Ryan,
We have just performed a 24,000-people referendum on a personal image filter,
and the Board has declared a willingness to devote resources to implementing a
corresponding solution.
If that work is done, we would also have all we need to make the Commons search
function – which is also the Wikipedia multimedia search function – work in a
way that would provide users with the results they are actually looking for.
Andreas
>________________________________
>From: Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 1:47
>Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Commons Searches
>
>
>Unfortunately we currently have zero developers working on search (as far as I
>know). There are several more significant search bugs that are also not going
>to be fixed any time soon. Another issue is that our search engine is Java
>while the rest of MediaWiki is PHP. This makes sense for performance reasons,
>but makes the pool of potential developers who are able and willing to work on
>it much smaller. In other words, this might get fixed in a few years, but I
>wouldn't hold my breathe. In the meantime, it would be good to follow Sarah's
>lead and proactively curate the content we have so that there is less
>potential for astonishment in our search results.
>
>Ryan Kaldari
>
>On 10/13/11 5:37 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>John,
>>
>>
>>From: John Vandenberg <[email protected]>
>>>> (Searching for "levee" in Commons brings up an image of a
>>>> naked Suicide Girl called Levee in third
place.)
>>>
>>>Its a thumbnail for !@#$ sake, and anyone who
finds that image
>>>offensive should turn off their internet
connection.
>>>
>>It's a perfectly nice image, but does it answer the user's need? In most
>>cases probably not. If I google levee, I see levees, not nude girls:
>>
>>
>>http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=c&q=levee&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1041&bih=638
>>
>>
>>
>>If I want to google for pictures of Levee, I google for "Levee Suicide
>>Girls", and there she is:
>>
>>
>>http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=c&q=levee&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1041&bih=638#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=levee+suicide+girl&pbx=1&oq=levee+suicide+girl&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=127182l129981l0l130379l15l15l0l11l0l0l291l930l0.1.3l4l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=120e52a58330422e&biw=1041&bih=638
>>
>>
>>I guess Commons should give more weight to categories, and less weight to
>>file names. So when I google cucumber, it should show me images in the
>>cucumber category first of all, and not images that happen to have cucumber
>>in the title.
>>
>>
>>Brandon, is there something developers could do in this regard?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I am sure you'll be appalled that libraries include nude pictures in
>>>their search results, often when searching for
something else.
>>>
>>>http://trove.nla.gov.au/picture/result?q=contemporary+north+america+20th+century
>>>
>>>fix the metadata.
>>>
>>>create a gallery page.
>>>
>>>create a category and populate it.
>>>
>>>etc
>>>
>>>p.s. abstract art offends me. Can we please
remove media related to
>>>John Levee's from the Commons search results
for the term 'Levee'. ;-)
>>>
>>>> We should be under no illusion that we
can find all search terms whose
>>>> results violate the principle of least
surprise, presenting adult images for
>>>> everyday search terms.
>>>>
>>>> New such situations arise on a daily
basis, each time someone uploads an
>>>> explicit file that has a plausible search
term in its name and
>>>> description (try searching Commons for
"eating", and then search for
>>>> "drinking"; or try finding images of
Prince Albert).
>>>
>>>The ordering of the search results isnt
ideal. Have you raised a bug?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>The thing is, John, it's not a bug. How is it a bug? The image is called
>>"Drinking urine" or whatever, and so it's a valid search result for
>>"drinking". No doubt, a bunch of people would argue that it would be
>>non-neutral to exclude it from the search results for drinking, because
>>Wikipedia is not censored, and we don't care if people are unhappy with our
>>service, because that would be non-neutral. ;)
>>
>>
>><Imagine rant here.>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>It puts too much weight on the filename, which isnt good because
>>>
recommend against rename, so the current search results are gamable by
>>>the uploader.
>>>
>>>> We should simply offer safe search, like
Google does.
>>>
>>>Google provides safe search. They need to
convert 'the internet' into
>>>a search results page that their customer
wants to see, and the
>>>Internet has a whole lot of stuff that 99% of
the world never wants to
>>>see.
>>>
>>>Wikipedia provides encyclopedic information.
>>>
>>>Commons provides a depository of media, and if
you search for keywords
>>>in the metadata you'll see thumbnails of the
matching media.
>>
>>
>>
>>
I find Google safe search seriously useful, because it gives me a choice, and
enables me to tailor my search to my requirements. If I want to see porn, I can
see porn. If I'm looking for something else, I can prevent my search being
flooded with porn.
>>
>>
>>If I am a researcher looking for images of Prince Albert on Commons, I would
>>appreciate not being forced to wade through dozens of images of penises with
>>rings in them to find the image I'm looking for.
>>
>>
>>http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&redirs=1&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&search=Prince+albert&limit=500&offset=0
>>
>>
>>
>>We will not attract a more mature audience until we get our act together.
>>
>>
>>Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>_______________________________________________
>Gendergap mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
