4 ms·

Didn't Google kill the 'miserable failure' google bomb of years ago? If I were Google's team I would kill this just because it looks very bad for Google. Let'

by brc 15y ago

Didn't Google kill the 'miserable failure' google bomb of years ago? If I were Google's team I would kill this just because it looks very bad for Google. Let's assume Santorum goes on to win the Republican Primaries and then the Presidency. Is President Santorum going to be receptive or agressive if someone from Google (or the search industry in general) turns up on their doorstep? It's the sort of thing that stays with people for a long time, rightly or wrongly. This isn't a plea to treat all potential presidents with kid gloves, it's a plea to make sure that pranks against public figures of all kinds are squashed once they become known.

there 15y ago
If I were Google's team I would kill this just because it looks very bad for Google. killing it would probably look even worse, as google would be attacked for censorship. also, the site in question comes up first on bing, yahoo, and duckduckgo.
- LeafStorm 15y ago
  I just searched "Santorum" on DDG, and every result for the first few screens is in fact about Rick Santorum the politician and not about that disgusting definition.
  - cdmoyer 15y ago
    Huh, I did this just now and it's the top result. Screencapped: https://img.skitch.com/20120105-x7fb17is53yx99pw61bfur6g57.jpg https://img.skitch.com/20120105-x7fb17is53yx99pw61bfur6g57.j... edit: Ah ha, it only shows up if you have safe search off.
    - LeafStorm 15y ago
      Maybe Google should follow suit and flag the "santorum" site as requiring safe search. It does focus on sexual content, after all, and this way they don't have to tweak their algorithm.
duskwuff 15y ago
> Didn't Google kill the 'miserable failure' google bomb of years ago? From what I recall, that googlebomb is widely believed to have been "defused" algorithmically, by devaluing anchor text which didn't match the target page at all (e.g, "miserable failure" didn't appear on GWB's page). Those measures only really defused googlebombs to unsuspecting sites; they wouldn't help for sites which are intentionally trying to rank for a term that they are relevant for!
seanalltogether 15y ago
The "miserable failure" bomb was a different issue that exposed a problem with their algorithm, which was associating search terms with a web page even though that page had nothing to do with the keywords. In this case the search term and web page are sympatico.
zak_mc_kracken 15y ago
> Is President Santorum going to be receptive or agressive if someone from Google (or the search industry in general) turns up on their doorstep? So Google should start manually tweaking sites supporting public figures in order to garner favors from them in case they get in a position of power? Talk about setting a bad precedent.
- brc 15y ago
  Please read the comment fully next time: "This isn't a plea to treat all potential presidents with kid gloves, it's a plea to make sure that pranks against public figures of all kinds are squashed once they become known."
  - EvilLook 15y ago
    Why stop at pranks against public figures?
  - zak_mc_kracken 15y ago
    > This isn't a plea to treat all potential presidents with kid gloves, it's a plea to make sure that pranks against public figures of all kinds are squashed once they become known You're still missing the point. It should not be up to the search engine to do that: just let the search engine reflect what the web thinks.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
Your argument is that google should kowtow to power? No thanks.
- brc 15y ago
  Also please read the comment fully: "This isn't a plea to treat all potential presidents with kid gloves, it's a plea to make sure that pranks against public figures of all kinds are squashed once they become known." My argument is that search engines of all stripes shouldn't allow themselves to host public pranks. That itself is a bad precedent.
cloudwalking 15y ago
I don't think Google should censor their search results to get on the good side of a politician. Google's mission is to organize information, not to satisfy lawmakers.
- brc 15y ago
  Another example to read the comment fully: "This isn't a plea to treat all potential presidents with kid gloves, it's a plea to make sure that pranks against public figures of all kinds are squashed once they become known." Organising information is one thing - allowing pranksters to prank public figures is something else. We might all laugh because we don't share the targets politics - but one day it will happen to someone we do support or care about.

by brc 15y ago

there 15y ago

If I were Google's team I would kill this just because it looks very bad for Google. killing it would probably look even worse, as google would be attacked for censorship. also, the site in question comes up first on bing, yahoo, and duckduckgo.

LeafStorm 15y ago
I just searched "Santorum" on DDG, and every result for the first few screens is in fact about Rick Santorum the politician and not about that disgusting definition.
- cdmoyer 15y ago
  Huh, I did this just now and it's the top result. Screencapped: https://img.skitch.com/20120105-x7fb17is53yx99pw61bfur6g57.jpg https://img.skitch.com/20120105-x7fb17is53yx99pw61bfur6g57.j... edit: Ah ha, it only shows up if you have safe search off.
  - LeafStorm 15y ago
    Maybe Google should follow suit and flag the "santorum" site as requiring safe search. It does focus on sexual content, after all, and this way they don't have to tweak their algorithm.

duskwuff 15y ago

> Didn't Google kill the 'miserable failure' google bomb of years ago? From what I recall, that googlebomb is widely believed to have been "defused" algorithmically, by devaluing anchor text which didn't match the target page at all (e.g, "miserable failure" didn't appear on GWB's page). Those measures only really defused googlebombs to unsuspecting sites; they wouldn't help for sites which are intentionally trying to rank for a term that they are relevant for!

seanalltogether 15y ago

The "miserable failure" bomb was a different issue that exposed a problem with their algorithm, which was associating search terms with a web page even though that page had nothing to do with the keywords. In this case the search term and web page are sympatico.

zak_mc_kracken 15y ago

> Is President Santorum going to be receptive or agressive if someone from Google (or the search industry in general) turns up on their doorstep? So Google should start manually tweaking sites supporting public figures in order to garner favors from them in case they get in a position of power? Talk about setting a bad precedent.

brc 15y ago
Please read the comment fully next time: "This isn't a plea to treat all potential presidents with kid gloves, it's a plea to make sure that pranks against public figures of all kinds are squashed once they become known."
- EvilLook 15y ago
  Why stop at pranks against public figures?
- zak_mc_kracken 15y ago
  > This isn't a plea to treat all potential presidents with kid gloves, it's a plea to make sure that pranks against public figures of all kinds are squashed once they become known You're still missing the point. It should not be up to the search engine to do that: just let the search engine reflect what the web thinks.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

Your argument is that google should kowtow to power? No thanks.

brc 15y ago
Also please read the comment fully: "This isn't a plea to treat all potential presidents with kid gloves, it's a plea to make sure that pranks against public figures of all kinds are squashed once they become known." My argument is that search engines of all stripes shouldn't allow themselves to host public pranks. That itself is a bad precedent.

cloudwalking 15y ago

I don't think Google should censor their search results to get on the good side of a politician. Google's mission is to organize information, not to satisfy lawmakers.

brc 15y ago
Another example to read the comment fully: "This isn't a plea to treat all potential presidents with kid gloves, it's a plea to make sure that pranks against public figures of all kinds are squashed once they become known." Organising information is one thing - allowing pranksters to prank public figures is something else. We might all laugh because we don't share the targets politics - but one day it will happen to someone we do support or care about.