Late last night Rand emailed me this article about the concerns over Google filtering "good porn" out of their search results. I think it's funny how Google has been, as Danny Sullivan put it, "tweaking porn filters" when their image search results frequently return some serious (and often nas-tay) T&A. Seriously, do a search for stuff like "junk in the trunk," "sex," "brunette," or "blonde," and you'll see a huge disparity in the listed and image results (with "safe search" disabled in both). Bleh. If Google's trying to serve up relevant results that are light on the porn, then they've got a lot of work to do with their image search results. (Uh, by the way, don't do the searches at work if you're in an office that, unlike SEOmoz, doesn't condone gawking at porn.)
Anyway, back to the article. I found this piece to be unintentionally amusing. It talks about the "difficulties of gauging 'good porn,'" which is pretty hilarious. Is there such a thing as "good" vs. "bad" porn? Wouldn't that depend on the searcher's taste? Someone who's into S&M might find bondage porn results to be "good porn," right?
It seems that "good porn" is supposed to be "spam-lite," relevant porn, but the article talks about how erotic and adult industry blogs had been disappearing from search results. Hey Google, where's the porn love? Are you just one big fat prude?
Whole article HERE ->
http://www.seomoz.org/blogdetail.php?ID=1633