7 ms·

I 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 s

• po 15y ago
  I 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 ago
    From 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 ago
  He screwed up by aggressively promoting policies that were offensive to Dan Savage. Today's Internet gatekeeper is Dan Savage. Who's tomorrow's?
  • dminor 15y ago
    If it was just Savage that was offended, Savage's campaign would have gone exactly nowhere.
    • tptacek 15y ago
      You think Savage is the only motivated public figure with a large, hyper-engaged following?
      • eropple 15y ago
        Nope. But his worked and became a legitimate neologism. That's how language works.
    • ams6110 15y ago
      Let's not kid ourselves, if the page didn't appeal to a junior-high sense of humor, this wouldn't have happened.
  • lmkg 15y ago
    Dan Savage didn't just make this change on Google, he actually made the change on the English language as a whole. Santorum is the only name for the substance, and there are large groups of people who are aware of the neologism but do are not (or were not) aware of the person or the history of the term. Santorum is just as valid as any other neologism that's been around and alive for the better part of a decade. The point is, the Google bomb isn't the only "artifact" of Dan Savage's campaign. If this association were something that only existed in Google's SERPs I would be more inclined to agree with your point, but it's not. Google is not the only thing, and arguably not even the biggest or most important thing, that was affected. The association with the term is real, for a very real and meaningful sense of the word "real." Now, I will agree that the association is over-valued due to the Google-bombing, and most users this month are better served by politician than the term in the results page right now, but that's an issue of poorly-ranked results, rather than artificially-constructed results, which is qualitatively less troubling.
    • ams6110 15y ago
      Changed the English language? I'd never heard of this guy (Savage) or this definition of "santorum" until today. Merriam-Webster doesn't know of it either.
      • botker 15y ago
        Ditto.
    • adriand 15y ago
      You're absolutely correct, and this is by no means the first time that a word has been coined as the result of people being upset with a politician. The word 'quisling' means "A traitor who collaborates with an enemy force occupying their country", and it was coined by The Times in Britain in reference to Norwegian Vidkun Quisling, who helped the Nazis conquer his country. If Vidkun Quisling were alive today, would he have a legitimate complaint against Google if searches for his name brought up the dictionary definition I just quoted?
      • 15y ago
  • gte910h 15y ago
    Just like Obama pissed off Rush Limbaugh so the current health care reform law (which is well over 50% republican originated ideas), is called Obamacare? Yeah, it happens.
    • tptacek 15y ago
      I think you're making my point for me.
      • nimblegorilla 15y ago
        I kind of see where you are coming from, but I'm not sure what your ultimate point is. It sounds like you want search engines to modify results so that activists can't create meanings like Obamacare or Santorum. In order to do that they would need to control the way language changes over time to keep that from happening. How do you feel about terms less mean-spirited like the "Arab Spring?"
        • tptacek 15y ago
          You don't get it. Google routinely modifies search results. There isn't a coherent "algorithm" that determines all SERPs. The whole site is carefully calibrated to adjust to user expectations. I think that gives you a choice of two conclusions: (a) Google believes that most of its users really are looking for Dan Savage's prank when they search for the name of one of the best-known national Republican figures of the last 30 years. (b) Google is deliberately choosing not to adjust this particular search result for reasons of ideology or pragmatism. Please understand that I could give a rats about Rick Santorum. I find him odious. I firmly hope he does win the GOP nom so that Obama can win 2012 in a walk. But [santorum] does not return that particular SERP because the word "Santorum" organically became associated with that particular idea. A group of people decided to rewire, well I guess the Internet, to force that association. If they can do it, anyone else can too. Google's search results should be more credible than that.
          • statictype 15y ago
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  • thisrod 15y ago
    No. Santorum screwed up by defaming 10 percent of the people on Earth, who replied in kind. Dan Savage just got them organised.
    • tptacek 15y ago
      Over 40% of Americans (not me) believe that first trimester abortion is a form of murder. You sure you want to play this game?
      • NTH 15y ago
        >No. Santorum screwed up by defaming 10 percent of the people on Earth, who replied in kind. Dan Savage just got them organised. Disagreeing with a position held by 40% of people != irrational hate speech towards 10% of people. Obviously, a view isn't made more correct by having more people believe in it, but if one makes entirely baseless attacks on a large demographic, and that demographic responds, I find it hard to be sympathetic.
        • tptacek 15y ago
          You have it backwards. I'm not chastising people for disagreeing with pro-lifers. I'm not pro-life. I'm saying that 40% of America hold a militant viewpoint in direct conflict with most of HN'ers. So when you say, "well, that's what happens when you offend 10% of the world's population", I'm saying you should bear in mind that much larger factions are much angrier about beliefs you hold.
          • gte910h 15y ago
            I get your argument (Which is "What about that slippery slope!!!") The issue with the argument is that normal people don't work in real, crazy absolutes. That's a certain type of technical person thing. Normal people don't get to Richard Stallman levels of consistency in action. They stop their environmentalism at perhaps picking up some trash or buying a Prius, maybe even bringing bags to the grocery store, they stop their pro-choice stance at perhaps sending a check to the tax deductible (aka, non-political) branch of Planned Parenthood Google WILL eventually stop this sort of thing if it becomes pervasive. When it's isolated, and arguable that it shouldn't be fixed, they likely will not fix it. It isn't like Google lets the billions of spam blogs effect search results when they can detect it's going on. They did at first, but once it became a problem distorting results, they stopped. I get that you're trying to loudly assert "BUT THAT LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED", and the rest of us are pointing out that "that's debatable; Google surely will figure something out when it's and issue that's very clean cut". Would you likely see action faster if were say, a conservative renaming of the liquid made after an abortion? Perhaps, due to those political leanings you ascribe to googlers. But will it stop for "left wing" terms eventually as well? Surely.