Menu DaniWeb
Log In Sign Up
  • Read
  • Contribute
  • Meet
  1. Forums
  2. Digital Media
  3. Digital Marketing
  4. Search Engine Strategies
  5. News Stories
  6. News Story

Online sex not so popular after all

19 Years Ago happygeek 0 Tallied Votes 313 Views Share

For the longest time, the Children’s Online Protection Act, signed off by President Clinton way back in 1998, has been a contentious issue in the US. It was originally kicked out of town, well Philadelphia anyway, after a federal district court banned the enforcement of the law, and a federal appeals court agreed, as did the Supreme Court in June 2005 when the ban was upheld. However, the Supreme Court did send it back to district court as part of a fact finding mission concentrating on the effectiveness of Internet filtering.

Which is where my attention gets grabbed, as someone who not only has a book published about sex on the Internet over a decade ago now, but regularly writes about the subject for various adult publications. You see, I had always been under the impression that online sex was one of the main drivers of not only Internet popularity, but technological advance itself. The latter conviction has not been diminished by the evidence given to the federal court hearing in Philadelphia, but I must admit that my belief in just how prevalent sexually explicit material within web pages was, has been.

As part of a confidential analysis of search queries, together with a random sample of pages taken from both Google and Microsoft indices, it would seem that the number of web pages that contain sexually explicit material is, in fact, err, well 1 percent of the total actually. This analysis was meant to help build the case of US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the US Justice Department that criminal penalties are required if our children are to stay safe from the perceived menace of adult material on the Internet. As the American Civil Liberties Union told the Mercury News "One of the things we think came out of the government's study is that the chance of running into graphic content on the Web when filters are on is extremely low."

Indeed, the study by professor of statistics at the University of California-Berkeley, Philip B. Stark, revealed that just 6 percent of the total number of search queries returned a sexually explicit site, and that flying in the face of the fact that queries relating to sex remain a consistently popular factor. What’s more, the study admitted that filters did the best job of clocking this kind of content, but those that were most efficient also blocked a lot of non-explicit content and lots of explicit content was not blocked by filters.

Well, I’m glad that’s cleared up then!

Apart from shattering the myth that the web is a hive of sexual activity and going online is equivalent to walking through the red light district of any large town late at night, the study also served to remind me how the source material was collected. Remember the fuss last year when a federal court ordered Google to hand over 50,000 random web pages from its index, but sensibly did not demand the full original request to also hand over 8 weeks’ worth of search-engine query data. That is where it came from. I should also point out that Microsoft (with MSN), Yahoo and AOL were less worried about protecting user privacy as they all stumped up a week of search queries without a bug fuss. MSN also gave up 1 million web site samples for good measure.

I’m not sure which is more shocking, the lack of sex online or the ease with which Microsoft caved in to the demands to give up your search query data...

legal pay-per-click seo
About the Author
Member Avatar for happygeek
happygeek 2,411 Most Valuable Poster Team Colleague Featured Poster

A freelance technology journalist for 30 years, I have been a Contributing Editor at PC Pro (one of the best selling computer magazines in the UK) for most of them. As well as currently contributing to Forbes.com, The Times and Sunday Times via Raconteur…

Dani AI

Generated 9 Months Ago

As observes, the headline result is less important than the implications. A relatively small slice of indexed pages can still generate a large share of user demand and commercial value, and classification/filtering decisions have outsized effects on what audiences actually see. That makes this topic as much about measurement and policy as about raw counts.

A few methodological points worth keeping in mind when someone cites a study like this: search indexes differ in coverage and refresh rate; query samples can over- or under-represent particular user groups; and labeling “explicit” is subjective (educational, artistic, or medical content can be misclassified). Any study that informs policy or ad decisions needs clear notes on sampling method, labeling protocol, and a measure of false positives/negatives for filters.

Practical steps for SEOs and PPC managers to reduce risk and loss from filtering or misclassification:

  • Separate sensitive content onto distinct hosts or subdomains and age-gate where required; it limits collateral damage to brand pages.
  • Use robots/meta tags and conservative thumbnails to control what gets indexed and previewed; avoid ambiguous image filenames and open-graph snippets that invite automated blocking.
  • For paid search, maintain negative-keyword lists, monitor impressions under SafeSearch/simulated filter settings, and log changes so drops can be diagnosed.

Finally, treat query logs and user data carefully. When sharing logs for research or compliance, aggregate and anonymize first, keep documentation of legal requests, and consult counsel on disclosure obligations. The main takeaway is that assumptions about volume shouldn't replace targeted measurement — monitor, label clearly, and plan for the imperfect nature of filters.

Be the first to reply
Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.

Sign Up — It's Free!
Recommended Topics
  • Member Avatar google, (msn and yahoo dir) probs with cms ? 2
  • Member Avatar SEO 9
  • Member Avatar Direct Links for Search Engines to submit sites? 4
  • Member Avatar Are they manipulating Google placement? 3
  • Member Avatar nofollow 7
  • Member Avatar Is this Considered Spam??? 2
  • Member Avatar image link 8
  • Member Avatar Google gets moving 0
  • Member Avatar Look at GA4 pageviews that match a certain criteria 3
  • Member Avatar “What Are the Key Factors to Look for in a Digital Marketing Agency?” 4
  • Member Avatar How Can I Create a Long-Term SEO Strategy for a New Website in 2025? 21
  • Member Avatar How to speed up my (WordPress) website? 6
  • Member Avatar Page Crawling Issue 9
  • Member Avatar Extract Schema.org Data Script (Python) 1
  • Member Avatar Extract and Count Reviews/AggregateRating Script (Python) 3
  • Member Avatar Python Script for scraping Schema.org JSON Code from a specific URL 1
  • Member Avatar Redirect non-www to www cons? 17
  • Member Avatar AdSense says I'm not using a Google-certified GDPR message but I am 6
  • Member Avatar The Power of Yelp: Why it Matters in Today's Digital Landscape 2
  • Member Avatar How to Cut Costs With a Virtual Assistant 1
Not what you need?

Reach out to all the awesome people in our search engine strategies community by starting your own topic. We equally welcome both specific questions as well as open-ended discussions.

Start New Topic
Topics Feed
Reply to this Topic
Edit Preview

Share Post

Insert Code Block

  • Forums
  • Forum Index
  • Hardware & Software
  • Programming
  • Digital Media
  • Community Center
  • Recent
  • Recommended Topics
  • Newest Topics
  • Latest Topics
  • Latest Posts
  • Latest Comments
  • Top Tags
  • Tools
  • Writing
    • Start New Topic
    • Markdown Syntax
    • Newsletter Archive
  • Social
    • Top Members
    • Meet People
  • APIs
    • Connect API
    • Forum API Docs
    • Topics Feed
  • Resources
  • Community Rules
  • DaniWeb Premium
  • FAQ
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Legal
  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
© 2026 DaniWeb® LLC
© 2026 DaniWeb® LLC
  • FAQ
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy