[Tom Servo]

Go to http://www.google.com, search on miserable failure (not in quotes), and click on "I'm feeling lucky". Makes me really curious as to how google's search algorythm works.

BTW, how do you get rid of a typo in the topic line? Of all the words to misspell, 'failure' is one of the more embarrasing.

 

[sleepingbeauty]

google bombing is the best. but dont worry neocons, if you hit search instead of lucky, you will find Michael Moore's site is #2. though i dont know how that makes any sense. you would think the bombers would have come up with something more clever, like a search for '
big fat doodoo head'. isnt that what they call him because they cant come up with anything else? :roll:

 

[Tom Servo]

Really, Michael Moore is second? OK, then, someone at Google has stacked the deck just to mess with us.

 

[Dreamer]

WOW, that is really freaky. :shock: I was directed, directly to George W. Bush's bio, LOL. For crying out loud!

Found this really interesting article, looking at the regular Google. I'm mystified by this. It's all new to me. Can't keep up with there here young 'uns.

Google Bombing! "Cyber Graffiti" :shock: :shock: :shock:
They're going to have to put out a new dictionary, like yesterday! I feel old!

Google's (and Inktomi's) Miserable Failure

By Danny Sullivan, Editor
January 6, 2004

By now, many have learned about how a search for miserable failure
on Google brings up the official George W. Bush biography from the
US White House web site. Dismissed by Google as not a problem, it
points out a case where the real miserable failure is Google
itself.

"Google Bombing" like this has happened in the past, and in
general, it has little impact on most people. Making a site come up
tops for a relatively obscure query such as "miserable failure,"
which brings back less than 200,000 matches, is much different than
exercising some super-control over Google for popular or
commonly-performed searches.

I've written about other examples of Google Bombing in the past
(Google Bombs Aren't So Scary) and why I think it tends to be
overplayed. But in this case, I find myself agreeing with The
Register's Andrew Orlowski, who discussed how blogging activity
might "googlewash" a term earlier this year. This is when the
originating document or original meaning of a term is lost due to
new material coming into the search results.

Unlike what Google claims in this latest incident, the results that
currently come up for miserable failure do not "reflect the opinion
on the web," nor is it true that "no user is hurt" or that there is
no "clearly legitimate site for 'miserable failure' being pushed
aside."

This Google Bombing was done by at most a few hundred links
pointing at the biography, if that many. Google annoyingly makes it
impossible to tell exactly how many links are involved using the
term, but to say that this particular campaign is the same as the
"opinion on the web" is absurd. So only a few hundred people are
able to speak for millions of web users? This isn't the web's
opinion -- it's a particular opinion on the web.

Users are also hurt, because there are indeed "legitimate" sites
for this query that get knocked down in the results.
What's a legitimate site? Seems like the Dick Gephardt For
President site deserves top ranking, since he appears to have
christened Bush's administration a "miserable failure" as part of
his campaign slogan. In short, Gephardt's site is an originating
source for this term and actually provides much more useful
information for those wondering how it relates to Bush than the
biography prank.

Rather than be first, Gephardt is ranked eighth. Only two weeks
ago, he was ranked third. At this rate, the game Google's happy for
people to play (see new entries of Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter
and Michael Moore) will have pushed Gephardt's site out of the top
results and into oblivion altogether.

Another good listing is an article from the Atlantic Monthly that
explores how Gephardt is using "miserable failure" as part of his
campaign to attack Bush. Again, this is a far more useful site for
users than ranking the Bush biography first. Only two weeks ago,
this was ranked second. Now the gaming has pushed it to fifth.
Calling Google Bombing "cybergraffiti" as the New York Times does
is appropriate. Google did have good listings for this query, for
the few who were probably doing it before this prank emerged. Now,
Google appears happy for this blogging campaign (and now new ones)
to spray paint whatever it wants above more relevant listings.

Again, most of the time this isn't a big deal. Arguing who should
be number one for "talentless hack," a past Google Bomb, is more of
an amusement. But "miserable failure" is a campaign slogan in a
major US presidential race. What comes up for it matters much more.

By the way, Inktomi also has Bush's biography coming up for
miserable failure, underscoring that link manipulation isn't just a
Google problem. It's a challenge that Google's most direct
crawler-competitor also faces. But Teoma, which uses a unique form
of link analysis, has escaped the bombing.

There's at least some good news for Bush. His former campaign store
web site is no longer number one on Google for what I'll
euphemistically call a search for "dumb Oedipus," as was the case
back at the beginning of 2001.

NOTE: There have been many developments since this story was
originally written. Search Engine Watch members have access to the
Link Bombing page that categorizes some related stories. See also
the Googlebombing Now A "Prank" And Not Web's Opinion, Says Google
article from Sept. 2005.

 

[person3]

michael moore blows

 

[sleepingbeauty]

oh riiiight!! thats it. i knew there was another clever name for him. 'BLOWS'. :roll:

uhh.. nope. googled 'BLOWS' and no micheal moore, walmart is at the top right now, so you better get cracking, or bombing, or whatever.

the failure thing is clever though. thats the key. if its not clever then its not funny or worth the time.

 

[Tom Servo]

I guess I should 'splain that I posted this more as a question re: whether or not Google's search results are very good, not to take a jab at anyone else's political views. I don't know y'all well enough to do that yet. Regardless of one's left/right leanings, these guys really shouldn't have been the first two hits, especially not... No, I won't say it. Anyway, Dreamer pretty much explained it with the article about Google Bombing, which I had never heard of before.

 

[sleepingbeauty]

I agree tom. the pres should not be on that list. specially since he has his finger on the blow the world up trigger. :?

i dont have any political leanings. i judge others by the amount of blood they have on their hands, i think thats the best way no? i mean, regardless of who they are, wether they wear a turbin or adidas or have 4 hooves and a pair of horns, blood is blood is blood. (sorry martin, ill get off my vegan soapbox now). :wink:

 

[Homeskooled]

Propaganda. That should be the term under which Michael Moore appears, as well as the Pentagon. Just two sides of the same coin. Both manipulating facts (or lies) to get across a point. Farenheit 911 is a great peice of editing. Its a pity you dont actually get to see what people really say....he would be much more effective at tearing Bush down if he didnt use the same weapons as the people he criticizes. I, for one, dont think Bush is a saint. I dont know if he is a bad president. Time will tell. I know that I cant call the War in Iraq a just war, and I probably wouldnt have made that decision. If I was drafted, would I go? Probably. It may have been a good decision....I'm split 50/50 with what I know of diplomacy and the future of the middle east. But I cant really think of a "just" war right off hand in the past 50 years. I think he wears much more of himself on his sleeve than Clinton, or his father, or perhaps even Reagan. That fact that he is genuine makes me respect him. I'm of the opinion, however, that although the man has morals, that he uses religion and morality to appeal to a certain voter demographic, which is cheap and unethical. But thats also politics, and probably why I'll never rise very high. I cant do those sorts of things. I am me, and whatever is morally right is my priority. Voters, public opinion, strategy....all second. I am reading Dereliction of Duty, by Lt. Colonel Buzz Patterson, and it gives a good inside look at the Clinton Whitehouse from the military aide who was at Clinton's side 24/7 with the "football". Evidently, Clinton was not good with details and lost the nuclear codes at one point. He may have had more brain drug damage than Bush. Who knows. Hopefully there will be books out with full disclosure of the Bush Whitehouse eventually. Until then, I'm mildly supportive.

Peace
Homeskooled

PS- I probably shouldnt have posted this. Oh well..... :roll:

 

[Scattered]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min
26690
Max
30051

Oh...such a moral man. Too bad about those WMDs as well...

 

[Dreamer]

I hate sneezing, which I'm doing again. This is the worst allergy season on record.

I hate Bush (sorry Homie -- as SB calls you, like that, LOL)
I hate Moore

There is no perfect political system, but there are some that work better than others.

But this I know. We have had a "Cold War" of sorts with the Middle East since before the "Cold War." After the "Cold War" w/the Soviet Union -- who also had their fingers pressed on the atomic bomb -- we were off guard.

The one thing that troubles me is ... there are horrible things that have happened to people in the Middle East, such as genocide. There are despots, just as there are in countries in Africa, who have great wealth ... who essentially steal from their own people ... steal from the poor.

And no one remembers that Islamic Fundamentalism caused 9/11. That I'm sure of. I don't think we should have invaded Iraq as a result. Bad intelligence, and a handy use of a horrible event to get rid of Saddam whom many other Presidents had tried to off before. Clinton had a chance, and the CIA I believe was off to assasinate him under many other Administrations.

At any rate, there has been no perfect Presidency, and there have been bad ones. My husband, who is the PoliSci major, works for the Federal Government, and reads about politics like a maniac, oh, and is 62 and no Martin my husband doesn't have a colostomy bag. [semi-ex] ... said 62 year old man says that Bush is the worst President he has seen in his years observing/participating in politics (which began in highschool).

Also, I don't think we can know/understand politics/foreign relations. It is so damned complex. Like the brain :idea: We can only frequently go with our guts. The average human being has no time to spend all day studying about world affairs, which is sad.

Also, I recently saw "Good Night and Good Luck" about Edward R. Murrow and some events during the McCarthy era -- McCarthy finding "Commies" and "Pinkos" under every rock.

I viewed the film -- which was rather thin, sadly -- as a call to the Media to challenge, to not censor itself.

I learned politicians don't change much, and neither, it seems does the media.

Where can we find the truth about things. The real blood and guts truth. I don't know.

We do the best we can. And the thing is, I hope this thread doesn't turn into mudslinging as in theory different beliefs are what this country is all about. We should be adult enough to somehow sort them out.

The Iraq decision. A disaster IMHO as we had no concept of the flimsy... rather non-existent infrastructure of Iraq ... down to no electricity and reliable water .... BEFORE we came over there. Saddam lived like a King and laid waste a country that could be completely self-sufficient.

Are we supposed to save the world? How do we know what is really in our best interests? How does the UN, the 8 Great Nations (or whatever we're called) know. How do we decide? It's more than just good intentions.

Nothing is simple.
My two cents.
And I suppose this was also a mistake to post, LOL.
I wish things were different. We are in serious trouble right now. And where do we go?
Best,
D 8)

Oh, one war that was clearly justified, if any war is justified was WWII. Hitler had to be stopped.

 

[Tom Servo]

I agree tom. the pres should not be on that list. specially since he has his finger on the blow the world up trigger. :?

i dont have any political leanings. i judge others by the amount of blood they have on their hands, i think thats the best way no? i mean, regardless of who they are, wether they wear a turbin or adidas or have 4 hooves and a pair of horns, blood is blood is blood. (sorry martin, ill get off my vegan soapbox now). :wink:

Don't get me wrong, my explanation above wasn't a defense of "Dubyuh" by any means. Hell, I was hoping Paul Wellstone would be nominated until he just happened to die in that plane crash. I'm now hoping that Baraka Obama will run in '08. We'll see.

 

[Dreamer]

Don't get me wrong, my explanation above wasn't a defense of "Dubyuh" by any means. Hell, I was hoping Paul Wellstone would be nominated until he just happened to die in that plane crash. I'm now hoping that Baraka Obama will run in '08. We'll see.

Don't think anyone thought that Tom. Wow Obama and Wellstone. Interesting choices. Don't know that much about Obama, but I always liked Wellstone for his speaking up for mental illness. Domenici and Wellstone, bless 'em.