Country of Origin


Topic Image SeEn


Technical functionalities

Used SeEn

Older Version Internet Archive / WebCite

Phil Bradley (2005): » The Yahoo Image Search page is exactly the same as the home page, which made me blink, since I was expecting perhaps slightly different treatment for a different type of search. However, that's my expectation, rather than anything to do with Yahoo! although annoyingly I wasn't presented with a different URL, which means that it's difficult to link to directly - I should in fairness point out that they do have a specific page [4] but it's not clear when looking at their home page. Advanced search functionality was better than that provided by Google, since I could limit my search to size (wallpaper, large medium or small, giving a further option to those offered by Google), by colour (colour, black or white or either) and importantly by type of site, such as .com, .edu or .gov. Now, I could actually do this in Google using the site: syntax, but equally I knew how to do that anyway, so a prompt by Google would be helpful for people who were unaware of the option.

My 'Robert E Lee' search gave 12,000 results, all but one of the first 20 being on target. Moreover, I was prompted by Yahoo! to narrow my search with different terms, by size or colour. The display options followed the same pattern as offered by Google.

'Tony Blair' gave me 32,254 and all but one were appropriate. However, what was interesting was that almost all of the them were 'sensible' images rather than some of the silly ones that Google provided. This is I think an important point - there's no point in getting thousands of results if they're not really on target, so relevance is in many ways more important with images than with webpages.

The term 'flower' gave 1,896,188 results and again, only one of the first 20 was not relevant (a flower girl at a wedding). Moreover, all the images were obviously of flowers, without some of the slightly abstract representations Google gave me.

The term 'internet' served up 6,481,220 images (a lot more than Google), and they were a mixture of cartoons, diagrams, photographs of keyboards and so on. Obviously it's a personal call regarding the question of relevance, but once more, Yahoo! did out perform Google, at least as far as I was concerned.

Consequently, while Google may well style itself as comprehensive, while in most of the searches it outperformed its rival, I did not feel the actual images returned were as appropriate as those found by Yahoo!« Source


Critical points

Features & Functionality

FELICE SCHMERTZLER (2012): »Yahoo also provides the “latest in images” similar to Bing. However, there are a few differences: To access Yahoo’s “latest in images”, you must click on the “Image Search” button without having searched anything. Then the images are split up by categories including: sports, music, movies, politics, fashion, etc. Again, this can be helpful in finding current images quickly as well as generally staying involved in what is popular. However, most users will continue to input a specific search query and hope for good results. Using “Biotechnology” as our test query, Yahoo provides an initial page with a set number of results and a button at the bottom that is labeled “Show More Images.” Yahoo’s approach– Yahoo takes a different approach to image search than Google and Bing. Yahoo focuses on High Quality (HQ) images in its search. Every search will appear with the first two rows of results being HQ images and the first images will say something along the lines of “999+ High Quality Images.” If you click on this first photo, you will be redirected to a slide show of the high quality images. Ads– Lastly, Yahoo also has Ads at the top of the image search. There will generally be a thin strip of about three ads lining the top of the page. Ads generally are related to the search. For example, searching “biotechnology” provides ads such as “what is biotechnology” on, “human genome sciences” on and “biotech summits/events” on As ads generally are, these are more of an inconvenient distraction then a benefit.« Source


References & further Publications

Wikipedia (EN): n.a.
Wikipedia (Others): n.a.

Other Sources


Created: 2013-03-11