"miserable failure"

[beepbeep]

Go to google.com and search on "miserable failure" , check out the results...

[bell]

hater

[beepbeep]

Who, me?

[cstreit]

...abd I found this while searching for beepbeep on Google.

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!"

[beepbeep]

[wckrause]

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

[nostatic]

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...

[CamB]

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.

[nostatic]

that is so damn funny it hurts. Viva la 404! I'm ordering a t-shirt!

[wckrause]

But to change it manually becuase someone doesn't like the results *would* be editorializing...

No, that would be improving the quality of your search engine by preventing other people from using it to editorialize.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by wckrause
No, that would be improving the quality of your search engine by preventing other people from using it to editorialize.

I have to disagree Bill. The system is designed such that large data sets make up the rankings. In order to manipulate the results, a large number of people have to create link that indicate a point of view. If those people in fact believe it to be true, then is it manipulation? Or rather a majority opinion?

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.

[wckrause]

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.

[nostatic]

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.

[wckrause]

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.

[MrPants]

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.

[wckrause]

""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.

[turbo6bar]

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.

[wckrause]

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).

[nostatic]

Originally posted by wckrause
I want...

And how much money have you given to google?

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

[Aurel]

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

Aurel