<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Penis Versus Clitoris: Google Has Decided</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.erosblog.com/2008/11/25/penis-versus-clitoris-google-has-decided/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/11/25/penis-versus-clitoris-google-has-decided/</link>
	<description>Sex Blogging, Gratuitous Nudity, Kinky Sex, Sundry Sensuality</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:00:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Red Witch</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/11/25/penis-versus-clitoris-google-has-decided/#comment-103209</link>
		<dc:creator>Red Witch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:48:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2637#comment-103209</guid>
		<description>Angela Caperton did a post on Google as the &quot;inescapable and ruthless arbiter of puritanical morality&quot; after my blog had a Content Warning splash page imposed on it. (&quot;Google says: Sexy Witches Are BAD!&quot;) She linked to this post and I followed her links here. 

While I am here I&#039;d just like to say, &quot;Damn Google sucks!&quot; Not very articulate, I know, but articulate text and tasteful images didn&#039;t save me from &quot;the Walmart of the internet&quot; so why bother with niceties. 

I had never explored the strictest of Google&#039;s internet filters and am aghast at all it excludes. Now I can&#039;t help wondering what constitutes &quot;moderate filtering&quot;: clitoris is not excluded, and neither is any other word I can think of. What exactly, then, does it filter out?

RW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Angela Caperton did a post on Google as the &#8220;inescapable and ruthless arbiter of puritanical morality&#8221; after my blog had a Content Warning splash page imposed on it. (&#8220;Google says: Sexy Witches Are BAD!&#8221;) She linked to this post and I followed her links here. </p>
<p>While I am here I&#8217;d just like to say, &#8220;Damn Google sucks!&#8221; Not very articulate, I know, but articulate text and tasteful images didn&#8217;t save me from &#8220;the Walmart of the internet&#8221; so why bother with niceties. </p>
<p>I had never explored the strictest of Google&#8217;s internet filters and am aghast at all it excludes. Now I can&#8217;t help wondering what constitutes &#8220;moderate filtering&#8221;: clitoris is not excluded, and neither is any other word I can think of. What exactly, then, does it filter out?</p>
<p>RW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Svetlana Ivanova</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/11/25/penis-versus-clitoris-google-has-decided/#comment-99809</link>
		<dc:creator>Svetlana Ivanova</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:52:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2637#comment-99809</guid>
		<description>This is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/googlewashing_revisited/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ominous&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/googlewashing_revisited/" rel="nofollow">ominous</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rach</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/11/25/penis-versus-clitoris-google-has-decided/#comment-99441</link>
		<dc:creator>Rach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:30:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2637#comment-99441</guid>
		<description>never mind on the thing above- i was looking at the autofill rather than the safesearch. safesearch still does allow penis but not clitoris. which is ridiculous. 

the autofill thing&#039;s ridiculous too though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>never mind on the thing above- i was looking at the autofill rather than the safesearch. safesearch still does allow penis but not clitoris. which is ridiculous. </p>
<p>the autofill thing&#8217;s ridiculous too though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rach</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/11/25/penis-versus-clitoris-google-has-decided/#comment-99440</link>
		<dc:creator>Rach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2637#comment-99440</guid>
		<description>You know what&#039;s exceptionally ridiculous about this whole thing? It&#039;s encouraging bad spelling! Horrible spelling! 

Clitoris has no hits, but the incorrect &quot;clitorus&quot; has many! 

and the thing that really gets me- zack and miri make a porno doesn&#039;t bring up a single hit, yet somehow, zack and miri make a &quot;prono&quot; brings up 2,630,000. WHAT THE HELL GOOGLE?

i will say though- at this time, when i typed in penis, it didn&#039;t bring up any safesearch results. maybe they fixed it after the outcry from the community? -shrug-</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know what&#8217;s exceptionally ridiculous about this whole thing? It&#8217;s encouraging bad spelling! Horrible spelling! </p>
<p>Clitoris has no hits, but the incorrect &#8220;clitorus&#8221; has many! </p>
<p>and the thing that really gets me- zack and miri make a porno doesn&#8217;t bring up a single hit, yet somehow, zack and miri make a &#8220;prono&#8221; brings up 2,630,000. WHAT THE HELL GOOGLE?</p>
<p>i will say though- at this time, when i typed in penis, it didn&#8217;t bring up any safesearch results. maybe they fixed it after the outcry from the community? -shrug-</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bacchus</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/11/25/penis-versus-clitoris-google-has-decided/#comment-99409</link>
		<dc:creator>Bacchus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:20:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2637#comment-99409</guid>
		<description>Rather, I think, &quot;clitori&quot; is not on the banned words list.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rather, I think, &#8220;clitori&#8221; is not on the banned words list.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cosmicdan</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/11/25/penis-versus-clitoris-google-has-decided/#comment-99407</link>
		<dc:creator>cosmicdan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:15:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2637#comment-99407</guid>
		<description>I too, got no response from Google when I typed in the word &quot;clitoris&quot; in the search box.  But when I left off the final &quot;s&quot; there were many sites available.  Maybe Google thinks that clitoris is a plural?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I too, got no response from Google when I typed in the word &#8220;clitoris&#8221; in the search box.  But when I left off the final &#8220;s&#8221; there were many sites available.  Maybe Google thinks that clitoris is a plural?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bacchus</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/11/25/penis-versus-clitoris-google-has-decided/#comment-99367</link>
		<dc:creator>Bacchus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:02:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2637#comment-99367</guid>
		<description>Martin, no, the Google image search uses a completely different database.  They have an image search filter but it doesn&#039;t work very well, due to the fact that it&#039;s very hard (close to impossible with current tech) to automatically categorize images.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Martin, no, the Google image search uses a completely different database.  They have an image search filter but it doesn&#8217;t work very well, due to the fact that it&#8217;s very hard (close to impossible with current tech) to automatically categorize images.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

