Slashdot Mirror
Google Image Index Just Not Updated
We ran a story earlier today about the lack of Abu Ghraib photos in Google's image index. We now have a response from Google stating that the image index simply hasn't been updated recently, as well as a fairly convincing demonstration from a Slashdot reader: Rahga writes "I put together a page that counters the 'Google Censors Abu Ghraib Images' story. It is the tale of a Morgan Webb picture on images.google.com that's been driving a ton of traffic to my webserver 7 months after it was removed." The Abu Ghraib story broke in April 2004 (and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004), so Google's index is indeed quite far behind.
Like I mentioned in this post, I can vouch for this.
For the longest time, the search for my name on Google images would bring up really old images and it would never update them. So, in order to test this, I just removed those images and used a redirect (this was about 3-4 months ago) -- Google still did not update the pictures.
However, my academic page at my school did show up pretty soon, although it was created just recently. What more, it even showed the image of my latest schedule, and not an earlier one as in the other case.
So I guess Google probably uses some kinda weird algorithm to determine which sites are likely to be dynamic, and which are not -- and update/not update them accordingly.
Besides, everytime there's been a problem/censorship (say, due to DMCA) -- Google has been nice enough to notify the users during the search. Not to mention the amount of scalability doing something like this would require of them (which makes even less sense if they were the ONLY ones asked to do so).
So all in all, just a false alarm, I suppose.
Google's just using old information. It's not some giant government conspiracy. (I'm looking at you Taco.)
... now I need to update my p0rn collection...
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Seriously why does this need a new story? What was wrong with the update posted to the previous article summary?
At least google isn't the best at everything!
This just goes to show that /. groupthink isn't always on target, and Google isn't the all-spidering oracle we think it is either.
Google's image search is not to be confused with Google's news search. If you search for Lyndie England against the news search, one of the pictures in question comes up in a thumbnail next to the first set of results. Google had plently of coverage of the Abu Ghraib story on its news pages, and its web search also has plenty of coverage of the topic. If Google was intentionally censoring, you think they woulda tagged all their search engines in the process.
For Google to be 6-months or more behind on reindexing their image storage to me seems about right. The link rot on the image search is starting to get annoying, but we've seen worse from the likes of Alta Vista in the past. Webcrawling seems simple but it's a very bandwidth intense process, and that means it costs money. Image spidering is even more expensive because pictures take up a whole lot more bitspace than HTML docs.
So, move that Slashdot story from earlier today from the Censorship category to the Almighty Buck category. That's the real reason why the pictures weren't there.
I have been trying to update the picture that google images has of me, but for at elast 8 month google will index the html page and ignore the image. This is a new image, with new name etc.
This explains why some people I know entering a google seo competition aren't having any luck with the google images part of the competition! Does anybody have any ideas/news/links to information so we have an idea if it is likely to be updated anytime soon? Also, does anyone know if its all images or if images from news sources get updated more regulary?
Isee Stars Astro Image Hosting.
Anyone have any ideas why they would be updating their image index so infrequently? Could it be because of the size of the files they are dealing with?
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
They have some bugs to work out. A search on "to be or not to be" typically produces from 2 to 3 error results in the first ten. That is, if you search on the phrase (including quotes) you get page results that do not contain the phrase.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Why is this "Your Rights On-Line"???
Since when does google have to do anything other than what they wish?
Lame...
It is a fairly minimialist search engine that searches Google, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, About, LookSmart, Overture and FindWhat. I tried it a few times and find it occasionally returns a few more useful results than Google, and doesn't have an annoying clutter of ads.
(I supposed if it did I wouldn't know, I have mozilla configured to block even flash ads, and my firewall is configured to route most known ad servers to 127.0.0.1)
My rights don't need management.
Did they think before they smoked?
Okay, I'm sure the answer to that is yes, but anyhow.. freudian slips are sometimes insightful if not insiteful.
And here we were, expecting Google to deliver us the latest in free pr0n images and thumbnails, and it's been shafting us with old crap the entire time!
The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!
Oh wait.
Nevermind.
(and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004)
maybe the mass media isn't covering the prision over there in the sandy beach, but it's not all quiet, and definately deserves attention of those not deployed over there.
americans are still dying every day in that prision (which is controled by the americans). american troops are deployed in and around that prision sometimes for months at a time with no productive mission other than to be deployed so a general or such can get another stripe on their shirt. this is what our tax dollars are being used for.
there's units that have their own cooks but can't use them due to contracts with another food supply "company". what are these cooks doing? not a damn thing. there's people who are budgeted for a years deployment, but have replacements aready there. what happens to these troops? they get re-deployed to another closer area. these aren't the full time troops either, these are the reservists who are being forced to sit on their arse in the desert.
by the way, there's policy in abu-grabib now that photos MUST have faces digitally distorted. meaning if a solder takes a photo of someone who's leg has been blown off, make sure there's no face in the picture. i'm not even sure if they're aloud to send photos out w/o permission these days.
sign up folks, it's in the name of democracy after all.
So, uh, know any good up-to-date pr0n crawlers?
I am pretty happy with the outcome of this story. Good on google for answering the allegations. Even when they must reveal some disparaging facts about their image search by doing so.
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
/. is always so quick to jump on anything that screams vast right wing conspiracy... and this time they got egg on their face. GOOD.
*golf clap*
tru.dat
If you do a google image search for "www.google.com", one of the first results you get is an image of Alyson Hannigan. That image resides on my server.
I havent the foggiest idea how that image got associated with the string "www.google.com", no why it would be ranked so high. I havent linked to that image directly in over a year, and only on a page that Google shouldnt be trowling for images anyhow.
BTW, a good 70% of the traffic to my server is people looking for that image.
The Abu Ghraib story broke in April 2004 (and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004)
How did this become a non-story? Are you saying that the press will no longer keep running it since it no longer helps Kerry? Did Bush pardon the soldiers involved? Were the prisoners freed and given settlements? Maybe it's a non-story now for the media, but it is still a story for those involved and for everyone smeared by the broad brush.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
He was inserting his political bias where it didn't belong, as usual. Basically he's saying that since Bush was re-elected, it's not important.
Michael and the rest of the editors had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this lame and uncontrite retraction because it was so untrue.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
(very end) - Almost any picture of Morgan Webb on your website will draw at least 2,000 hits per month. Too bad that doesn't help any who don't already have a photo since Google hasn't udpated in seven months. Oh well.
Wikileaks, no DNS
It doesn't matter. If you criticize anyone criticizing Bush, for any reason, you are automatically censored on slashdot.
I've seen bogus/irrelevant listings like this many times before in Google. Altavista results tend to be more relevant/accurate. However, there are much fewer of them.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Just ask Roland!
Stop insinuating that Michael has any kind of principles!
Please give us an apology for doing so!
Someone went to the effort to actualy proove this?
Here you go, if not.
HTH
Had I not happened to login to /. just now, I would have been left with a considerably worse impression of my favorite search engine than now because of the old story. The fact they even responded to slashdot demonstrates something to me. I used Altavista as my primary in the nineties since it came out, and only last year converted to Google. I still use many, but Google is my choice nowadays, and I'd hate to see them censoring. That would IMMEDIATELY cause me to switch search engines.
The fact that the article was wrong is just as big as a story as the original, if not MORE significant, since the mistake could have mislead thousands upon thousands of readers.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
... do we have a right to now say, "Google is teh sux0rz?" (Somehow, I don't think so, especially since "to google" is now a verb and all. We'll all get through Google's slow index, somehow, be it through community support, religion, outreach groups, or otherwise.)
Ok, not really. But following a long running and very successful troll on slashdot ($699 sco license fee), my co-workers and I started calling open source people teabaggers.
Well, the other day, I was doing some work on Linux and I decided to change my MSN name accordingly, however, I couldn't find any decent pictures on google concerning teabagging... (snif)
Wow, that was the "perfect" moderation.
The technology is not rocket science. Altavista.com has returned 100% accurate/relevant results for years. It still does. Google has a lot more results, so I use it instead, but is it too much to ask for to filter out bogus/irrelevant results from the returns?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
In spite of the lack of the politician garbage speech one could expect stating that it's not as bad as we think, they actually did replace the problem, I think, with one of less severity, and one that only requires technical competence to deal with.
Take off every 'ZIG' !!
Its better than trying to hide their mistakes. No matter what a company does today, they're going to get crap for it. So, let's say they don't they blame it on some obscure thing, or the DMCA or something equally idiotic. Then, all our friends here on /. jump up and say "That's so stoopid! My buddy and I could do a better job with a beowulf cluster!" But, when the company is transparent, as we like them to be, then we rail on them again for not being as cool as we thought they were.
Whatever happened to that feature "Slashback", where updates to older stories would all be posted together in a condensed form.
I know this is probably a little offtopic and I'll get modded as such, but I'd very much like for this feature to be brought back. I don't think an update to a few-hours old story like this demands its own front page story -- especially when the main story even says "Update" and links to Chris D's comment. Same goes for the "X prize paid" story.. why should it be news that the X prize group actually paid up the money, they've publicly acknowledged on their site that SS1 won the prize for some time now.
Keep the clutter off the main page and save it for real stories.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
Google deserves to lose since it prefers H-1B workers and other foreign workers over American citizens. More than 30% of Google's workforce is current or former H-1B holders.
By the way, if you want to keep updated on the current news, visit Yahoo! News. It is the best in the business and, on election day, even provides a free audio stream of Fox News Radio, which is America's news source.
I am no conspiracy theorist so I am glad to have the
facts before rushing to any judgement. Score 1 for research.
Since the editors seem to have momentarily forgotten:
"To enter a query into Google, just type in a few descriptive words and hit the 'enter' key (or click on the Google Search button) for a list of relevant web pages. Since Google only returns web pages that contain all the words in your query, refining or narrowing your search is as simple as adding more words to the search terms you have already entered..."
Look at the emphasized words. It clearly states that the results will contain the query. They do... sometimes.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I don't believe this for five seconds. I am sure I've been able to pull images of L England out of Google Images before, for a photoshop competition or something similar. Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?
The Abu Ghraib story broke in April 2004 (and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004)
To simpletons in the American electorate, that might be true. But, if anything, Nov 2nd made the story much more relevant to about a billion muslims who view it as proof positive that the current US government may talk a good story, but where it counts, in real life, their actions are a whole lot different.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Why do you hate America so much?
should be -1, Troll for
...and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004...
I asked two questions in my posting on the first slashdot article
1) What does the way slashdot runs their search engine have to do with the administration? Answer: nothing.
2) Does someone have an automated search engine tester?
I'd still like to see the answer to the second question. Now that we have a vast army of search engines competing for our use, who is going to rate and rank them?
Google's indexing problems look like a great opportunity for some of the other engines.
Isn't it funny how Slashdot is so quick to assume that the Bush administration is sensoring something of which they have absolutely no control over?
I suppose Slashdot is just another liberal propaganda machine taking tips from CBS.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But a month or so ago google couldn't find those images. I wanted to use one as port of an argument here on slashdot. So I fired up altavista.com for the first time in a couple of years. Altavista.com had no trouble finding the images. My conclusion was that google had made a decision to deep-six the links to those images.
This just goes to show that /. groupthink isn't always on target,
Actually, just the opposite. An inaccurate story was posted, and it was torn apart by the comments. The hive-mind that is slashdot preformed quite well, IMHO.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
how come all of the political stories lately on slashdot have been slanted towards favoring the left?
oh yeah i know this is slightly offtopic or whatever, so mod me down so I can't be heard, I don't care.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It originally started with Google, but I sent a message requesting they removed them, and I'll be damned if they didn't graciously comply! Now Google no longer had record of those images, but Yahoo must have taken a copy of their archives when those two severed ties, because I saw refernces from Yahoo for things like "bigass.jpg" and "passedout.jpg". Imagine my joy... I was getting 404's out the bigass.jpg, and Yahoo wouldn't listen to me to take me out of their image index... Now, after several more months (and several dirty tricks), I no longer am included in Yahoo's index.
Does it stop there? No. Someone, somewhere along the way got a copy of those image thumbs out to every two bit search engine wannabe. To this day I still field 404's for stuff that I know had only been searched and indexed by Google, but has since found it's way via 3rd party routes into corners of the web I cannot begin to fully comprehend. *sigh* It's like a gnat bussing around my head... It's not hurting anything, I guess... but it's still annoying.
These days, I put the content="NOARCHIVE" meta tag on every web page I serve. It's not that I don't want visitors. I could deny them with a robots.txt exclusion to that end. I just feel that search engines still lack the ability to capture the nuance of what it is I do... And these days, it has nothing to do with bigass.jpg or images of drunks passing out.
(Not that those aren't fun things...)
There can be no genuine 'journalistic tradition' where there are no journalists.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
More like "Moderators too intolerant of opinion, unwiling to admit being wrong".
Is this a new word, or are you just emulating the RETARDED PRESIDUNCE?
Guess who's dress we are all going to google for... i mean altavista for?
Jonathanjk.com
By the way, if you want to keep updated on the current news, visit Yahoo! News . It is the best in the business and, on election day, even provides a free audio stream of Fox News Radio, which is America's news source.
wtf ? just fo a normal google and the first hits are all her photos. some censorship.
I bet the 2004 election would have yeilded similar results had we all submitted candidate's photographs to google and had them do a count on the image search. Say it with me now: "Recount!"
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
4,285,199,774 pages is what they say they index. That's a 32 bit number and one that has been pretty much UNCHANGED for an entire year. People don't seem to bother google about the 32 bit thing much at all either. .. but THINK for a moment!
If they are stalled at the 32 bit limit and a simple webpage contains just 1.01 images... then they are grinding up against a selection issue. No, its not just money, but as simple algebra shows there would have to be MASSIVE problems selecting which images to update.
Multiply this hypothetical problem with just the distractions created by 'hearding brilliant people' and the plausible distractions of 'satisfying goverment and datamining requests' and pretty soon the stack will be full, pushing the plausible todo list item of '64 bit indexing' down the stack.
Thus.. while, sure, you can simplify this all to 'bandwidth costs money', I put forth that such a simplification is shortsighted. System complexity does not increase in a linear fashion and given that google is 'old enough' to have its systems grow to stress out and magnify whatever shortcomings went into and on top of an originally simple model I bet that slow image search updates are merely a symptom of a much deeper, much simpler than 'money' design hitch which the system that is google.. e.g. the tech/ brains/ people-know-how is a a loss to properly address in a radical way as, with an 'image' to maintain it has become much harder for them to transcend the limits of the 'google-system' and to effectively address the root of the 32 bit problem.
so, yes.. google's number of indexed pages has publically been at the 32 bit limit for a good year.
yes, the hot air and geek dreams projected on the 'google system' have kept anyone from noticing and only now that its impacting the expectations of some folks are people noticing reality. impacted as they are by 'money' they of course project the problem to be solvable by 'money'.
Systemantics dictates that its an inability to maintain self-transcendence which has kept them to keep from having the 32 bit limit catching them with their pants down.
pesky dot 64 dot cl at spamgourmet dot com
They have to balance inbound/outbound net, and image search is *really* bleeding edge in case u didnt notice. So don't scream at them. If they gave all the bandwidth to the research hounds, we wouldn't be
able to use them....
Closes eyes recalling a SciAm article a few years back...
If u really want to suck in the *whole* net as images, I guess your server would do a great black hole impression...
Read the parent post. I put the search phrase in quotes, which gets rid of the logic parsing that you detail. The cached version of www.be.com does contain the phrase, by the way. According to Google's documentation, the result is supposed to contain the phrase in it.
"The following words are very common and were not included in your search: to be to be"
This used to be a major problem, and because of this faulty design, phrase searches were just about useless in Google. Putting the phrase in quotes pretty much gets rid of this problem.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
FUCK YOU
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because it sucks is one reason.
I realize you were probably making fun of the opposition to the grandparent, but whoever modded you needs a good hard look at history, international relations, and the current government policy.
the original google-censoring story had a mention that the IMAGES WERE THERE, but did no longer appear on the image search like they had few weeks earlier(thus the (re)indexing excuse being damage control or 'google is da god' groupthink).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Mod down any criticism of yourself and fellow Editors!
All bow before our Slashdot Editor Overlords!
They may not be welcome but we're fucking stuck with them.
You might want to check out Serena Williams' latest dress as well...
But none of the results that google search are links to the pictures of her wearing this dress
Area man NOT blind. Hat was simply too large.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Pictures and pr0n videos don't count as "girlfriends".
Claiming to be outraged on behalf of some chick you'd like to fuck but don't even have the nads to say hello to just makes you look like a jerkoff, pal.
Oh, and just wait until you actually get to know any Israelis...you'll change your mind about them pretty goddam fast.
I think they know if start playing back room politics people will very quickly move to another search engine. It's a rare thing today to see a big company doing the right thing, and Google is one of them.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Yeah. Maybe you slashdot editors should do a little investigating before you start posting uninvestigated speculation as news. *cough*FOXNEWS*cough*DRUDGEREPORT*cough*
Seriously. It took, what, all of a few hours for the truth to out? But no. You couldn't wait.
Pfft.
vk.
You're a fag, too.
(nice joke!)
I was looking obsesively for a poorly known acteur and i just found 2 pictures.
The day after, i found more pictures ( some unrelated ).
It's seem that my query trigered a refresh of the indexage by night.
So, Bush gets in with a 51% majority and that now makes the earlier torture and basic violation of human rights OK? I see.
No, Michael is expressing *his* political views by claiming that this story no longer is important since election day is over and his candidate lost.
HOLY CRAP, you're right! WHO KNEW?!
I saw the results of a rather recent PIPA / Knowledge Networks poll; and it says that fox news viewers are the most likely to still believe that Iraq had substantial ties to Al-Qaeda. Of people who still believe that, 1/3 are fox news viewers. The next runner up, I believe, was CNN with..22%?
I'm still looking for a link. I'll be sure and post it when I find it.
Some will be quick to decry how slashdot is quick to jump to conclusions. They'll draw fairly pointed comparisons between slashdot and 'real' journalism.
As far as they've reasoned it, they're right. But that's only because they haven't reasoned it quite far enough.
This is exactly the process that happens in the major news media. A journalist spots something unusual, thinks there might be a story there. An investigative team looks into the evidence, tries to get feedback from the source(s), and either corroborates or refines the initial hypothesis.
The difference that we're seeing here is that the story is not landing in our lap, fully formed and packaged according to the publisher's wont. In the past, we never saw the messy part of any story, just the finished product.
I happen to like being able to see the 'messy part' . I like it a lot. In fact, it's why I come to slashdot. If I trusted Big Media to properly digest and format my news, I'd have no need to come here at all.
The truth about slashdot is that, amid all the noise, the silliness, the kvetching and moaning, there is a great deal of solid fact-checking going on. Assumptions do get challenged, news is removed from its 'frame' and picked at. Opinions get challenged or supported by a large number of qualified peers[*].
[*] And admittedly, a smaller but significant number of unqualified peers. 8^)
How many media companies have the same resources available to them? Not many. Most don't even hire fact-checkers any more. And believe it or not, slashdot fact-checkers really are better than none at all. 8^)
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
A retraction for the attack on Google, but another attack on the Bush Administration? Abu Ghraib was bad, but the issue here is Google's perceived censorship of the images, not the event itself.
Yes, excellent comparison. Fox also allows critical discussion of the news in situ.
They do. Fox News Watch every weekend even criticizes itself in a group discussion with media watchdogs. They even ousted O'Reilly and his sexual harrassment lawsuit.
Fox also updates erroneus news with immediate apologies.
They do. In fact, after Carl Cameron's "joke" article got posted, an immediate retraction and apology was posted. Far more than Slashdot ever does. When does Slashdot ever apologize for anything? This place has posted enough fake stories to make for a season of The Daily Show.
Last but not least, Fox viewers are also of above-average intellect and critical judgment.
If you're going to condescendingly judge an entire cross-section of the viewing public--keep in mind Fox has twice as many viewers as CNN, meaning the majority of America watches Fox--I see no reason why I should accept your opinion over any other. Why would Fox viewers be any less intelligent than CNN or MSNBC viewers? Because you don't like them or Fox? You sound like yet another judgmental prick who thinks their opinion matters on some niche geek website. Congrats.
Like, dude, I had to stop browsing on my Apple laptop long enough to tell you how intellectual you are. "Simpletons in the American electorate!" You are sooooooo right! America is dumb, and saying so makes you smarter than them. *sips coffee*
Abu Ghraib was sooooo much worse than the millions of deaths Saddam caused on his own people, dude. Because America is bad and full of idiots who voted for Bush instead of for someone who based their decisions on European polls. We should follow whatever the corrupt UN tells us to do as they make backdoor deals with Saddam. BusHitler! Halliburton! *sips coffee and adjusts thick black emo glasses*
That's the trouble with this kind of site: Absolutely anybody can set one up and describe themself as a "journalist" or "editor" or "writer". Even a hack as talentless as Michael Sims.
What, goatse was down so vistors went for the next best thing?
you people are fucking morons
http://www.sacredfools.org/CrimeScene/Images/S4/we bb_morgan.jpg
So does that mean that Morgan Webb isn't her real name?
bastard
I can think of lots of countries that would come down just as hard on infractions and crimes in their own armed forces. Trouble is, most of the ones I can think of are western democracies.
Your point is a good one.
But this was the Christmas present of the decade to the anti-American press machine.
The acts of the Lynddie's S&M staff show them to be bad people. Photographing themselves in the act show them to be candidates for the Doofus of the Year Award.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
uh, 9 of the top 10 do...and if that's what you call a good figure...yeah....
That would make sense, but someone at Google told me that it was supposed to produce accurate results (as per documentation) and that they knew of the bug and would fix it. This was about 4 years ago.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
We're talking about images.google.com moron.
The Abu G story never 'broke'. It was under investigation by the U.S. military for over a year before the media 'uncovered the scandal'.
There was never any attempt to hide anything on the part of the U.S. military.
The responsibility goes as high as Rumsfeld, and not just because he's in charge. This was a predictable, massive fuckup, and the only instructions to come from the Administration would tend to encourage abuse of prisoners.
Per NGO estimates, 90% of whom were not involved in combat. Think some of them are now? Or their friends and relations?
Shamelessly karma whoring ....... here ya go,
:-)
To get this result, you need to image search for Morgan Webb Nude, and click on the link at the bottom containing omitted results.
You're welcome.
But they replaced the obvious explanation with an explanation that requires a LOT more explaining.
Is Google indexing the Web, or not?
and the annoying thing about all these google/slashdot/mirror/archive/index story is that it's hard as hell to check facts and see the real thing, since google will cache the story, which refers to a search result whose cached version links to a slashdot comment containing a link to a search result for an old story on a google press release.
No it didn't, the Army found out about it in late 2003, announced it to the press, and launched an internal investigation shortly thereafter. All CBS did was come into possession of photos half-a-year after the fact.
What an incredibly arrogant thing to say.
Just because the voting exercises of 51% of Americans were not swayed by reports of the US goverment using torture and breaking international treaties of the treatment of prisoners, doesn't mean this story is dead. Yes, it does mean that the main people behind initiating it (Bush and his Administration) will never be held accountable for it in any meaningful way.
Anyway, for a lot of Americans, as well as many, many other people in the world, this story continues to live. In fact, I am sure as time goes on it will become stronger.
Peace, or Not?
Gasp! There's more than one search engine out there besides Google. And you can't police them all. So, maybe, instead of searching all the time, use some of the other search engine brands like lycos or even the pre-google favorite, alta-vista, just to keep google honest.
This is my sig.
... because that day the american voters decided that human rights are only for those they choose to call humans.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
they got a story and posted. Then post a retraction. This is live news as it happens. I like it. the difference is, the news outlets dress it up as hard confirmed news, slashdot doesn't, and never has.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A more accurate comment would have been, "just goes to show that the editors can still throw any old piece of crap up as a story." Journalism, this ain't.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Hello? We've already established that Google hasn't done an image refresh since before the Abu Ghraib story broke. Cannes '04 took place in May, which means none of those pictures have been spidered by Google images.
Besides, Google seems to have no problem showing older pictures that would be uncomfortable for Kerry. So can we drop this conspiracy silliness?
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
are you also happy that they insinuated that the 'administration' had something to do with this when it didn't?
did you miss that fact or are you completely ignoring it?
You must be new here.
So, uh, anybody mirror that picture of Morgan Webb? ;o)
i can't seem to remember bush torturing anyone. did you see any photos of him torturing people? i sure didn't. hmmm.
Who is posting the same post over again to advertise google?
And I do sincerely apologize for plugging my own site on Slashdot but, well, here it is: Abughraibprison.org
When I search with Google images for the phrase, "Abu Ghraib" , I get exactly 127 images.
When I search for the same phrase using Yahoo's image search:
http://images.google.com/advanced_image_search?hl= en
I get 3,493 images.
The moral here? Stop thinking about Google as the be-all and end all.
There IS competition out there, SO USE IT!
Only if you use the competition will google have the motivation to update their database and be competitive in this area!
That google is providing an inferior product is only an indication that we are being lazy consumers.
Personally, I like Google's GUI layout better than Googles. This is why I'm rooting for Google to come up to speed.
While we're identifying Google problems in the image area, Google might also think about suppressing images that are 98% the same color. Some searches are overwhelmed with that kind of drek.
And speaking of overwhelming drek, how about EITHER doing pre-display background checks for broken links and suppressing them, OR just developing a "cached" option like we get for web text pages. Either approach would save time and aggravation for the user.
And if the company that prides itself on not being evil would care to throw us a bone, give the advance image screen the same ability given to the other other screens to display results at 10, 20, 50, or 100 per screen!
Update the base, suppress the monocolor trash, cash images or suppress the links fom the search results, make the advance search give count options. By god, they could be MUCH MUCH MUCH less sucky.
Meds kicking in.....
must sleep now....
Hillary tucking me in while in the Lincoln Bedroom in January, 2009. ......sleep......
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
OK, simple explanation.
1. Pictures are featured through Google News service. These pictures are immediately archived and searchable in Google Images.
2. Story becomes old, is removed and the Google Image entry is cleared since the Google News entry is now invalid.
3. Google Image-bot slowly trolls the net for images, and will refind and archive the image.
We're just between Step 2 and 3 right now.
Pentagon spokesmen today said the reason we have no body count for dead Iraqis is that they just forgot to update it. Furthermore, the war ended 16 months ago, according to our head prophet, so there's really no need to update it. Besides, do you think Google or the Pentagon has any budget for that kind of bean counting?
1100 US Soldiers Killed
? Contractors killed (who cares)
100,000 Iraqis Killed (mostly civilians)
(lets call that collateral damages, sound nicer than DEAD FAMILIES)
I think the plan is when there are more US troops than Iraqis left alive, we'll acheive democracy
I've noticed that the google images search seems to catalog two distinct kinds of pics: the high-turnover images from high traffic sites (mostly news sites), and the deep spidering of essentially random images from all the other sites. Since news-type sites have a lot of "churn", google re-spiders them frequently and the images search database gets updated for those sites fairly regularly. All other sites are pretty much just "when the spider gets around to it". It's not surprising that the Abu Ghraib pics would "fall off" the images index when the news sites moved on to the next titilating scandal of the week, and the slow-ass "rest of the 'net" image spider has a half-year-plus lag time in updating old entries. So you can't find Abu Ghraib pics. You also can't find "Alexandra Kerry in her black dress at Cannes" pics. But you can find plenty of pics of Paula Radcliffe, the marathon runner, running with the Union Jack and wearing number 576, even though those pics are under a day old. Good luck finding those same pics of her in a week though!
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
"The Abu Ghraib story broke in April 2004 (and officially became a non-story on November 2, 2004)"
With White House counsel Alberto Gonzales--a figure central to the internal discussion of 'when is it not torture' at the White House--on a very short list of Supreme Court nominees, this issue may very well flare up again sooner rather than later.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
...If you don't know that half of the pictures give you a soooo beautiful 403 or 404 !
That say something about how updated this search tool is...
If you go beyond the hype, Roe vs. Wade only struck down anti-abortion laws to such a degree as they criminalized killing the human foetus before it was "viable" (able to survive outside the womb).
In other words, back then, it was still possible to outlaw (some) abortions. Later court decisions expanded upon this, however, carving out even more ways in which abortions had to be allowed for the mother's health (which, mind you, was a *very* broadly understood term, in that it could cover any form of harm to the mother, even psychological ramifications were she to irrationaly believe her child a demon baby or what have you).
To cut this short, the courts when faced with these mounting problems eventually stopped the legislature from outlawing any sort of abortion. True, we have more recent legislation going after wrongful deaths (two murder counts rather than one for killing a pregnant woman, etc.), stopping them from killing anyone born alive by accident, or dialation & extraction (AKA "partial-birth" abortion, in which the foetus is delivered part way down the birth canal and it is terminated by removing brain tissue under suction after an incision is made at the base of the skull with surgical scissors to facilitate this).
In a more ideal world, medical ethics would have long solved this without the need of encumbering legislation. Doctors, after all, take the oath to "first, do no harm," and they are trusted with many other life and death decisions, such as separating conjoined ("Siamese") twins without need of lawsuits to spell out every detail of what they ought to do for them.
However, medical ethicists have yet to agree over this. Thus the complaint that the wrongful deaths above "improperly" conferred human status upon the foetus killed--why should the mother be able to have someone kill them, but not another? Are we ascribing too much capacity--too much humanity--to small clumps of tissue, or are we really nothing more than larger clumps of tissue? Are we "speciesist" if we consider all human organisms, whatever their development, worthy of living, or is that use of -ist and -ism suffixes merely a ploy to associate this synthetic designation with the real evils of such things as racism among the uncritical masses?
So you see, there are no easy answers, and we will likely remain divided until such time as we can find consensus. And yet, I've no doubt that someone will point out that outside of the US, things are not nearly so polarized over this issue. And yet I don't think it's because they've answered any of these questions so much as it is because they've stopped asking them.
Given that they all seem to be fake ...
In the original story, Taco assumed the administration had a hand in the affair because there was no better explanation. Once there was a better explanation, a front page retraction was posted. All Michael said wrt the administration was '([Abu Ghraib] offically became a non-story after November 2)'. Which is an off-the-cuff, slightly confused, bit of cynicism. Don't blow it out of proportion.
Agreed. Google is popular for its simplicity. There's a very real danger of them getting lazy and losing the crown. Most of my site's traffic comes from Yahoo!, and if I'm looking for images, I'll probably try the multimedia search at Lycos or Altavista before Google.
Advice to Google: Improve the image search and expand it to include other file types. Make the Google API more useful and promote it to web developers. Google Groups could use some work, too.
Wow. So, somehow it's chilling that Slashdot editors and readers are ready to believe the worst about the US government without any evidence whatsoever? I call it pathetic and a sign of how many people are living inside of their own paranoid little worlds instead of getting out into the real one.
Mostly Journalism thrives on Sensationalism
Why does yahoo do this
Why do you hate America so much?
Why do you assume that anyone who hates the foreign policy of the Republican majority in the current incumbent US government hates America?
Resorting to black-and-white oversimplification is a sign of a weak mind.
This is Slashdot, you're not meant to post informed and insightful stuff here. At least throw in a few trollish comments or some creative misspellings, or we might begin to suspect you have a mind of your own.
(To moderators: mod parent up goddamnit!)
.but you can't hide the face of occupation.
no wonder I couldn't find any pictures of jenna bush. she's a hottie!
I use google images on a daily bases almost to find photos of certain objects and material for my graphics work, and google does not index the images on a daily bases. What is the use of those bots if they cannot index images properly. The worst is all those outdated images that point to dead URLS.. I think Google need to remap it's google images plan. It is a great idea to search images.. but not if they are of ancient value..
i can't seem to remember (write hear the name of the evil political leader you prefer) torturing anyone. did you see any photos of him torturing people? i sure didn't. hmmm.
Have you seen Hitler or Saddam killing anyone?
And that gets an "Insightful" moderation. Incredible. Real leaders don't kill anyone. Someone does that for them. You can see that even in the movies. Did the Emperor kill anyone? (I mean not counting the attack on Luke).
The problem is, who gives the orders? Perhaps it wasn't Bush but it must have been someone near him.
...a time when I would have given a lot for a URL that *didn't* lead to Abu Ghraib pictures. Not because I didn't want to believe, but because I was convinced and didn't need to roil my stomach further.
The current adminsistration may want to sweep Abu Ghraib under the rug, but this is a stain on America's honor that will take decades to repair.
Everyone is so quick to let google off the hook on this, but something does not jibe with me. The previous story mentioned the fact that the images were in the index so if this 7 month figure is by any means accurate then the Abu Gharib images should never have been there.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
What I would do instead would be to eliminate the profit motive for "caseworkers" and "foster" parents by reducing the amount of money available, but leave enough to feed and clean and dress the kids, and allow true "parents" take in these kids into their own family for a period of time. The rewards are mostly personal and not financial. There are plenty of people that love children out there. Not everyone wants to have a two-income corporate america life.
As to the abortion issue - all human life should be treated the same regardless of age. The real issue is about "power" and the extreme left seems to want to hang on to as much power as they can. True democrats are either pro-life, or take no position.
Stephan
As per gossip TV, Tara Reid recently had a wardrobe malfunction that is _clearly_ of great import. However, no reasonable google image searches can prvide the information I demand!
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
You know, at first I was not going to dignify your comment with a real response, on grounds of your personal attack.
But I've been thinking a bit, and you are right when you say that I have myself insulted a large number of people without any real justification.
I am from Europe and have lived in North America for two years (seven years ago), and the biggest culture shock I experienced was with the media: I found it impossible to get any kind of clear picture of anything of importance by watching the news, the information content and especially the focus were so miserable. And I remember Fox as being the worst channel in this respect, to the point where it almost made me throw up that this should be labelled as news.
I have since given up on Fox, and of course many things may have happened over the years. In that respect I am guilty of hearsay about the current quality of the outlet.
However I still think it is not a good idea to choose as your news source the battlehorse of the News Corporation, this humongous and amorphous conglomerate so likely governed by vested interests that it is entirely incompatible with independant journalism.
I find that the problem is anybody considering these issues simply doesn't look at the big picture. In most instances, they tunnel-vision on a particular group, quite often the most vocal.
Given your abortion issue, what do you think of. Teenage girls with unwanted kids from ranges to adult. The ones often ignored are the odd cases, a young girl impregnated by a molesting uncle, or a very young girl just old enough to become pregnant who is raped.
Personally, I think that rather than just lobbying a particular party, one should be researching the far consequences of these laws. Should such a ban come into a affect that would, in fact, block legal abortion for those in such extreme circumstances? Not enough people vote, but many people do and then leave their soapbox as "well, erm, I voted for X whose stance is Y."
Go a little farther. Start a webpage declaring your reasons, perhaps you'll get flamed but then that just means people are watching (and perhaps sometimes flamers have valid points). Write an article for the news. Google image indexes are just fine, but what use are they without backup info. The regular page/search search should still be able to find one several sites on the issues at hand, and if you don't see enough site around perhaps you'd be best off making your own and trying to get a good pagerank?
Why does the American Government hate it soldiers enough to send them out to iraq with unarmoured humvees and a lack of personal body armour. Why does the American government hate it's people so much it will sell out it's future profitability in return for shorterm increse in profitability. Why do the American people hate themselves so much that they accept and endorse these situations. America land of the "free" rotflmao. Belive it or not we are trying to improve the world for everyone even america. america is trying to improve to world for a few select Americans.
Just because the voting exercises of 51% of Americans were not swayed ...
..."
??? 79% of Americans did not vote for Bush.
Perhaps you meant "51% of Americans who voted
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
How can you call the torture, rape and killing of prisoners, the detention of children, all under US supervision, a "non-story"?
More people die of car-accidents each year then died in the twin towers attacks on 9/11. Shall we start calling that a "non story" too?
Google's explanation does not explain why you can search and get result for pictures of events that happened *after* Abu Ghraib (the 2004 Republican and Democratic National Conventions, for example), nor does it explain why people were able to find Abu Ghraib pictures using Google Images previously.
...and all you will get is nice dark-toned photos from him fron the "Bad" days.
No, I don't think that.
The United States is undergoing a social breakdown. For example, 67% of Americans are obese. That means they are eating when they aren't hungry. That means they are unhappy.
Somebody ought to start paying attention to the realities, before things get much worse, don't you think?
Acting out anger does not help.
Not troll, just because you don't like the facts.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I'm the MrWolf in the picture. hooray, I'm on slashdot in a super duper round about way. Now I can die happy.
Forgot to throw in the cynic tags. :)
No. The picture where they both sit in a crowd is real.
The picture where they stand together speaking is a shoddy manipulation.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!