Hacker News Reader

Comment by Const-me | Hacker News Reader

You asked “reddit search” and there’s substantial amount of porn on reddit.

The majority of NSFW results in DDG comes from karmadecay.com, it’s a reverse image search engine.

Google doesn’t like that domain, you won’t get images from there even if you’ll search for the domain name. Google will only show result from that domain if you limit search to that domain with “site:karmadecay.com”

Have no idea why Google’s doing that. Could be google breaking antitrust laws (they have a reverse image search as well), or could be purely technical reasons.

Personally, I prefer DDG’s approach. If you’re using DDG in work environment and don’t want NSFW result, just set the safe search preference. Google appears to censor the results even if you explicitly asked not to.

View on HN

>Have no idea why Google’s doing that.

It's duplicate content. That's punished in the SERPs.

Search “karmadecay” on google images. You’ll get zero results from karmadecay.com. Not on the first page, not on the 10-th page, it’s just not there.

Normally, the domain is very strong keyword. Search for “facebook” and the first image will be from facebook.com, search for “duckduckgo” and you’ll see a screenshot image hosted on duckduckgo.com on the 7-th place (not the first I expected but still high enough).

I’m not sure how your duplicate content remark explains this behavior. karmadecay has original logo image, why it’s not found?

A search for "site:karmadecay.com" brings up some results. (warning: mostly nsfw)

Right, I have wrote that in my first comment:

> Google will only show result from that domain if you limit search to that domain with “site:karmadecay.com”

The question is, why doesn’t normal image search show that site ever, despite tons of content?

I know technical reasons are still possible, but so is google breaking laws, they have quite a history of unlawful behavior and have paid billions in fines for that.

>Right, I have wrote that in my first comment

My mistake.

>I know technical reasons are still possible...

It could be as simple as a penalty for breaking one of their webmaster guidelines.

> could be as simple as a penalty for breaking one of their webmaster guidelines.

Agree. Could also be for not having a mobile-friendly version, or for not using AMP.

Still, even if google does nothing illegal here and acts in good faith, do you think it’s OK to de-prioritize relevant search results based on these technicalities?

As a consumer, when I search stuff in a desktop browser, I don’t give a damn about mobile versions nor webmaster guidelines. I want search results relevant to my search query. Arbitrary limitations imposed on web masters by search engine decrease quality of results.

>Still, even if google does nothing illegal here and acts in good faith, do you think it’s OK to de-prioritize relevant search results based on these technicalities?

I do. That's actually the job of a search engine. If it wasn't choosing ranking factors, then it would just be a directory search.

Search engines are far more useful and relevant because they give more context to their results.

>when I search stuff in a desktop browser, I don’t give a damn about mobile versions

Desktop SERPs are actually different than mobile SERPs. They're crawled and indexed independently. A bad mobile site won't affect desktop results.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com