I have a handful of products that have been indexed upon submitting my
product feed, however, only these products will appear when the safe
image filtering (default) is turned OFF on Google's search peferences.
These products are dog clothing and the images are far from
questionable. I have changed the names, content, everything, but
can't change the images.... Can anyone see something about these that
I cannot?
With this feature on, however, these items show in google base and
google's regular web searches but just not shopping.
With the image filter ON by default, typing in -
Hooded Dog Sweatshirt SimplySmitten.com
returns 1 item
With image filtering option OFF in the google perferences
returns 8 items
These are the ones in question:
Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Football
Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Baseball
Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Soccer
Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Basketball
Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Hockey
Sporty Fleece Dog Pullover - Blue
Sporty Fleece Dog Pullover - Pink
The image names are like the product ie: sportfleece_blue.jpg
Any help would be appreciated as this simply has me stumped now.
> I have a handful of products that have been indexed upon submitting my
> product feed, however, only these products will appear when the safe
> image filtering (default) is turned OFF on Google's search peferences.
> These products are dog clothing and the images are far from
> questionable. I have changed the names, content, everything, but
> can't change the images.... Can anyone see something about these that
> I cannot?
> With this feature on, however, these items show in google base and
> google's regular web searches but just not shopping.
> With the image filter ON by default, typing in -
> Hooded Dog Sweatshirt SimplySmitten.com
> returns 1 item
> With image filtering option OFF in the google perferences
> returns 8 items
> These are the ones in question:
> Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Football
> Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Baseball
> Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Soccer
> Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Basketball
> Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Hockey
> Sporty Fleece Dog Pullover - Blue
> Sporty Fleece Dog Pullover - Pink
> The image names are like the product ie: sportfleece_blue.jpg
> Any help would be appreciated as this simply has me stumped now.
Your robots.txt file is invalid. You must not have any blank lines in
between rows of directievs for a given user agent. The sitemap line
needs tobe at the end, after one blank line from the last directive.
After cleaning it up and consolidating some of the directives to use
just a prefix, here it is:
I question some of the uris you are blocking - are they in any way
encountered during navigation? Are they standalone pages? For instance
curl_proxy_install.php - is that even something met in a crawl? I
redureced it to curl_ - I doubt you have other pages you want indexed
that are prefixed by curl_ .
> Is there anyone that can assist me with this or point me in the right
> direction?
> On Oct 5, 8:51 am, SimplySmitten wrote:
> > I have a handful of products that have been indexed upon submitting my
> > product feed, however, only these products will appear when the safe
> > image filtering (default) is turned OFF on Google's search peferences.
> > These products are dog clothing and the images are far from
> > questionable. I have changed the names, content, everything, but
> > can't change the images.... Can anyone see something about these that
> > I cannot?
> > With this feature on, however, these items show in google base and
> > google's regular web searches but just not shopping.
> > With the image filter ON by default, typing in -
> > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt SimplySmitten.com
> > returns 1 item
> > With image filtering option OFF in the google perferences
> > returns 8 items
> > These are the ones in question:
> > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Football
> > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Baseball
> > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Soccer
> > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Basketball
> > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Hockey
> > Sporty Fleece Dog Pullover - Blue
> > Sporty Fleece Dog Pullover - Pink
> > The image names are like the product ie: sportfleece_blue.jpg
> > Any help would be appreciated as this simply has me stumped now.- Hide quoted text -
Wow, I don't know what to say! Thank you so much! The was well beyond
what I ever expected as a response or assistance. I would have never
looked in this direction and thought I had that robots.txt air tight.
I will give it a few weeks and see if I see any improvement which I am
sure I would have to. Again, this was far more than I could ever
expect and thank you.
> Your robots.txt file is invalid. You must not have any blank lines in
> between rows of directievs for a given user agent. The sitemap line
> needs tobe at the end, after one blank line from the last directive.
> After cleaning it up and consolidating some of the directives to use
> just a prefix, here it is:
> I question some of the uris you are blocking - are they in any way
> encountered during navigation? Are they standalone pages? For instance
> curl_proxy_install.php - is that even something met in a crawl? I
> redureced it to curl_ - I doubt you have other pages you want indexed
> that are prefixed by curl_ .
> On Oct 5, 10:03 pm, SimplySmitten wrote:
> > Is there anyone that can assist me with this or point me in the right
> > direction?
> > On Oct 5, 8:51 am, SimplySmitten wrote:
> > > I have a handful of products that have been indexed upon submitting my
> > > product feed, however, only these products will appear when the safe
> > > image filtering (default) is turned OFF on Google's search peferences.
> > > These products are dog clothing and the images are far from
> > > questionable. I have changed the names, content, everything, but
> > > can't change the images.... Can anyone see something about these that
> > > I cannot?
> > > With this feature on, however, these items show in google base and
> > > google's regular web searches but just not shopping.
> > > With the image filter ON by default, typing in -
> > > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt SimplySmitten.com
> > > returns 1 item
> > > With image filtering option OFF in the google perferences
> > > returns 8 items
> > > These are the ones in question:
> > > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Football
> > > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Baseball
> > > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Soccer
> > > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Basketball
> > > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Hockey
> > > Sporty Fleece Dog Pullover - Blue
> > > Sporty Fleece Dog Pullover - Pink
> > > The image names are like the product ie: sportfleece_blue.jpg
> > > Any help would be appreciated as this simply has me stumped now.- Hide quoted text -
In thinking about this, may I ask how our invalid robots.txt file
caused google shopping to filter only 7 items from the safe image
search and not the other 280+? In addition, these 7 products showed on
Google Base without issue. Just curious.
> Your robots.txt file is invalid. You must not have any blank lines in
> between rows of directievs for a given user agent. The sitemap line
> needs tobe at the end, after one blank line from the last directive.
> After cleaning it up and consolidating some of the directives to use
> just a prefix, here it is:
> I question some of the uris you are blocking - are they in any way
> encountered during navigation? Are they standalone pages? For instance
> curl_proxy_install.php - is that even something met in a crawl? I
> redureced it to curl_ - I doubt you have other pages you want indexed
> that are prefixed by curl_ .
> On Oct 5, 10:03 pm, SimplySmitten wrote:
> > Is there anyone that can assist me with this or point me in the right
> > direction?
> > On Oct 5, 8:51 am, SimplySmitten wrote:
> > > I have a handful of products that have been indexed upon submitting my
> > > product feed, however, only these products will appear when the safe
> > > image filtering (default) is turned OFF on Google's search peferences.
> > > These products are dog clothing and the images are far from
> > > questionable. I have changed the names, content, everything, but
> > > can't change the images.... Can anyone see something about these that
> > > I cannot?
> > > With this feature on, however, these items show in google base and
> > > google's regular web searches but just not shopping.
> > > With the image filter ON by default, typing in -
> > > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt SimplySmitten.com
> > > returns 1 item
> > > With image filtering option OFF in the google perferences
> > > returns 8 items
> > > These are the ones in question:
> > > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Football
> > > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Baseball
> > > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Soccer
> > > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Basketball
> > > Hooded Dog Sweatshirt - Hockey
> > > Sporty Fleece Dog Pullover - Blue
> > > Sporty Fleece Dog Pullover - Pink
> > > The image names are like the product ie: sportfleece_blue.jpg
> > > Any help would be appreciated as this simply has me stumped now.- Hide quoted text -
I don't seem to be able to reproduce the same filtering you were
seeing, but if there's truly an issue with incorrect SafeSearch
labeling, check out the last item in this blog post for how to get it
looked at:
SafeSearch Filtering
Google's SafeSearch blocks web pages containing explicit sexual
content from appearing in search results.
Use strict filtering (Filter both explicit text and explicit images)
*Use moderate filtering (Filter explicit images only - default
behavior)
Do not filter my search results.
In Google Shopping type in football simplysmitten
you will get 2 results with Google's Safe Image Filter being on by
default. Then while these results are showing, change the preferences
to NOT filter my search results and after it saves, I will have three
results.
The link you provide was helpful to confirm I already took all the
steps necessary to correct this issue which includes asking for help
here.
> I don't seem to be able to reproduce the same filtering you were
> seeing, but if there's truly an issue with incorrect SafeSearch
> labeling, check out the last item in this blog post for how to get it
> looked at:
I am attempting to report this issue to Google, this is the last part
of the blog that you referred me to for direction:
Image search: Increase your visibility.
One panelist presented a case study in which a client's images were
being filtered out of search results by SafeSearch because they had
been classified as explicit. If you find yourself in this situation
and believe your site should not be filtered by SafeSearch, use this
contact form to let us know. Select the Report a problem >
Inappropriate or irrelevant search results option and describe your
situation.
> I don't seem to be able to reproduce the same filtering you were
> seeing, but if there's truly an issue with incorrect SafeSearch
> labeling, check out the last item in this blog post for how to get it
> looked at:
Ah, I see what you mean--it looks like that contact form has changed
since that blog post was published.
For now I'd recommend doing what that page suggests--posting your
issue in the Web Search help group ( http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Web_Search_Help ). I'll also try to ask around internally to see if there's any other
way to get something like this looked at.
I wrote to Google Base Team [[email address]] via one of
the forms on this page, even though it was not a form for this. I
included the contents of my original post to them WITH examples, and
here is the reponse:
Hello,
Thank you for your email. I would like to inform you that Google Base
uses technology similar to that employed on Google to automatically
determine the relevance of an item to each query. This may include
removing items deemed adult in nature when SafeSearch is enabled.
If you feel that your item has been incorrectly categorized as adult,
we recommend removing any mature language or content from your item.
However, as our results aren't biased by human intervention, we're
unable to provide specific guidelines for making your items appear
when SafeSearch is enabled.
Please know that we're constantly working to make our search results
more relevant. If you've found examples of items that you feel should
be filtered with SafeSearch, please reply to this email with examples.
Due to the large volume of emails we receive, we can't promise a
personal reply to each individual example. However, we'd like to
assure you that we value your feedback, and we'll use this information
to help improve our products and services.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
> Ah, I see what you mean--it looks like that contact form has changed
> since that blog post was published.
> For now I'd recommend doing what that page suggests--posting your
> issue in the Web Search help group (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Web_Search_Help > ). I'll also try to ask around internally to see if there's any other
> way to get something like this looked at.
I removed from these 7 products the one thing they all had in common
which was the words muff-styled or muff styled pocket and will publish
on our live store in next few days and then to google base, I will
update this next week with a status. I have a good feeling that this
may do the trick but will not understand if it does as muff style
comes up for my searches of dog products with safe search on as these
do not.
> I wrote to Google Base Team [[email address]] via one of
> the forms on this page, even though it was not a form for this. I
> included the contents of my original post to them WITH examples, and
> here is the reponse:
> Hello,
> Thank you for your email. I would like to inform you that Google Base
> uses technology similar to that employed on Google to automatically
> determine the relevance of an item to each query. This may include
> removing items deemed adult in nature when SafeSearch is enabled.
> If you feel that your item has been incorrectly categorized as adult,
> we recommend removing any mature language or content from your item.
> However, as our results aren't biased by human intervention, we're
> unable to provide specific guidelines for making your items appear
> when SafeSearch is enabled.
> Please know that we're constantly working to make our search results
> more relevant. If you've found examples of items that you feel should
> be filtered with SafeSearch, please reply to this email with examples.
> Due to the large volume of emails we receive, we can't promise a
> personal reply to each individual example. However, we'd like to
> assure you that we value your feedback, and we'll use this information
> to help improve our products and services.
> Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
> Sincerely,
> Rakesh
> The Google Team
> On Oct 7, 7:01 pm, Susan Moskwa wrote:
> > Ah, I see what you mean--it looks like that contact form has changed
> > since that blog post was published.
> > For now I'd recommend doing what that page suggests--posting your
> > issue in the Web Search help group (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Web_Search_Help > > ). I'll also try to ask around internally to see if there's any other
> > way to get something like this looked at.- Hide quoted text -
I seem to be having a similar problem none of my images show in image
search when safesearch is switch on even although there is no adult
content. what is the best way to resolve this?
Since that contact form no longer goes to the Image Search team, the
preferred method for getting this sort of thing looked into is now to
post it in this group, and a Googler will pass it along to the right
team.
SimplySmitten, I've passed your issue along for the Images team to
look at.
bobgentry, if you'll post the details of your issue (example URL,
queries that show this filtering, etc.), I'll pass it along as well.
I'm just doing site:www.dees-fancydress.co.uk in the image search.
With the medium safe filter on I see no returns. If I switch the safe
filter off I get 60 images returned.
Thanks for your help.
> Since that contact form no longer goes to the Image Search team, the
> preferred method for getting this sort of thing looked into is now to
> post it in this group, and a Googler will pass it along to the right
> team.
> SimplySmitten, I've passed your issue along for the Images team to
> look at.
> bobgentry, if you'll post the details of your issue (example URL,
> queries that show this filtering, etc.), I'll pass it along as well.
I removed the muff-style and muff style from these 7 product
descriptions and am no longer being filtered by the Google Safe
Search. I question as to why this would work as the default safe
search filters explicit images only and this was in the content....
However, this may not have been the fix as I did correct the
robots.txt file in this time and contacted the Google Base team in
this time. I do believe that removing muff-style and muff style did
correct it as it was then that the issue immediately resolved...
> I removed from these 7 products the one thing they all had in common
> which was the words muff-styled or muff styled pocket and will publish
> on our live store in next few days and then to google base, I will
> update this next week with a status. I have a good feeling that this
> may do the trick but will not understand if it does as muff style
> comes up for my searches of dog products with safe search on as these
> do not.
> On Oct 8, 8:31 am, SimplySmitten wrote:
> > Susan,
> > I wrote to Google Base Team [[email address]] via one of
> > the forms on this page, even though it was not a form for this. I
> > included the contents of my original post to them WITH examples, and
> > here is the reponse:
> > Hello,
> > Thank you for your email. I would like to inform you that Google Base
> > uses technology similar to that employed on Google to automatically
> > determine the relevance of an item to each query. This may include
> > removing items deemed adult in nature when SafeSearch is enabled.
> > If you feel that your item has been incorrectly categorized as adult,
> > we recommend removing any mature language or content from your item.
> > However, as our results aren't biased by human intervention, we're
> > unable to provide specific guidelines for making your items appear
> > when SafeSearch is enabled.
> > Please know that we're constantly working to make our search results
> > more relevant. If you've found examples of items that you feel should
> > be filtered with SafeSearch, please reply to this email with examples.
> > Due to the large volume of emails we receive, we can't promise a
> > personal reply to each individual example. However, we'd like to
> > assure you that we value your feedback, and we'll use this information
> > to help improve our products and services.
> > Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
> > Sincerely,
> > Rakesh
> > The Google Team
> > On Oct 7, 7:01 pm, Susan Moskwa wrote:
> > > Ah, I see what you mean--it looks like that contact form has changed
> > > since that blog post was published.
> > > For now I'd recommend doing what that page suggests--posting your
> > > issue in the Web Search help group (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Web_Search_Help > > > ). I'll also try to ask around internally to see if there's any other
> > > way to get something like this looked at.- Hide quoted text -
> I removed the muff-style and muff style from these 7 product
> descriptions and am no longer being filtered by the Google Safe
> Search. I question as to why this would work as the default safe
> search filters explicit images only and this was in the content....
> However, this may not have been the fix as I did correct the
> robots.txt file in this time and contacted the Google Base team in
> this time. I do believe that removing muff-style and muff style did
> correct it as it was then that the issue immediately resolved...
> All very very odd and very very fustrating.
> Thank you for your help with this matter.
> On Oct 8, 8:54 am, SimplySmitten wrote:
> > I removed from these 7 products the one thing they all had in common
> > which was the words muff-styled or muff styled pocket and will publish
> > on our live store in next few days and then to google base, I will
> > update this next week with a status. I have a good feeling that this
> > may do the trick but will not understand if it does as muff style
> > comes up for my searches of dog products with safe search on as these
> > do not.
> > On Oct 8, 8:31 am, SimplySmitten wrote:
> > > Susan,
> > > I wrote to Google Base Team [[email address]] via one of
> > > the forms on this page, even though it was not a form for this. I
> > > included the contents of my original post to them WITH examples, and
> > > here is the reponse:
> > > Hello,
> > > Thank you for your email. I would like to inform you that Google Base
> > > uses technology similar to that employed on Google to automatically
> > > determine the relevance of an item to each query. This may include
> > > removing items deemed adult in nature when SafeSearch is enabled.
> > > If you feel that your item has been incorrectly categorized as adult,
> > > we recommend removing any mature language or content from your item.
> > > However, as our results aren't biased by human intervention, we're
> > > unable to provide specific guidelines for making your items appear
> > > when SafeSearch is enabled.
> > > Please know that we're constantly working to make our search results
> > > more relevant. If you've found examples of items that you feel should
> > > be filtered with SafeSearch, please reply to this email with examples.
> > > Due to the large volume of emails we receive, we can't promise a
> > > personal reply to each individual example. However, we'd like to
> > > assure you that we value your feedback, and we'll use this information
> > > to help improve our products and services.
> > > Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Rakesh
> > > The Google Team
> > > On Oct 7, 7:01 pm, Susan Moskwa wrote:
> > > > Ah, I see what you mean--it looks like that contact form has changed
> > > > since that blog post was published.
> > > > For now I'd recommend doing what that page suggests--posting your
> > > > issue in the Web Search help group (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Web_Search_Help > > > > ). I'll also try to ask around internally to see if there's any other
> > > > way to get something like this looked at.- Hide quoted text -
> > I removed the muff-style and muff style from these 7 product
> > descriptions and am no longer being filtered by the Google Safe
> > Search. I question as to why this would work as the default safe
> > search filters explicit images only and this was in the content....
> > However, this may not have been the fix as I did correct the
> > robots.txt file in this time and contacted the Google Base team in
> > this time. I do believe that removing muff-style and muff style did
> > correct it as it was then that the issue immediately resolved...
> > All very very odd and very very fustrating.
> > Thank you for your help with this matter.
> > On Oct 8, 8:54 am, SimplySmitten wrote:
> > > I removed from these 7 products the one thing they all had in common
> > > which was the words muff-styled or muff styled pocket and will publish
> > > on our live store in next few days and then to google base, I will
> > > update this next week with a status. I have a good feeling that this
> > > may do the trick but will not understand if it does as muff style
> > > comes up for my searches of dog products with safe search on as these
> > > do not.
> > > On Oct 8, 8:31 am, SimplySmitten wrote:
> > > > Susan,
> > > > I wrote to Google Base Team [[email address]] via one of
> > > > the forms on this page, even though it was not a form for this. I
> > > > included the contents of my original post to them WITH examples, and
> > > > here is the reponse:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > Thank you for your email. I would like to inform you that Google Base
> > > > uses technology similar to that employed on Google to automatically
> > > > determine the relevance of an item to each query. This may include
> > > > removing items deemed adult in nature when SafeSearch is enabled.
> > > > If you feel that your item has been incorrectly categorized as adult,
> > > > we recommend removing any mature language or content from your item.
> > > > However, as our results aren't biased by human intervention, we're
> > > > unable to provide specific guidelines for making your items appear
> > > > when SafeSearch is enabled.
> > > > Please know that we're constantly working to make our search results
> > > > more relevant. If you've found examples of items that you feel should
> > > > be filtered with SafeSearch, please reply to this email with examples.
> > > > Due to the large volume of emails we receive, we can't promise a
> > > > personal reply to each individual example. However, we'd like to
> > > > assure you that we value your feedback, and we'll use this information
> > > > to help improve our products and services.
> > > > Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Rakesh
> > > > The Google Team
> > > > On Oct 7, 7:01 pm, Susan Moskwa wrote:
> > > > > Ah, I see what you mean--it looks like that contact form has changed
> > > > > since that blog post was published.
> > > > > For now I'd recommend doing what that page suggests--posting your
> > > > > issue in the Web Search help group (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Web_Search_Help > > > > > ). I'll also try to ask around internally to see if there's any other
> > > > > way to get something like this looked at.- Hide quoted text -
> I removed the muff-style and muff style from these 7 product
> descriptions and am no longer being filtered by the Google Safe
> Search. I question as to why this would work as the default safe
> search filters explicit images only and this was in the content....
Hi Simply,
As far as I can tell this isn't actually an image issue. SafeSearch
acts on a variety of our search verticals, not just Image Search. When
I did a site: search for your site on Image Search, I got the same
results with or without SafeSearch on. The only difference in results
that I could produce was, as you mentioned earlier, in Google Products
(for [football simplysmitten]). This is unrelated to Image Search and
thus it's very likely that changing the content of those pages helped.
> > > I removed the muff-style and muff style from these 7 product
> > > descriptions and am no longer being filtered by the Google Safe
> > > Search. I question as to why this would work as the default safe
> > > search filters explicit images only and this was in the content....
> > > However, this may not have been the fix as I did correct the
> > > robots.txt file in this time and contacted the Google Base team in
> > > this time. I do believe that removing muff-style and muff style did
> > > correct it as it was then that the issue immediately resolved...
> > > All very very odd and very very fustrating.
> > > Thank you for your help with this matter.
> > > On Oct 8, 8:54 am, SimplySmitten wrote:
> > > > I removed from these 7 products the one thing they all had in common
> > > > which was the words muff-styled or muff styled pocket and will publish
> > > > on our live store in next few days and then to google base, I will
> > > > update this next week with a status. I have a good feeling that this
> > > > may do the trick but will not understand if it does as muff style
> > > > comes up for my searches of dog products with safe search on as these
> > > > do not.
> > > > On Oct 8, 8:31 am, SimplySmitten wrote:
> > > > > Susan,
> > > > > I wrote to Google Base Team [[email address]] via one of
> > > > > the forms on this page, even though it was not a form for this. I
> > > > > included the contents of my original post to them WITH examples, and
> > > > > here is the reponse:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > Thank you for your email. I would like to inform you that Google Base
> > > > > uses technology similar to that employed on Google to automatically
> > > > > determine the relevance of an item to each query. This may include
> > > > > removing items deemed adult in nature when SafeSearch is enabled.
> > > > > If you feel that your item has been incorrectly categorized as adult,
> > > > > we recommend removing any mature language or content from your item.
> > > > > However, as our results aren't biased by human intervention, we're
> > > > > unable to provide specific guidelines for making your items appear
> > > > > when SafeSearch is enabled.
> > > > > Please know that we're constantly working to make our search results
> > > > > more relevant. If you've found examples of items that you feel should
> > > > > be filtered with SafeSearch, please reply to this email with examples.
> > > > > Due to the large volume of emails we receive, we can't promise a
> > > > > personal reply to each individual example. However, we'd like to
> > > > > assure you that we value your feedback, and we'll use this information
> > > > > to help improve our products and services.
> > > > > Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > Rakesh
> > > > > The Google Team
> > > > > On Oct 7, 7:01 pm, Susan Moskwa wrote:
> > > > > > Ah, I see what you mean--it looks like that contact form has changed
> > > > > > since that blog post was published.
> > > > > > For now I'd recommend doing what that page suggests--posting your
> > > > > > issue in the Web Search help group (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Web_Search_Help > > > > > > ). I'll also try to ask around internally to see if there's any other
> > > > > > way to get something like this looked at.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Hi Susan,
Could you help with http://www.martymagic.com ? We are a jewelry
design site and none of our images are being displayed with default
Safesearch on. An easy way to test is to image search on "tree sloth
jewelry". We appear first with the filter off. Disappear with moderate
filter on. This is killing our business.
Thanks,
Art Bobroskie for martymagic.com
Hi Susan,
I have another case here in Germany - www.jolie.de - could you kindly
forward that, too?
The pictures of the site www.jolie.de are almost completely labeled as
adult in image search, although it is mainly a woman´s site about
fashion, celebrities, health, wellness, and yes, about "love and
sex"...
What is really strange: if you do search site:jolie.de in image
search, some of the pictures of jolie.de appear in safe search, but
mainly those, that have been "borrowed" and appear on other sites...
So the pictures themselves are NOT labeled adult, but the whole
page.... (which shouldn´t be the case, either)
