|
"miserable failure"
Go to google.com and search on "miserable failure" :D , check out the results...
|
hater :D
|
Who, me? :D
|
...abd I found this while searching for beepbeep on Google. :D
Turbo BeepBeep A man goes out and buys the best car available in the US or Europe, a 1996 Turbo BeepBeep. The Turbo BeepBeep is the best and most expensive car in the world, and it cost its new proud owner $500,000. Admiring himself, and his new possession, he takes it out for a spin. No sooner did he get it out of first gear than he is forced to stop for a red light. While sitting patiently for the light to change, an old man on a moped, both looking about 90 years old and both sputtering, pulls up next to him. The old man looks over the sleek, shiny surface of the car and asks "What kind of car ya got there, sonny?" The dude replies "A 1996 Turbo BeepBeep. They cost $500,000." "That's a lotta money!" says the old man, shocked. "Why does it cost so much?" "Cause this car can do up to 320 miles an hour!" states the cool dude proudly. The old man asks "Can I take a look inside?" "Sure" replies the owner. So the old man pokes his head in the window and looks around. Leaning back on his moped, the old man says "That's a pretty nice car, alright!" Just then the light changes, so the guy decides to show the old man what his car can do. He floors it, and within 30 seconds the speedometer reads 320. Suddenly, the guy notices a dot in his rear view mirror. It seems to be getting closer! Whhhoooooooooossssshhhhhh! Something whips by him! Going 2, maybe 3 times as fast! The guy wonders "what on earth could be going faster than my Turbo BeepBeep?" Then, ahead of him, he sees a dot coming toward him. Whooooooooooosh! Goes by again! And, it almost looked like the old man on the moped! Couldn't be, thinks the guy. How could a moped outrun a Turbo BeepBeep? Again, he sees a dot in his rearview mirror! WhoooooooshhhhhhhhKa-BbbbblaMMMMM! It plows into the back of his car, demolishing the rear end. The guy jumps out, and jeezus to betsy, it is the old man! Of course, the moped and the old man are hurting for certain. The guy runs up to the dying old man and asks "You're hurt bad! Is there anything I can do for you?" The old man replies "Yeah. Unhook my suspenders from the side-view mirror on your car!" |
:D :D :D :D :D
|
I wrote Google to complain about the "editorializing". Here's their response
Thank you for your note about our search results. The particular case you refer to is the result of the dynamic nature of the Internet and Google's reliance on the web's link structure as part of our search calculation. The order and contents of Google search results are completely automated. No one hand picks a particular result for a given search query. Nor does Google ever insert jokes or send messages by changing the order of results. Occasionally, when a particular website is the subject of public attention, other sites begin linking to it. This may elevate its importance as gauged by our ranking software, which assigns a PageRank value based in part on who links to a given page. Higher ranking in Google results may lead to more awareness, which may lead to more links and so on. One side effect of not using an editorial viewpoint to determine the ranking of results is that anomalies like this occasionally occur. We view such occasions as opportunities for us to learn more about how the web works and how to improve our algorithms for all searches in the future. Thanks for taking the time to write to us. Regards, The Google Team |
google doesn't editorialize...it is a set of algorithms that yield results that can be manipulated if enough people are in on it. Obviously a significant number of people think that "miserable failure" is an association with GW.
Google "bombing" has been going on since it became the de facto search engine. It takes a fair amount of effort to skew the results, but it can be done. But to change it manually becuase someone doesn't like the results *would* be editorializing... |
I thought they deliberately did the "type in 'weapons of mass destruction' and click 'I'm feeling lucky'" gag. It returns this:
http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Maybe it wasn't deliberate - but I thought I read it was. |
that is so damn funny it hurts. Viva la 404! I'm ordering a t-shirt!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The web is all about editorializing. With the advent of social software like weblogs, the common man now has a platform for publication, and given the democratic methods of indexing used by google and other search engines, the playing field is leveled. If a large number of people decided that Bush was the "greatest president ever", and published to that effect on their sites, then google would end up with that reference. Would you want that removed too? It's all about people having a voice and being in a connected society. The rules have changed now. Unlike the "legitimate" press like CNN, Fox, who can choose what message they want to send, google is non-denomonational, and just goes by the numbers. Their system is flawed, but it is more free than the information that comes out of the corporate controlled media outlets. |
I guess I don't view a Search engine as "social software" in the same way that you do. The fact that a concerted effort by a few can manipulate its results doesn't increase its value as a search engine, but rather, detracts from it.
As a practical matter, if I were trying to find a link to Gephardt's speach where he called Bush a "miserable failure", I would be annoyed with the fact that the first hit is a link to Bush's bio (with no mention of the phrase "miserable failure") and not to a copy of Gephardt's speach, or something at least related to it. |
But the point is that "a few" can't manipulate it...it takes a lot of people to accomplish a google bombing.
I didn't say search engines are social software, but rather weblogs that allow trackbacks and pingbacks are. It is this type of networking capabilities that makes concerted publishing efforts possible, and allows those with similar views to joing together into a larger whole. Search engines are called upon to do a very difficult task. I agree that if you are looking for something and hit a google bomb it is frustrating, but that is also part of doing a proper search. If you wanted to find Gephardt's speech with that quote, then you merely need to include that in the query: http://www.google.com/search?q=gephardt+miserable+failure+bush&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 You don't get the offfending link. So if you were in fact looking for that and only put in "miserable failure", then it is operator error, not google nor the organized masses fault. |
I agree that the more you know about your subject the easier it is to search. But suppose I didn't know who said "miserable failure" nor did I know who it was said about (I would have assumed it was about Bill Clinton). In that case, findng a link to GW's bio with no mention of the phrase "miserable failure" wouldn't be a good search result.
All I'm saying is that if google knows about "google bombs", it ought to modify its algorithm to remove them. That wouldn't be editorializing, it would be improving their search algorithm. |
maybe they could use a wckrause algorithm. send them your opinion on everything and they will weight searches accordingly.
Google: "we strive to keep wckrause safe and comfortable". kinda catchy. |
""we strive to keep wckrause safe and comfortable". "
I'm talking about removing opinions from Search results, not adding them. Please read the posts a little more carefully. Here's an article about "google bombs", how they came to being etc.. Google Time Bomb Will Webblogs blow up the world's favorite search engine a small sample "One or two people linkblogging some Google Bombs isn't going to make a big difference in Google ranks in the long term. But teams of people working together to blogroll Google Bombs could have a serious and long-term impact on Google rankings. Sooner or later, these teams of people will emerge... and when they do, their collective power on Google will be staggering. Google, you'd better start watching out for these "Bomb Squads." Weblogs can help filter billions of webpages for you... but they could also help destroy the very technology that Google is based on! " we're talking end-of-life-as-we-know-it serious here folks.:D |
When I search Google, I'm looking for facts. If anyone is swayed by propaganda on the net, they're just fickle. Do you think anyone is actually changed by the Liberal rants in this forum? :)
Google is not the caliber of other fine organizations like Fox News and the NRA. :) |
I'm not swayed by propaganda, nor do I care that others are. I'd be just as annoyed with the seach engine if its first results were paid advertisements. I want accuracy without the crap (even if I agree with the crap).
|
Quote:
Google's algorithms will get better...people are always working on better ways to do meta-data and indexing. My point is that manual intervention is a bad thing in this case. The trick will be to differentiate between bombing and "genuine" information. But I'll offer again that if enough people are going to the trouble to make their sentiment known, isn't it relevant? It's not our fault that the right wingers are too stupid to figure out how to hack the system :D |
I don`t see how this google serarch is a bomb. Bush IS a miserable failure, and naturally, this piece of inormation is starting to become common knowledge :D
Aurel |
"It's not our fault that the right wingers are too stupid to figure out how to hack the system "
Maybe there are better things to spend one's time on. "I want". Google is about to go public, or get purchased, its only value is that people like me visit it frequently. If the integrity of its search engine is comprimised by HACKERS, then it will lose its value, and I will lose a tool that I rely on. "But I'll offer again that if enough people are going to the trouble to make their sentiment known, isn't it relevant?" If they are making their sentiment known for a reason other than to see its effect on a google search, (see the above article regarding the Internet Rockstar search) then you may have a point. If its only to see something cool pop up on google, then it's HACKING. Hackers are *********s. Hey Aurel. Do a search on Famous French War Heroes and read the single entry. Then do a search on "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" and spend of few days on the hundreds of entries. |
Now, Bill is blaming Bush`s miserable failure on hackers. Unbeleivable !
Aurel |
Just for the heck of it, I did a Google search on
"Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys", as suggested by Bill. Here is what I found in the first entry I cliked on: We have been enjoying a lovely little spate of French-bashing here lately. Jonah Goldberg of National Review, who admits that French-bashing is "shtick" (as it is to many American comedians), has popularized the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" to describe the French. It gets a lot less attractive than that. George Will saw fit to include in his latest Newsweek column this joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried." That was certainly amusing. One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives trying to stop Adolf Hitler. On behalf of every one of those 100,000 men, I would like to thank Mr. Will for his clever joke. They were out-manned, out-gunned, out-generaled and, above all, out-tanked. They got slaughtered, but they stood and they fought. Ha-ha, how funny. In the few places where they had tanks, they held splendidly. Relying on the Maginot Line was one of the great military follies of modern history, but it does not reflect on the courage of those who died for France in 1940. For 18 months after that execrable defeat, the United States of America continued to have cordial diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany. One of the great what-ifs of history is: What would have happened if Franklin Roosevelt had lived to the end of his last term? How many wars have been lost in the peace? For those of you who have not read Paris 1919, I recommend it highly. Roosevelt was anti-colonialist. That system was a great evil, a greater horror even than Nazism or Stalinism. If you have read Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild, you have some idea. The French were in it up to their necks. Instead of insisting on freedom for the colonies of Europe, we let our allies carry on with the system, leaving the British in India and Africa, and the French in Vietnam and Algeria, to everyone's eventual regret. Surrender monkeys? Try Dien Bien Phu. Yes, the French did surrender, didn't they? After 6,000 French died in a no-hope position. Ever heard of the Foreign Legion? Of the paratroopers, called "paras"? The trouble we could have saved ourselves if we had only paid attention to Dien Bien Phu. Then came Algeria. As nasty a war as has ever been fought. If you have seen the film Battle of Algiers, you have some idea. Five generations of pieds noirs, French colonialists, thought it was their country. Charles de Gaulle came back into power in 1958, specifically elected to keep Algeria French. I consider de Gaulle's long, slow, delicate, elephantine withdrawal (de Gaulle even looked like an elephant) one of the single greatest acts of statesmanship in history. Only de Gaulle could have done that. Those were the years when France learned about terrorism. The plastiquers were all over Paris. The "plastic" bombs, the ones you can stick like Play-Do underneath the ledge of some building, were the popular weapon du jour. It made Israel today look tame. For France, terrorism is "Been there, done that." The other night on 60 Minutes, Andy Rooney, who fought in France and certainly has a right to be critical, chided the French for forgetting all that sacrifice. But I think he got it backward: The French remember too well. I was in Paris on Sept. 11, 2001. The reaction was so immediate, so generous, so overwhelming. Not just the government, but the people kept bringing flowers to the American embassy. They covered the American Cathedral, the American Church, anything they could find that was American. They didn't just leave flowers -- they wrote notes with them. I read more than 100 of them. Not only did they refer, again and again, to Normandy, to never forgetting, but there were even some in ancient, spidery handwriting referring to WWI: "Lafayette is still with you." Look, the French are not a touchy-feely people. They're more, like, logical. For them to approach total strangers in the streets who look American and hug them is seriously extraordinary. I got patted so much I felt like a Labrador retriever. I wish Andy Rooney had been there. This is where I think the real difference is. We Americans are famously ahistorical. We can barely be bothered to remember what happened last week, or last month, much less last year. The French are really stuck on history. (Some might claim this is because the French are better educated than we are. I won't go there.) Does it not occur to anyone that these are very old friends of ours, trying to tell us what they think they know about being hated by weak enemies in the Third World? Aurel |
Oooh, touched a nerve?
|
No, just trying to educate you a little bit, Bill.
Aurel |
Perhaps if France had adopted the policy of pre-emptive strike rather than appeasement, then the deaths of 30,000,000 may have been avoided. ISN'T THAT AT LEAST A REASONABLE THOUGHT????
|
Quote:
its a democratic process. (id also like to point out that we have all casted our vote to keep geaorge w bush at the top of the miserable failure list :)) also since when has the internet been a reliable source for anything but porn? |
Quote:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ |
Quote:
Aurel |
Back off topic. Aurel - no offence intended with this (I am po'd by France hating too - but this is funny like "miserable failure" is funny):
First entry at google for "french military victories" delivers this link: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html Warning for a pop-up (pop-ups make me cry). |
That was a funny one, Cameron. But a fake one, unlike the miserable failure, which is sadly real. But you`re right, I should back get on the topic of this off topic thread.
Aurel |
Quote:
:eek: |
Napoleon was probalbly less of a pussy than G.W. Bush who spent his military years in defending Texas against an attack from the Viet Kongs (and most of the time in bars for that matter), but HE, What ever you want to believe...At the time of Napoleon, this country did not even exist.
The french have been there, done that, and found more intelligent things to do. Aurel |
Quote:
I have never liked the French as much as in the last year. It took serious balls to stand up to Bush like that, the bully antics of the right wing on this board perfectly mirrors their heroes in office right now. We all know what happens to bullys. Aurel, thanks for setting the record straight. My Dad, whose friend helped finger the "20th hijacker" in Minnesota months before Sept. 11th, (a long story but true), said, "they should have just handed him back to the French. He would have sung like a bird, and 9/11 never would have happened. The French know how to handle terrorists". Actually, my Dad said, "the guy is a French National! (Massoui) They'd make him talk, then hand him back his nuts!" :) But that would have been too logical for Bush and company, who couldn't find their ass with both hands. Who had absolutely NO POLICY on terrorism before 9/11, unlike the Clinton administration who had a fairly aggressive anti-terror operation. Too easy for the idiots who think that you can fight terrorism w/ tanks and bombers and by invading and occupying middle East countries. For a President who comes out and says, "Bring it on!" regarding guerilla fighters sniping our soldiers and Marines. "Miserable failure" is far too mild a description for this president, it is almost too kind. :cool: |
"the bully antics of the right wing on this board perfectly mirrors their heroes in office right now. We all know what happens to bullys."
What are you talking about? |
Quote:
However the more high level politics I'm privvy to, the more I realize that the 3rd grade playground seems to be the model for behavior. Since I have a 7 year old boy, I am perfectly positioned to be the next president. Bring it on! |
In a sense, one might be tempted to cut Bush a break, because his office had to face the terrible tragedy of 9/11. But in reality, he could have done much, much better. In a nutshell, he could have:
1) Listened to the intelligence reports from the french, the germans and many other allies that warned of an imminent attack. 2) During the attacks, activated the NORAD defense systems, that might have prevented the second tower and the pentagon to be hit. It is actually still a mystery why those defense systems were desactivted during the attacks. 3) He could have kept surfing the huge wave of sympathy that many countries felt for the USA after 9/11. Most supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and were providing support. 4) Avoided to behave like a bully, acting unilaterally, lying to attack Iraq and sink the domestic debt into unprecedented records, while sending young men and women getting killed for no valid reason. All that makes a perfect recipe for a miserable failure, next to which Clinton`s underdesk affairs appears like a much less harmful attitude for this country. Aurel |
Alright, I give. You win.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website