Girls & Boys, according to Google.

[MineralMan]

Yesterday, I was looking for some images of children for a website I'm working on for a Montessori school. As usual, I turned to Google's Image search to browse through images. I found a surprising thing, I think:

First, I did a Google Image search for "boy." It presented me with lots of images of male children.

Then, I did another search for "girl." I got a different result. Instead of image after image of female children, the majority of the images presented were of adult women, most with come hither expressions on their faces.

I ended up on a stock image site to find suitable images, which I expected, but I thought the Google search was interesting. It seemed to illustrate a difference between how we use the two words and what our definitions of them are. Google reflects our culture, pretty much, it seems.

[TheBlackAdder]

1. You should buy stock images (esp. business use). It might save the school from a copyright claim.

Even images that are on public domain sites or on sites such as Wiki Commons, identified as, CC, GFDL, or PD, might not necessarily be free to use, and most will require some type of attribution. For business use, the terms might change further.


Some might be placed there in error. Others are placed there as a fee-collecting trick, where copyrighted images somehow find their way on these sites by "unknown means" (wink wink). The images have meta data in them. Specialized software is used to scan Google Images, Facebook, etc. to identify sites that are "illegally" using them. These trolls drop a threat of a lawsuit, requesting a settlement from the site owner in order to avoid an official copyright claim.


You take your risk with any image you use.


Therefore, it's best to pay the few bucks and get the rights the image's use.


===


Here are some nice links to live by:


http://guides.wikinut.com/Most-Bing-and-Google-Images-are-NOT-Safe-to-Use/7efhhg6o/#Using-Copyright-Free-Images-Properly


http://www.naturefocused.com/articles/image-protection.html

http://bloggerstop.net/2009/08/protect-photos-from-getting-copied.html

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Meanwhile, to return to the point of the OP:

Men and "girls" ...sexism still alive and kicking 40 years after Women's Equality movement.
sigh.

[TheBlackAdder]

4. The cause transcends the use of these two words.

'Girls' is just as generic as 'boys', though it's use was mainly supplanted with the term 'guys'.

Which, over the past twenty years, now incorporates women as well.


===


English and colloquial use is dynamic.

The usage of this one pair of words cannot be used to draw a correlation to the Woman's Equality Movement.


===


Since there are more women in the US then there are men, even when the ERA came up for ratification, the cause of Woman's Equality is not how people relate to themselves, it's more of a fundamentalist issue.

Just about as many men supported ERA as objected to it. The women were the ones who did themselves in.

Not, mainsteam women, but women from fundamentalist groups and many elderly women who held that a woman should be second to a man. There was a lack of female support for the ERA as Anitia Bryant and others protested. As church leaders protested. Even those weirdos who claimed that there would be unisex bathrooms if ERA passed.

[MineralMan]

7. I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me, here.

I'm just reporting something I noticed in Google Image searches.

Since you missed my explanation that I actually used stock images from the original post, I'm not sure whether you actually read that post carefully.

My post is not about the ERA or women's equality. It is about Google Images as they reflect image occurrences on the Internet. You seem to want to make it about something else, for some reason I do not understand. I actually drew no conclusions in my original post on this, even though the logical conclusions seem obvious.

[Squinch]

32. What he is trying to tell you, as are a number of other posters in this thread, is this:

"Must not let this be talked about! Must get in that thread and hijack it with non sequitors! Must not just pass by and let others have this discussion!

Your OP was an interesting illustration of what we all know is true.

[magical thyme]

35. this ^^^^ exactly

Women continue to be infantilized in our society. And sadly, as I've noted below, many of them insist on joining in on disrespecting themselves.

[MineralMan]

5. Yes. Thanks.

I do lots of image searches. These two were interesting.

You can get similar conflicting results with lots of searches.

For example, try "professor" and "teacher". Or "Executive" or "manager."

Google has no idea what actual images it presents. It just reflects the occurrences of those images on the Internet. It's an interesting way to get a feel for some things.

[TheBlackAdder]

10. The reason why I gave the copy protection advice.

Even if you purchase a stock image from a site, place it on a website, claiming it's copyrighted (though you can't really claim a copyright to another site's rented image), you are responsible for that image if it is used on another site. Read the stock image site's Legal section.

Some sites won't even let you watermark an image or otherwise alter it to make it unusable for others.

These sites also incorporate meta data in them that identify your website as the owner so when it is found on another site, they know where it came from. Locking down you appserver is key, but there truly is no way to protect an image once it is server from your server.

[MineralMan]

13. That's not an issue for me.

I simply refer the web designer I work with to the images at the stock agencies. I'm a content provider, and that's it. I write. Sometimes, I'm asked to locate suitable images, too, which always come from those stock agencies.

As I said, I look at Google Image searches to identify stock images that are over-exposed, so I won't recommend those. Anything that's on the first or second page of Google Image results for a concept isn't going on any of the sites I help to create. Those images are overused and stale.

That's what I do for a living.

[Matariki]

33. Off the real topic

which is an interesting, if sadly obvious, observation. Anyway, a friend of mine pointed me to bing's image search which appears to be WAY better than google's. Not the regular search, mind you, but the image search is better.

[Nye Bevan]

40. Why "dixiegrrrrl" and not "dixiewommmman", just out of curiosity?

I mean, "MineralMan" doesn't call himself "MineralBoy".

[dixiegrrrrl]

41. Valid question.

Because dixiegrrrrrrrrrrroman did not have the right sound.

[MineralMan]

3. As I said in the original post, the images I used

came from a stock agency. I did the search, because I often find my stock images through those searches. I also use Google image searches to eliminate stock photos that already have too much exposure, which is what I was doing in this case. I don't use any images on websites that aren't purchased from such agencies. I do a lot of image searches though on Google. It can save time. I can spot an image that comes from a stock image agency most of the time on Google.

But thanks for the reminder. I did know that, though.

Here's the quote from my original post: "I ended up on a stock image site to find suitable images, which I expected, but I thought the Google search was interesting."

[flamin lib]

6. Yeah, try 'woman' vs 'man' too.

Women's pics are borderline porngoraphic. Some of the men's pics too, but nothing compared to the women.

I have a 3 year old grand daughter who is, by any measure, cute, pretty or beautyful. People often comment on it and I usually reply,'We don't tell her that, we tell her she's smart. Pretty only gets you so far.'

[MineralMan]

9. I looked at those two searches, as well.

It's a little less clearly obvious in those. What I found interesting, though, about the image results for "woman" was the scarcity of images of women over the age of, say, 40 in the results. I decided not to address that, though, since the "girl" and "boy" searches were so strikingly different.

Thanks!

[redqueen]

36. All of it, though, taken together, really makes it clear

how women are viewed in society.

[MineralMan]

37. Yes, it does, sadly.

[TransitJohn]

8. More precisely, reflects our use of English. eom

n/t

[MineralMan]

11. Actually, it reflects how we tag images on

the Internet. Google's image search works by looking at surrounding content, tags, and captions. It sometimes reflects our usage of words, but that is not how it generates its results.

However, in this case, it appears to do just that. We refer to adult males as "boys" far less frequently than we refer to adult women as "girls." That, in itself, is a very interesting thing, don't you think?

[TransitJohn]

12. Tagged with English, right? That's not use of English?

Were you searching in Spanish?

[MineralMan]

14. Were you looking for an argument?

You won't find one from me.

[TransitJohn]

20. No.

But your passive aggressive correction of my reply to your OP sure makes it seem like you're arguing.

[uppityperson]

39. You snark, call someone passive aggressive and then do the wave smilie? Heh

[Shankapotomus]

15. Another way women are encouraged

by our culture not to see themselves as fully grown, independent beings. "Girl" implies a child under the guardianship of some dominant other. Very bad sign.

[MineralMan]

16. So it appears. I was a little surprised at the results,

but not too much. What you say is pretty much true in the US. Too bad, too.

[magical thyme]

34. sadly I'm not surprised.

I still find myself biting back anger when other women refer to a group of us as "the girls," especially in a work environment.

Very common in business. I don't understand how they can demean themselves in that way, and I resent their demeaning me along with them.

[CFLDem]

17. Makes sense

Youth is generally an asset to women and a detriment to men in our society.

[MineralMan]

18. According to whom?

I don't particularly think your statement is true, although many appear to think that way.

[CFLDem]

24. According to patriarchal societies all over the world.

Fortunately for women (and society as whole), modern society is allowing women more power outside the home which increases their value beyond their prime child bearing years.

Whereas with men, power and influence tends to peak in their 40's and 50's as they reap he rewards of life experience.

Don't shoot the messenger, I didn't write the rules.

[Marr]

19. English is often noted for it's multitudes of synonyms and subtle, almost-synonyms.

For some reason, "girl" and "boy" are not exactly, necessarily, opposites in modern english. They may be-- as in the case you're citing. Depending on the context, "guy" might be the opposite.

I can't say whether it's because our society infantilizes women, but that would seem like a reasonable interpretation to me. Just as an aside, I refer to any adult female as a woman, and I've had several women-- mostly in their twenties-- be taken aback by this or even complain about it.

[MineralMan]

22. Yes, that's true.

My post reflects one way of looking at how we treat those two words. Google often presents information in interesting ways, and that's always an interesting thing to me.

Much of my work revolves around working with Google's ranking algorithms, or at least what we understand those algorithms to be. I spend a great deal of time searching on Google to learn what is effective and what is not. Google is, perhaps, the most important website on the Internet, I believe. Understanding what it's up to is crucial in my line of work.

[agent46]

21. Google searches apply algorithms

Google Searches apply algorithms to your browsing history in order to yield unique results targeted to your personality profile - which at this point is extensive and also for sale.

Does your wife know??? Google and the NSA certainly do.

[MineralMan]

23. That's true to a certain extent, certainly.

However, since I use Google searches to help me create effective content, I keep a very clean platform for my searches that has a unique IP address and is free of cookies, etc. I can't have my Google research altered by my personal browsing. It would be confusing, really.

You try those two searches. You'll get results identical to mine.

[agent46]

28. I'm just messing with you

Yes, I think part of the answer might lie in the ambiguity of our language. AI as it is, is still very much constrained by context.

[MineralMan]

29. Google's pretty clever, really.

I have to keep a separate PC that uses a different IP address from the other one to avoid slanting of the searches I make while doing research.

For example, I never actually click on a site while doing research. If I do, Google will present it in later searches higher than it would appear if someone who hadn't ever clicked on the site did the search. Google also knows where your IP address is located, which it uses to localize your searches. However, for very generic searches, like an image search for "girl" almost everyone will get identical results. And those results are very different from a search for "girls," too. Doing research on how Google actually works is a complicated thing, and you really have to work not to have the results reflect your own personal history.

'Tain't easy.

[agent46]

30. Yes

Also, these days, HTML 5 has introduced Semantic Elements and Microdata Vocabularies that (hopefully) may reduce the bogus tagging of content by developers causing skewed search results. The days of tagging porn with every possible keyword are numbered.

[MineralMan]

31. The problem for search result algorithms is that

computers can't actually see images. They recognize that a chunk of data is an image, but don't really know what the image depicts. I think Google probably identifies domains that are associated with the images as porn domains, and uses that information.

However, that may well be changing. When you use Google to look for images similar to one you provide, it does a pretty good job. So, image scanning and identification is improving as well. Progress is rapid, and Google seems to stay on top of innovations in data handling and processing.

If I were not 68 years old, I'd probably be looking for a job there. I am, though, so I'm just studying what Google is up to, along with everyone else associated with creating websites. Some are getting it right, but a lot are still getting it wrong. Since I'm a content writer, my focus is on Google's algorithms for deciding what is valuable content and what is not. And that's one of their primary focuses right now. So far, so good, though, and the websites I've written perform remarkably well.

I also have experimented with image search results. If you Google "bass fishing Santa," (with quotes) you'll find a photo of an inflatable Santa in a small aluminum fishing boat in front of my house with light blue siding. That was one of my experiments in Google search results placement for images, several years ago. It's still at or near the top of the Google Images results list.

[Ghost Dog]

38. Yeah. It's an (abused) English-language culture thing.

Although, here, where I live, I did recently refer to a new friend, friend of a friend, as "señora", she having informed me that she is 42 years old (and in a solid, although unmarried relationship with a man). She immediately, and only half-jokingly, made out that she felt offended by the term. So I corrected myself, checking with her: ok, "señorita". if you prefer (she did prefer).

But this is both a cultural and a language issue. In the Spanish language (as in the French, for example), "señorita" does not mean the same, usually, as "niña". "Niña" woud be best translated as, say, "little girl" in English, whereas "señorita" means more like "young woman" (and not so much to do with 'marital status', these days).

In current English, though, there only appears in common parlance that one term, "girl", to apply to all.

The English language, and therefore English-thinking minds, is, are being greatly abused, both accidentally and via the propaganda, dumbing-down (ie. cretinizing) brainwashing neo-nazi takeover system...

But of course we resist and react. Your language(s) is (are) key to your thoughts.

[Orrex]

25. I'm amazed that the results were as PG as they were.

I would have guessed the results to be much more explicit.

[MineralMan]

26. I think Google has been trying to tone down the sexual

nature of its image searches for generic terms. I do remember when such a search would have turned up lots of questionable images, suitable for adults only, but I've noticed recently that there are fewer of those now for generic searches.

It's interesting to watch Google as it changes its algorithms for result presentation. I have to do it, of course, given my profession, but it's always on my mind as I use Google.

It wasn't that long ago that you'd see some pretty shocking stuff for generic searches if you didn't have the safe browsing filter turned on. That seems to be changing, and I think that's for the better.

Still, if you add a selected adjective to your search, you'll find that the salacious stuff is still there, and in massive volume.

[Orrex]

27. Yeah.

There's some kind of "internet law" stating that any search will return hardcore porn inside of the first n results, though I don't know what the number is.