3 ms·

I noticed that Exhibit 1 shows a Google search of "Moot", apparently as support to the claim that the term "Moot" is commonly associated with Poole. However, t

I noticed that Exhibit 1 shows a Google search of "Moot", apparently as support to the claim that the term "Moot" is commonly associated with Poole. However, this search was done from a browser logged in by Chris Poole's attorney. Given Google's attempt to provide more personalized results, I wonder how much influence the attorney's relationship has on the search results from Exhibit 1. It may be a moot point in this case, but considering the changing search landscape, attorney's need to be more careful about how they use Google search results (and others) as evidence.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
uvTwitch 14y ago
second result in DuckDuckGo
- ryanhuff 14y ago
  Interestingly, the second result on DDG for me shows a Wikipedia article, with the following in the content snippet: "He originally started 4chan anonymously, under the pseudonym moot (always written with lower case)." Yet, the attorney in the letter uses "MOOT", and not "moot". Does letter case matter in this kind of dispute, especially if one convention is predominately used by the plaintiff?
geuis 14y ago
This is irrelevant. I just performed a search for the term 'moot' on Google and Bing. On both sites, I searched in Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. I also performed the searches in anonymous and non-anonymous modes in all browsers. In every case, the wikipedia page for Chris Poole showed up within the top 5 results. His Twitter page and links to 4chan show up in the top 10 results in one order or another in all results as well. I'm not taking sides either way, but the attorney's logged in status doesn't have any relevance in this instance.
- ryanhuff 14y ago
  It may not in this case (as I did mention). My point was in reference to the general practice of attorney's using internet data sources that may provide personalized results. In the case of Google, the attorney's relationships and search history (researching 4chan, etc) may influence evidence submitted if not careful.
dsl 14y ago
Poole is #3 for me, behind dictionary.reference.com and merriam-webster.com
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
olalonde 14y ago
> It may be a moot point in this case I see what you did there.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

uvTwitch 14y ago

second result in DuckDuckGo

ryanhuff 14y ago
Interestingly, the second result on DDG for me shows a Wikipedia article, with the following in the content snippet: "He originally started 4chan anonymously, under the pseudonym moot (always written with lower case)." Yet, the attorney in the letter uses "MOOT", and not "moot". Does letter case matter in this kind of dispute, especially if one convention is predominately used by the plaintiff?

geuis 14y ago

This is irrelevant. I just performed a search for the term 'moot' on Google and Bing. On both sites, I searched in Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. I also performed the searches in anonymous and non-anonymous modes in all browsers. In every case, the wikipedia page for Chris Poole showed up within the top 5 results. His Twitter page and links to 4chan show up in the top 10 results in one order or another in all results as well. I'm not taking sides either way, but the attorney's logged in status doesn't have any relevance in this instance.

ryanhuff 14y ago
It may not in this case (as I did mention). My point was in reference to the general practice of attorney's using internet data sources that may provide personalized results. In the case of Google, the attorney's relationships and search history (researching 4chan, etc) may influence evidence submitted if not careful.

dsl 14y ago

Poole is #3 for me, behind dictionary.reference.com and merriam-webster.com

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

olalonde 14y ago

> It may be a moot point in this case I see what you did there.