7 ms·
How Rick Santorum Is Making His "Google Problem" Worse
- da5e 15y agoSome Iowa cafe owner, dubbed his creamy chicken salad as the Santorum Salad. Apparently without irony.
- ams6110 15y agoSince most people who support Rick Santorum are probably not gay, it's not surprising that some/many have never heard of this term.
- tptacek 15y agoI find the Santorum "Google Problem" disquieting, to say the least. I think his politics are repugnant, but less than 1% of Google search queries for his name are looking for Dan Savage's prank. Google knows this. Google obsessively tweaks all manner of other links in the index. But Google's overall politics happen to be the same as my politics, so Santorum gets unequal access to the 2012 Internet. Savage's prank actually discredits the Internet. Surely nobody's mind is going to be changed by that disgusting link. Instead, it just serves to associate Internet content with the culture wars. I don't think I'll upset too many HN'ers when I assert that the people most likely to be offended by that link are the people we'd most like finding better ways of informing themselves than talk radio. Finally, and most obviously, we all happen to share the same sense of humor and political stance as today's Internet gatekeeper. But we are by no means assured of compatibility with the next one. That "Santorum" link is perhaps the most notorious attempt ever to game Google's search rankings. Google should penalize the shit out of it.
- mlinsey 15y agoI think the only problem here is that Google isn't updating fast enough to reflect an increased interest in Santorum the person. When you say: I think his politics are repugnant, but less than 1% of Google search queries for his name are looking for Dan Savage's prank. I am sure this is true today but I think it was definitely not true a month ago, and a year ago the opposite would probably be true. The difference between this and other Google bombs is that people really do the word Santorum in everyday conversation. (Well, perhaps not 'everyday', but definitely in contexts unconnected to Google search results and with the alternate definition of the term in mind.) I would expect that most people searching for "Santorum" before 2011 probably heard the word in that context and are wondering what it means.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- DTrejo 15y agoI don't think that those who are not skilled with SEO should get a free pass from Google because they can't get their shit together. The santorum definition is a media campaign, just like any other. I don't see why it should be penalized because it attempts to spread what some might consider the distatefullness of Santorum's political views.
- smackfu 15y agoShould a presidential candidate have to be skilled at SEO to get their site listed first for their name? Or should Google's algorithm be the skilled one?
- eropple 15y agoWhen it's competing against a completely legitimate neologism? Certainly.
- cabalamat 15y ago> Should a [X] have to be skilled at SEO to get their site listed first for their name? Yes. The internet should work the same for everyone, whether they are running for president or are merely John Q. Citizen.
- smackfu 15y agoThe point is that Google is supposed to return the result people want for a given search result, not the result that has the best SEO. This big picture gets lost sometimes.
- tptacek 15y agoThe Santorum "problem" link is a Google bomb. You can call ANY attempt to game Google's SERPs a "media campaign, just like any other". Spam is spam.
- mitchellhislop 15y agoBy definition from the webspam team, its not. Its SEO. Google bombs are getting someone else's site to rank. [Citation: http://searchengineland.com/should-rick-santorums-google-problem-be-fixed-93570 http://searchengineland.com/should-rick-santorums-google-pro... , about half way down]
- lukev 15y agoI would agree with you, except it's not one company or person gaming google. Thousands of different internet users have linked his name to the gag site. The reason it's at the top is that it legitimately IS the center of the web of links for the keyword "Santorum." The links driving the popularity of the site are not from content farms or SEO networks, but legitimate blogs, tweets and articles. It's not a result of SEO gaming, but a genuine internet-wide smear campaign (which of course is reflected on Google). So the only motivation Google would have for penalizing the site is that it is the result of a smear campaign. And that sets a very dangerous precedent - for Google to identify and penalize sites based on intent or message would be censorship much worse than just allowing their algorithm to run its course.
- tptacek 15y agoGoogle already states its intention to tune its SERPs so that they answer the questions users likely intend to pose when they type a search in. Google is already in the business of judging search intent. The "dangerous precedent" you're talking about was set by the Google web spam team a long time ago.
- lukev 15y agoAlgorithmically, sure, that's their goal. Manual intervention is another kettle of fish entirely.
- patio11 15y agoThe "dangerous precedent" you're talking about was set by the Google web spam team a long time ago. Yep. If you wanted to look at one particular event, several years ago a major Nazi site ranked #1 for [Jew], because the people who care about [Jew] and were early adopters on the Internet happened to be Nazis. Google, at the time, refused to hand-edit that, and instead put PSA AdWords ads against the SERP for [Jew] saying "While we're certainly not Nazis, the algorithm decrees that the most relevant result for this search is, regrettably, a Nazi site." [Edit to add: Wow, the page did not linkrot: http://www.google.com/explanation.html http://www.google.com/explanation.html ]This was a deeply controversial result internally and externally at the time. Google 2012 is not Google 2002. Results which would get mentioned on the nightly news get fixed, period.
- nhebb 15y ago> Google obsessively tweaks all manner of other links in the index Via algorithm or manual intervention? I thought they were dead set against manual tweaks. I imagine their todo list of algorithm improvements is never ending, so I'm not too quick to judge them on this. It is a PR issue for Google, though. If someone is searching for Santorum, there's a pretty good chance they're a cultural conservative. When they see listings like this at the top of the search results, do they come away with a worse perception of Santorum or of Google? I wouldn't vote for Santorum, but I didn't really like seeing "frothy mix of lube and fecal matter". C'mon, Google, I just ate.
- scarmig 15y agoWell, come on. If you're googling a disgusting substance like santorum, don't be surprised if you get a gross result. Which is to say: santorum is now a word in its own right. It's not a Google bomb in any sense: people can and do use it all the time to refer to the aforementioned substance. A month ago, that definition was definitely the more relevant, and five years from now, when the Santorum flash in the pan is over, that'll again become the most relevant item. What you're asking for is for Google to censor a word for the sake of a powerful man, who it happened to be named after.
- tptacek 15y agoBlack is white. Pants are shirts. Minitrue called, "Santorum" is a substance and not a person. The fact that this particular association is notorious almost entirely on the Internet, and that any notoriety it has achieved outside the Internet falls directly from its success on the Internet... well, that's not relevant. We have always used the word santorum as a common noun.
- scarmig 15y ago"Minitrue"? Really? I think a lot of the distaste people have for santorum is that there was an active campaign to coin and propagate it. But lots of words have that heritage: if someone looks up "pegging" on Google, no one gets upset when it turns out to be an invented but widely adopted sex term. Savage's hostile intent, though, has a major role in people thinking santorum's an illegitimate word, even though no one can point to any real metric by which Santorum should trump santorum; we all like to feign genteel shock at crassness. But we can't let our emotions, be they anti-Santorum or anti-Savage, dictate whether Google should manually intervene to change the ordering of the search. That road leads to 1984.
- gte910h 15y agoI didn't know "Santorum" was a guy's name until years after it became a name for the sex term. I believe Congressman Santorum screwed up big time and now has something moderately well known named after him. Such is life. The substance is literally called that now. Tough luck for the politician.
- po 15y agoI guess he really borked it. His name is mudd. edit: I guess people understandably think I'm trying to start a reddit pun thread or something. My point is that there is a long history of this happening. Google delisting this isn't going to change the term now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Mudd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Mudd
- botker 15y agoFrom your second link: Samuel Mudd is sometimes given as the origin of the phrase "your name is mud", as in, for example, the 2007 film National Treasure: Book of Secrets. However, according to an online etymology dictionary, this phrase has its earliest known recorded instance in 1823, ten years before Mudd's birth, and is based on an obsolete sense of the word "mud" meaning "a stupid twaddling fellow".[18][19]
- tptacek 15y agoHe screwed up by aggressively promoting policies that were offensive to Dan Savage. Today's Internet gatekeeper is Dan Savage. Who's tomorrow's?
- jsnell 15y agoI agree with you on that clearly the it's a result that should not be shown. But there's still the problem of figuring out how to fix it in practice. Should Google point-fix this particular instance, fix it algorithmically even if the change is negative on the whole, or hold out for an algorithmic fix that is neutral or positive. There are strong engineering reasons to not point-fix stuff. Maybe in this case there are stronger legal/political/PR reasons to get any fix at all out quickly. There certainly wouldn't have been any 2 weeks ago, when Santorum was still an also-ran.
- drewrv 15y agoThe intent of the campaign wasn't to Google bomb Santorum and it wasn't an attempt to "game Google's search rankings". The original intent of the campaign was to define the word "Santorum" and the fact is, it was successful. Now that there are two definitions of Santorum, why should google favor one over the other?
- mikeash 15y ago99% of searches for "santorum" today might be searching for the man, but I seriously doubt that number was anywhere near as high e.g. six months ago. Should Google change their results around in response to sudden and transient current events like a politician suddenly gaining the spotlight? I also think that your description of the smear campaign as an attempt to game Google is misleading. It is fundamentally an attempt to add a new word to the English language. It seems to be working pretty well. Getting it to rank high on Google isn't an attempt to game Google, it's an attempt to create a new word.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- pyre 15y agoThey're attempting to create a new word as part of a smear campaign. I don't see how attempting to use Rick Santorum's last name as the name for a sex act could be divorced from the idea that it's attempting to sully his name or how other people think of him when they hear his name. edit: I misread this: > I also think that your description of the smear > campaign as an attempt to game Google is misleading. thinking that you were claiming that it wasn't a smear campaign. My apologies.
- mikeash 15y agoEr, I never said it wasn't a smear campaign. I said it wasn't an attempt to game Google. It's not, it's an attempt to define a new word. That is definitely part of a smear campaign, but I don't think that part is all that relevant to determining the legitimacy of this search result. They have succeeded in defining a new word, and the site dedicated to doing so certainly should be near the top of the results for searches for that word.
- brown9-2 15y agoless than 1% of Google search queries for his name are looking for Dan Savage's prank. How do you know this?
- ithought 15y agoIf a man like Santorum was President, Google would probably be required by law to fix it. The problem with your excellent comment is that nobody gamed Google's search ranking. Google can't censor the result as it is legitimate. The real problem here is Santorum's insane ideas and forcing his delusional beliefs on the public. Thus the Internet public has chosen to redefine his name as cultural slang. For Google to censor this would be simply wrong.
- tptacek 15y agoYou'll be modded down for being so direct about it, but this is in fact the logic that I think underpins virtually all the support for [santorum].
- cperciva 15y agoless than 1% of Google search queries for his name are looking for Dan Savage's prank I'd be surprised if there weren't a large number of searches resulting from "hehe, if you Google for Santorum this really funny page comes up".
- InclinedPlane 15y agoIn what ways is this so different from many instances of political satire and parody throughout history?
- tptacek 15y agoPolitical satire in the past didn't inherently reduce access to opposing views. The first SERPs for a term on Google effectively are the Internet for a huge percentage of all readers. I think the irony of deliberately re-engineering "language" in the name of "free speech" is lost on a lot of HN readers. It seems to me like almost the definition of Orwellianism. We're just not freaked out because we don't like homophobes. We have always used the word santorum to refer to excreta. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
- cabalamat 15y ago> But Google's overall politics happen to be the same as my politics, so Santorum gets unequal access to the 2012 Internet. I doubt if Google are manipulating their search engine results based on a dislike of Santorum; do you have any evidence otherwise? > Savage's prank actually discredits the Internet. Surely nobody's mind is going to be changed by that disgusting link. Instead, it just serves to associate Internet content with the culture wars. The internet contains the totality of the uhman experience, so it is associated with the culture wars (and with everything else humans do). > Google should penalize the shit out of it. It should be up to Google how they run their website, provided they doing do anythning dishonest.
- tptacek 15y agoThey tweak a myriad of other ranking anomalies, sometimes for PR, sometimes to combat spam. They choose not to tweak this one, every though the ranking comes from a deliberate and artificial boost in link quality. I wouldn't want Google to attempt to squelch the culture wars, but I would hope that Google wouldn't allow themselves to become a part of the culture wars. I don't think Google is being dishonest.
- arn 15y agoThis article presents good arguments why Google shouldn't intervene: http://searchengineland.com/should-rick-santorums-google-problem-be-fixed-93570 http://searchengineland.com/should-rick-santorums-google-pro... which boils down to trust (in Google results) and free speech/censorship
- tryitnow 15y agoA similar campaign can be held for any word, personality, or cause. This is more like a political campaign than any form of manipulation. Google shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing which popular movements should be "penalized" and which shouldn't. Now if content farms, SEO or other forms of manipulation are involved then I agree 100% with you. But I don't like the idea of a corporation suppressing a popular cause, which is really what this is. Is there evidence of a real SEO type manipulation going on here? If so, your point would be a lot stronger if you provided some links (I am going on the principle that the accuser should provide the evidence which is why I haven't provided evidence of the nonexistence of manipulation). I would sincerely like to know if there is evidence of widespread manipulation of search results here.
- jdietrich 15y agoI live in the UK. Literally the only thing I know about Rick Santorum is that he is a homophobic bigot, and the only reason I know that is because of the Santorum neologism. The same goes for the people around me. In my experience, outside of the US "Santorum" is an internet joke first and a politician second. The word "Santorum" is a bona fide cultural phenomenon, whereas until a few weeks ago the man Rick Santorum was just a crank ex-Senator taking a shot at the primaries. Spreadingsantorum.com has relevant, keyword-dense content and a substantial number of high-quality links, more than enough to outweigh any possible penalty for the hokey googlebombing links. By almost any SEO criterion I am aware of, it beats ricksantorum.com by a country mile. If Rick Santorum wants to solve his Google problem, he needs to play the game like anyone else - add quality content and build quality links. For Google to manipulate these SERPs in the interests of propriety or prudishness would be absurd. They have an explicitly stated policy of ranking based on their algorithm, with the exception of webspam. Tinkering with results manually is a can of worms they have no interest in opening. They've stuck to their guns on much thornier problems than this.
- bartl 15y ago>add quality content Ouch. I don't think that is even remotely possible.
- erikpukinskis 15y agoYou call the link disgusting as if it's some sort of universal value, but "disgust" is a culturally constructed physical reaction. Not everyone is disgusted by the same things you are. Some people think kimchi is disgusting. Other people think it's the most delicious thing on this planet. I'm not trying to dissuade you from your disgust, but try to appreciate that not everyone shares your values.
- drumdance 15y agoUntil very recently Rick Santorum was pretty much a nobody. His name was more likely to come up in a blog post about gay rights than on the front page of the NY Times. Today, people are searching because he's literally front page news. This would seem to be an example of Google not keeping up with real-time events. OTOH, in a few months or even weeks he'll probably be out of the race, so reversion to the mean seems likely.
- tptacek 15y agoA nobody? He chaired the Senate GOP Conference.
- scarmig 15y agoAlong with such notable somebodies as James McClure (who is currently being Google-bombed by a pickle company) and Norris Cotton (being victimized by a fluffy fiber).
- tptacek 15y agoI'm not sure we're working from similar definitions of terms.
- rat87 15y agoThe controversy over his remarks and savage neologism are what I remember about him and I was a bit of a political junkie at that time. Outside of Pennsylvania I doubt many remember much more about him.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- pyoung 15y agoGoogle's algorithm takes into account the timeliness of events. So despite his recent success, people are probably still looking up the word, rather than the person (and on a large enough scale to overcome the timeliness weighting).
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Zirro 15y agoFirst, please, don't get me wrong because I am absolutely against his anti-gay policies myself. From what I've read, the site which has given Santorum a meaning have made the demand that he stops talking negatively about homosexuals. If he does, the site will go away. This makes me think, even though I somehow think he deserves it: Isn't this essentially against free speech? Forcing someone to censor their opinions through non-violent troublemaking? I probably didn't manage to phrase that well-enough to please anyone, but at least I've voiced my concerns.
- omaranto 15y agoI wouldn't call it "forcing" Santorum to censor his opinions, as far as I know he hasn't done so.
- meepmorp 15y agoThis isn't forcing Santorum to censor his opinions, nor is it even an attempt to do so. It's counter free speech. He's free to say what he pleases, and a lot of people are free to call him a frothy anal sex byproduct. This is exactly how the freedom of speech is meant to work.
- michaelochurch 15y agoHe'll never mop that up.
- mynameishere 15y agoSearch engines need to keep a close eye on concerted efforts to manipulate results based on childish, political horseshit. Google is either failing technologically (unlikely), or is intentionally maligning a credible political candidate (very likely). No, I don't support Rick. He's worthless..
- gyardley 15y agoIt seems the only search engine not reflecting the boorish behavior of some random sex columnist is DuckDuckGo: http://duckduckgo.com/?q=santorum http://duckduckgo.com/?q=santorum Hard to tell if it's an intentional, exceptional tweak - it could be, but it could also be a general rule along the lines of 'if there's a lot of news and it's a person in Wikipedia, lead with Wikipedia and then show the news.' Either way, it's smart.
- Lewton 15y agoTurn off safe search and it's the top result
- jsz0 15y agoIn one way I feel bad for the little guy as it's a horrible smear campaign against his name however when I look at some of his extreme policies I'm suddenly less sympathetic. He implies a lot of nasty things about a lot of different groups of people. I can't see any good reason others shouldn't do the same against him.
- yoyo000 15y agoMr. Tit Money is an anagram of Mitt Romney
- rmc 15y agoAs someone who engages in anal sex from time to time, it's great to have a word (santorum) for something that there was no word for before.