|Language||English, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew|
|Country of Origin||Israel|
|2013 - [...]||NetSpark|
|Crawler-based, algorithmic SeEn|
|Older Version||Internet Archive / WebCite|
|Bradley, Phil (April 29, 2013): »I was asked to take a look at Clean Search which is a search engine that has been produced by NetSpark, which empowers "users to take control of their Internet experience, maintaining access to the abundant resources available online, while protecting users from inappropriate content." They go on to say "The company's unique technological approach automatically inspects and filters user content requests, evaluating the content within the page, in real-time, and removing any inappropriate text or image elements before delivering the remaining valuable content in a seamlessly reconstructed page. NetSpark offers the only filter capable of delivering such granular results, providing access to the maximum content possible."
You know what's coming don't you? You've read enough of my posts to work it out I'm sure. So anyway, I took a look. The best term to use when trying to trick a filter of this nature in my experience is 'dogging'. We start with a bunch of inappropriate adverts. (Women looking for male doggers, Cute local girls etc) We're then into hard core porn sites straight away with a single click.
Next search term up is 'blue tit' and I get "Sorry. We don't accept this search term on Clearch.org. Thanks for understanding." Easy enough to work out which word, but it would be helpful if they would say. This is the absolute classic failure of this type of engine. Any word that has a sexual connotation is immediately banned, irrespective of the fact that it may have many innocent uses. This immediately renders the search engine totally, utterly useless. We also end up with a weird situation where 'breast' isn't acceptable, but 'breast cancer' is ok. So why doesn't 'blue tit' work? 'Breast tissue' fails as well. Am I seriously expected to play 'guess the naughty word' before I can use this search engine? Really? There are lots more examples, and I could go on (not bdsm but sadism is ok) but I'll stop at this point...
Am I being unfair? No, I don't think so. If an engine sets itself to say say that it provides clean searches and it's name 'Clearch' is based on the concept, it's only fair for it to do what it should. I would certainly expect it to do as well as Google safesearch - but one of my image searches returned what was clearly a sexual act, and the same search at Google didn't. Of course, the complaint could also be made that I went out there looking for that sort of image, and it's a fair point - with a search engine that states that it does something particular, that's what I look for; if a search engine said it did excellent work in the field of medicine, that's what I'd test it for.
The bottom line is that this isn't a 'clean search engine' and to say that it is - well, they're just flat out wrong. It's also not a very good search engine - if there's no consistency with search terminology that's poor. If it blocks words or phases which are totally innocent, that's worse than poor, it's downright incompetent. Feel free to check it out for yourself of course, after a while it's quite fun to see how you can confuse it, especially with latin or slang terms (bristols are fine, boobs are not). My advice to these people - 'you don't have the first idea on how to create a search engine. Close it down and go away and do something else instead.'« Source|
Features & Functionality
References & further Publications
|Wikipedia (EN): n.a.|
|Wikipedia (Others): n.a.|
|Bradley, Phil (April 30, 2013): Clearch, the Clean Search engine. No, it's not. URL: http://philbradley.typepad.com/phil_bradleys_weblog/2013/04/clearch-the-clean-search-engine-no-its-not-.html|