, Britney has millions of pictures on the web and Google is a living proof of it.
You cannot really blame a search engine for that, the images are shown from the search engine cache and if the page has not been indexed after it was changed, this is bound to happen. it happens with Google too.
They are most probably the same image under two different names, hence indexed twice but I could be wrong. Also you may see that the file sizes are different, one is 14k and the other 15k.
I have already talked about the mistake here.
That's right, thanks for the point... :)
Yup, always avoid the green legal monster... ;)
Thanks for this point too... :)
Well that's all, I guess. and thanks for pointing out the points missed and the errors... :)
Abhi - I haven't read your comment, will reply later.
Thanks!
>I am confused here, why would you >think so, Britney has millions of >pictures on the web and Google is a >living proof of it.
Actually it would have been appropriate if I wrote unique. A lot of time same image is used in various wallpapers...etc, may be she has a lot more. It was just a guess
>You cannot really blame a search >engine for that, the images are >shown from the search engine cache >and if the page has not been indexed >after it was changed, this is bound >to happen. it happens with Google >too.
I am not blaming MSN for that, but suggesting that it is possible that, it may not be really indexed but some kind of feed uploaded and it got errors, obviously its just a possibility. The cache thingy is also possible.
>They are most probably the same >image under two different names, >hence indexed twice but I could be >wrong. Also you may see that the >file sizes are different, one is 14k >and the other 15k.
I think they are different images, but very similar. The texture and color is a bit different.
>I have already talked about the >mistake here.
I read this comment on your site "welcome to my site. thanks for the info. i noticed that after reading your comment. unfortunately MSN doesn’t give you choice whether or not to block pornographic images, which isn’t very good for a search engine"
I concluded that you mean, there is a safesearch for word search but not photo? Is that what you meant?
Tom Strong - I never heard of it before, I think it has a lot of options, I'll definetly look at it sometime later.
Tim Jowers - I am sorry I didn't get you. Do you mean if I searched for the words "britney spears" (without qoutes) or if I searched for a specific website?
Susan Lundy - You are most welcome.
I meant Image Search. Try searching something pornographic in MSN, nothing will come up and there is no choice either.
Edit: They introduced the languages too.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ew/2005/02/...