photos.com

Dear photos.com,

A couple of questions about your service. When looking at the search results for the phrase, “old man face”, is it normal for coworkers to walk by and think you are looking at ?*

Second, when searching for “middle-aged woman face” I think you accidentally gave me the results for ““*.

It is very possible that I have more demanding expectations for search accuracy than your average user, but I am pretty sure that my employer was expecting me to find old men and middle-aged lady faces

Was that not actually a search box, but some kind of random photo haiku generator? If so, I apologize. If not, for the good of both or our jobs, may I suggest you look into adding an ‘advanced search’ to your site?

Thank you so much,
Josh

*I had to encode those phrases with javascript so amishrobot wouldn’t be crushed with traffic from search engines.

Published by

Josh

Amishrobot is a website by Josh Penrod, a User Experience and Product guy who can't be bothered to use any of his UX knowledge on his own site. More about me

15 thoughts on “photos.com”

  1. Dear Josh “Why would I get g a y p o r n?” Penrod:

    Come of age young man–enter the 21st century.

    Photos.com is using the latest marketing technology (spin-off technology from the DOD–thank goodness we continue to throw are money down that channel) to give you what you want with greater immediacy.

    This technology runs a basic trace-router to ping your IP address and subsequently synchs-up with your terminals dynamic java-encrypted online history.

    Voila! Your search is their command.

    My guess is that about 9 out of 10 searches you run should result in porn and the remaining 1 percent divided between images of fear, greed, and bubbles.

    SINcerely,

    Duane “Hey, I didn’t type “women on trampolines”” Call

  2. Also could you read my mind, and give me exactly what I REALLY want, even if my search query was imprecise. And while you’re at it could you take two strokes off my handicap, lower my cholesterol, and fulfill my artistic yearnings, without the use of spam email.

  3. Thanks for the information–Marci will be much less suspicious if she sees photos.com on our history instead of _____.com

    Note: Dan’s funny porn website name was removed because I kept getting people finding my site searching for it!

  4. Not sure where you are coming from Martin.

    The site has one search box, the only options being stock or photo objects. Try to narrow your selection by browsing. Click ‘People’, oh that is as far as the categories go. Click people, and then you can have the pleasure of clicking through 10028 pages. If that is the extent of your nav, your search better work amazingly well–and yes, preferbly lower my cholesterol while it is at it.

    “Old man face” isnt the greatest query, but it is at least as good as you can expect from an average user. I could probably write an advanced query, but who knows, the site makes no mention of it.

    Our buddy google knows that most people don’t know how to do that anyway and gives you a nice advanced search, http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en.

    I would also think that it would be wise, again ala google, to default filter out nude images unless explicitly searched for (awesome pun, 10 bonus points!). There aren’t many businesses that are very understanding about employees browsing through nude photos at their desks.

    Next time I will enter all of the above as my query and it wont have to read my mind ;)

  5. I should expain fully to whom my barbs are directed – at photos.com or the user complaining about the free service. But I’m sure you understand subtle and nuanced posts. Or else you could insist that all posts be simple sentences of aggreement or disagreement. But I think we recently milked all the laughs out of that type of dialog. Lets not argue – It just get ugly

    Me: You’re being defensive. Josh: You’re comparing apples and oranges Me: What are your parameters? Josh: That sounds like something Adolph Hitler might say.

    to quote Homer Simpson “Now that’s sarcasim!”

  6. Disagree, agree, be nuanced, be blunt. I will do the same (and then I will go back and edit your posts so I look like I am winning).

    I should also explain that photos.com costs $600 a year.

  7. I went out to the site and saw that there was a subscriptin fee (searching is free) but I added the “free” jab to add weight to my derision. You have justly corrected my erroneous ways, and are truly “The Winner” in every positive sense of the title.

  8. I didn’t say those obsequious things! You monster you are changing posts to inflate your ego! I don’t know why I even write this, it will either be omitted from the thread or mutated into some puff piece, praising the postmaster!

  9. I think their search engine has some kinks in it. Try it backwards. I bet if you try to search for “gay porn” then your “old man face” will pop up. Trust me, go ahead and try it. Let me know what the results are.

  10. Has anybody else noticed that Josh just can’t pull himself away from his work finding photos at photos.com? Weird how he still hasn’t gotten me that picture of the old lady’s face, though.

  11. SAME! I have this problem all the time! I’ve started phrasing all my searches like virginal, boolean-savvy spinsters in the late 1910’s (or like something out of the For Strength of Youth pamph): “Attractive modest young woman with high standards pondering life and her purpose here NOT boobs NOT Lesbian NOT hot NOT hentai NOT wet, etc”

    Also, who is this Martin chap and why is he acting like such a bizzatch? Get off Josh’s nut, yo. Fo Shizzo. OR No one puts baby in a corner!

  12. OK, I hate to do this, but it appears this audience needs to winked at to know when a joke is being pulled. I am not on Josh’s nut, actually I agree and empathize with him and his legitimate complaint. I DO NOT think he is a monster, nor did he edit my posts (so far . . . .) I therefore must apologize to the readers of this site. While my brand of humor is mostly for my amusement, I am a close friend of Josh, having shared many a meal, and know that he his quite capable of “getting the joke” and not taking my sarcasim literally. I thought I made this clear when I quoted Homer Simpson. So from now on I will make my real thoughts crystal clear by putting (j/k) after any remotely sarcastic sentence. Maybe then Jory will be able to laugh along with us. (j/k)

Comments are closed.