Google Bomb GB Update distorts the essence of Google

[dburdon]

The Google GB anti-Google bomb update seems to have worked its way through the system and Tony Blair no longer tops the rankings for the term "Liar". And George W. is no longer top rank for "miserable failure".

Sadly, for Tone he stills tops the Google.co.uk rankings for the term famous political liar.

However, no doubt Tone and George W. and all the other victims of Google bombs will now breathe a sigh of relief. For the rest of us in the SEO community we should view the update with the cynicism such moves deserve. When large swathes of their respective electorates actually do think that the Google bomb targets are "miserable failures" or "liars" who are Google to distort the essence and integrity of their results?

An example of the distortion can be found by searching for liar Blair.

If you inspect the results you will notice that Google comes up with a whole series of credible references to Blair being described as a liar.

Chillingly, when an organisation as powerful as Google kowtows to political influence, how much hope do the rest of us have? As a simple SEO practitioner, the move strikes me as sinisterly Orwellian.

The essence of Google should be above politically inspired manipulation.

[cz]

Sadly, for Tone he stills tops the Google.co.uk rankings for the term famous political liar.

Those pesky long tail search terms again! As far as "Orwellian"...maybe the jury's still out on that. Perhaps, the two countries' CEO's aren't the real or main reason for the GBomb update... maybe it was just a byproduct (good for them eh?) of a legitimate problem that Google wants to patch up?

Respects,
Chuck

[texxs]

. . .a legitimate problem that Google wants to patch up . . .

If that's the case they aren't trying very hard. They would have to change their also drasticlly to change the "more links = better ranking" formula. They aren't even trying.

Personally I think they need to desperatley. If they don't someone one else will eventually (I hope) comes up with ine that works better. The whole link thing is sooo stupid. Especially now that everyone knows it. The bigger pockets just buy more links. Just because a site put more money into marketing doesn't mean that it's any better than one that didn't.

IT also puts waaaaay to many directory pages in the SERPs. It's like the link-farm days of old.

I wish I had all those programmers at my disposal. I think it would be an easy thing to spank them on relavance.

[brander]

Naturally there are businesses whose sole traffic comes from Search Engines. In my opinion, even such purely SE dependent businesses need to expand their strategy.

Every one knows that SE's are going to constantly update their formulas for determining placements. That is a given. As long as there is money to be made and there is a competitive arena these guys are going to make changes to attempt to one up their competitors.

If your site is completely dependent on traffic driven from Google, Yahoo, Ask, MSN, etc. then I have good news and bad news.

Good news-you are probably doing better then other internet based enterprises within your market.

Bad news-you are going to be subject to the whims of these updates and they are going to be a steady variable within the computation that determines your actual revenue.

What is the answer? Diversify your marketing efforts. Do not depend completely on any one strategy, but try different strategies and find out what works best for you. Likewise, look for ways to improve your existing system to generate additional revenue. Find out how to optimize your marketing efforts so that they generate as much revenue as possible.

Do not allow your revenue to be completely dependent on the Search Engines. Find ways of reaching all of your markets and optimize the performance of your current system so that it reaches it's full potential.

[TrafficProducer]

Political pressure may be getting applied.

~~~~~~
bill gates sucks

tony blair scam

[bj]

It'll be interesting to see if the term "Bill Gates Uses Linux" still pulls in a couple hits a month for me like it's been doing for roughly the last couple years. *grin*

I do think they'll have some issues with this though, since things that are very timely, and picked up by the blogs, like the The National Pork Board vs The Lactivist might actually not see as much google juice as they would have before this adjustment.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by texxs

IT also puts waaaaay to many directory pages in the SERPs. It's like the link-farm days of old.

I fell this is one of the worst experiences for Google end searchers. To conduct a search on search engines and then find a another set of results to have to browse to find a website is completely redundant.

[dburdon]

I was just reminiscing for the old days when a Google bomb could be used to remove the veil of credibility from totally insincere and morally bankrupt politicians. Too bad that - post Davos - Google's joined them. Time to move on.

[hallstrom]

To dburdon:

Since when did these forums become political forums. You don't even live in this country, so how can you speak for the electorate and why in an SEO forum are you attempting to do so?

I read these forums in an attempt to gain some knowledge of SEO and SEM not to be told how I and my fellow Americans feel politicaly.

You are a moderator for this forum. You should know better. If you want to make political statements, go to a political forum.

Finally, If you or anyone else thinks that a company like Google does anything in this country solely for political reasons, I have several bridges I would like to sell you.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
http://www.resourcesforattorneys.com

[bj]

Since when did these forums become political forums. You don't even live in this country, so how can you speak for the electorate and why in an SEO forum are you attempting to do so?

I read these forums in an attempt to gain some knowledge of SEO and SEM not to be told how I and my fellow Americans feel politicaly.

hallstrom, in my opinion you're way out of line here. These forums and this discussion ARE about SEO. The most famous google bombs were the ones aimed at politicians, and that's what this discussion is about. dburdon was not, in my opinion, telling anyone how to feel politically, American or otherwise.

You, however, have a certain prejudicial view hanging out there against anyone who isn't American. I, for one, find that somewhat offensive.

[dburdon]

Hallstrom,

I live in the UK. The spark that made me post the thread was the termination of the "liar" Google bomb. Essentially, I recall that "liar" saw the website of Tony Blair reach a number 1 ranking on Google.co.uk in the run up to the UK general election of 2005.

Matt Cutts recently announced that steps would be taken to defuse Google bombs. Here's the evidence. In my humble opinion, I don't believe the decision to act against the "liar" bomb - and others - was taken by an engineer.

In the great debate that our democracies allow, I think Google bombs are neither here or there. They just add a user generated context (a spin on web 2.0) to counteract the massive arsenals used by politicians and their vested interests to ensure they remain in power. Winning elections, and hence having power over millions of people, is no longer about conviction or the ability to govern. Its about the means to manipulate the perceptions of the masses. Hence my allusions to the writings of Orwell. Hence my remarks about reminiscing and charm. With the passing of the Google bomb, maybe search engines, and the corporations that control them, have demonstrably moved beyond the age of innocence.

[hallstrom]

To bj:

Sorry if you found my post offensive. I have nothing against, as you said

anyone who isn't American

. I am just against non Americans speaking for Americans just as I would not presume to speak for people of other countries. I don't live in those countries and I can't read their citizen's minds. I don't know how the majority of the people in the UK feel about Blair as I don't put much stock in polls. I don't speak with a large number of UK citizens on a regular basis therefore I can't speak as to how most people over there actually feel.

Next, I agree that

The most famous google bombs were the ones aimed at politicians

, however, in my uneducated opinion, Google Bombs are a way of manipulating search engine results and as such should be stopped. I don't care who or what they are used for or against. I don't see the need for someone who is writing about Google Bombs to insert his or her political opinion that

large swathes of their respective electorates actually do think that the Google bomb targets are "miserable failures" or "liars"

, especially when the only American he has mentioned is President Bush. To me that takes the article out of the realm of SEO and into the realm of political opinion. It doesn't matter if that writer was writing about Bush, Blair, Clinton, Stalin or Hitler, it's still political opinion. I don't want to be forced to read someone else's political opinion in order to learn about working on the internet.

I read all of the Web Pro World posts and make almost no comments because I feel that most of you know far more than I about the internet and I'm trying to learn from the experts. I think that dburdon could have make his point about Google Bombs without inserting his own political opinion.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
http://www.resourcesforattorneys.com
Resources For Attorneys

[Adam Lasnik]

I don't believe the decision to act against the "liar" bomb - and others - was taken by an engineer.

I must respectfully note that you're mistaken. I sit with the engineers in question, and can personally attest to the fact that they envisioned and implemented this algorithmic update on their own... without politically-oriented suggestions, much less pressure.

The algorithm tweak is designed to catch (and so far, does pretty effectively detect) Googlebomb attempts in all languages... equally including those that are non-political in nature (e.g., "talentless hack"). The reason why the now-adjusted search results for politically-oriented searches are more visible is, because... well, politics is controversial and noticeable :).

The bottom line is that -- while many SEOs and some users thought that Googlebombs were entertaining -- a not-insignificant number of our users were concerned and confused by the issue.

For more information, check out the blog entry by engineers Matt, Kendra, and Ryan:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogsp...oglebombs.html

[dburdon]

Today I read a very good article by a chap called Irwin Stelzer. He happens to be an American citizen. The article featured in a UK newspaper.

Stelzer made the point that - in his words - the English speaking democracies had largely ensured the bad guys of the World were kept in check over the last hundred years. The thrust of his article was largely concerned with comment on the UK political scene. In a forum that was open - the national newspaper concerned allows online comments - not one UK citizen deemed it necessary to object to an American citizen expressing an opinion on an essentially British matter. Such is the richness of our common English speaking concept of freedom of speech that most UK citizens would have welcomed a comment by an American on our political system. Let it remain that way.

To take us back into the direct realms of SEO, Google bombs are but a manifestation of that shared - and fragile - freedom. I won't compare the Google Bomb with Magna Carta, or the bill of rights, or the Declaration of Independence, but you must ask why corporate action was needed to terminate their existence. From my perspective, its sad that the corporate interests have deemed to manipulate Google bombs out of existence.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by Adam Lasnik

The bottom line is that -- while many SEOs and some users thought that Googlebombs were entertaining -- a not-insignificant number of our users were concerned and confused by the issue.

Thanks for contributing Adam. Now if we can only get you to hand out here more often :)

[Adam Lasnik]

I will try!

But the majority of my time is and will likely remain spent working on reading/lurking (here and elsewhere) and working with colleagues in the role of Webmaster advocate.

[incrediblehelp]

cool in the gang!

[operagost]

Originally Posted by dburdon

I was just reminiscing for the old days when a Google bomb could be used to remove the veil of credibility from totally insincere and morally bankrupt politicians.

The internet is many things, but I don't think it's suitable for supposed adults to spread their childish graffiti all over it like a bathroom stall. Maybe I don't like your little web business, and decide to get my friends to graffiti all over it? It doesn't exactly require a consensus, just a few tens of high-ranked links. You must really think that you are the only intelligent being in the world to suggest that other people's opinions will be swayed by what pops up when they hit "I'm feeling lucky".

[TrafficProducer]

morally bankrupt politicians; What, politicians had morals to be bankrupt from :)

Google Bombs are said to exist to get Traffic to websites, not because they state a factual view of the subject.

Still; once changing the listing of such sites could also effect honest sites, sites that have been posted not just for Traffic but to express an opinion.

Is this the start of the end on Free Speech?

Save the Internet. Net Neutrality The Freedom of the Internet is at stake. Watch and Read NOW!! It's YOUR FREEDOM they my stop.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by operagost

You must really think that you are the only intelligent being in the world to suggest that other people's opinions will be swayed by what pops up when they hit "I'm feeling lucky".

The other people's opinions are mostly swayed by what pops up when they turn the TV on or open a local newspaper.
The internet is the only remaining free media where everyone can have his/her influence.
Yes, it is about (counter)manipulating public "opinion".
Thanks Google for having a chance to be free for a while.

[dburdon]

Adam,

many thanks for your contribution. Our posts crossed as I went off to bed.

My initial post used the term kowtow and perhaps its a little too pejorative. And is a supposition based on speculation rather than inside knowledge. Apologies from me if the engineers really did make an independent decision.

Secondly, I, like many Brits, had grown attached to the "liar" Google bomb. 18 months after it first appeared it still gets an amusing response at any SEO presentation. Its passing indicates the world of search has just entered another phase.

Lastly, I would just to make the point that Google's integrity rests on its impartiality. Once you stop one Google bomb, you will be expected to stop them all. That will take some editing. Human as well as algorithmic.

Tony Blair still remains top of Google.co.uk for the term famous political liar. If you examine the the Google snippet you'll see that famous and political feature on the site and are therefore "on page" factors. Therefore, due to the lack of "on page" influence there's obviously still an echo of the liar Google bomb floating somewhere out there on the Internet.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by dburdon

The essence of Google should be above politically inspired manipulation.

David, what do you mean? Will you have censorship on KW's? Will you change Google's formula? How many permutations are there of bad English words? Aren't there infinite?

Originally Posted by texxs

The bigger pockets just buy more links. Just because a site put more money into marketing doesn't mean that it's any better than one that didn't.

Fully agree. That is why we need other SE's and directories.

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I fell this is one of the worst experiences for Google end searchers. To conduct a search on search engines and then find a another set of results to have to browse to find a website is completely redundant.

Isn't the biggest link farm on the internet Google's index? Is that index the best link farm on the internet or the biggest? Are you for monopolistic or free competition? As an economist, I can say that I do not like monopolies. But Google is still my preferred SE workhorse. I do not find a better alternative. In the end the preference function of a monopoly and consumers (of webservices in this example) are generally incompatible.

Is quantity == quality?

Originally Posted by TrafficProducer

morally bankrupt politicians; What, politicians had morals to be bankrupt from :)

Google Bombs are said to exist to get Traffic to websites, not because they state a factual view of the subject.

Still; once changing the listing of such sites could also effect honest sites, sites that have been posted not just for Traffic but to express an opinion.

Is this the start of the end on Free Speech?

Save the Internet. Net Neutrality The Freedom of the Internet is at stake. Watch and Read NOW!! It's YOUR FREEDOM they my stop.

Excellent.

Conclusion:
We live in a digital world in the beginning of the digital age where informatiomn spread across the globe in seconds. What would happen if enough webmasters changed their robots.txt file to:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

?

Related WPW link on this last topic:
An interesting test.

The real danger is that one company gets monopoly on ordering, sorting and indexing information.

Look at the rules of my forum, ForumNorway and see how restrictive they are compared to the rules of the SE's. You do not want such rules on the internet?

[dburdon]

Kgun,


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Today Google bombs, what next in the process to manipulate our minds? I'm not saying that Google bombs are an essential pillar of western democracy. While they lasted they just added a little charm.

[kgun]

It is said that the only thing that does not lie is mathematics, simply because it can not, if you have done your calculus correct.

So in a way, news gathered by a SE are the most objective news you can get. A SE bot does not ask you about political or religious opinion.

Do you rely more on this bot than on the Wall Street Journal?

Note:
The result of your calculus depends on your assumptions or algorithm to be more precise.

Dilemma:
Manupilating news / information via "SE bombs" or algorithms ( filters like the adaptive Kalman Filter - empirical Bayesian filtering), that is the question.

P.S. It is not difficult to program a religious or political biased filter.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by kgun

Note:
The result of your calculus depends on your assumptions or algorithm to be more precise.

Well, to be more honest, it depends on choosing your starting variables too. ;)

[kgun]

Isn't that an important part of any iterative or recursive algorithme?

If you are searching for the highest mountain top in the world and restricti your search to Europe, you do no find Mount Everest. Measuerd from the center of the earth the highest mountain on the earth is in South America as far as I know.

So the final result definitely depends on your starting point and your assumptions.

[hallstrom]

I'm getting more and more confused, dburdon, you wrote,

Today Google bombs, what next in the process to manipulate our minds? I'm not saying that Google bombs are an essential pillar of western democracy. While they lasted they just added a little charm.

Are you saying that it is OK for webmasters to manipulate our minds by using Google Bombs, which to me seem to be another form of black hat SEO, but it's not OK for Google, a business in business to make money, to have any say about what is listed in their directory. Shouldn't businesses have the right to run their business in any matter that they wish as long as what they do is legal.

You found Google Bombs charming while I found them to be insulting and pure propaganda. You sound, and I could be wrong, as if you liked certain Google Bombs because they went after people that you don't like. I don't like Google Bombs because they have been used to harm people without regards to truth or fairness. Almost anyone, myself included, could start a Google Bomb for use in harming someone else's reputation. Is that right or Democratic. Free speech should not be used to intentionally harm others.

Finally, if Google Bombs were to become extreemly popular, we would no longer be able to locate any worthwhile information on the internet because the Bombs would take up all the space.

I for one, applaud Google for attempting to control some of the junk that goes on the internet.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
http://www.resourcesforattorneys.com
Resources For Attorneys

[dburdon]

Hallstrom,

many thanks for your contribution.

However. Back to who guards the guards?

1. Google bombing is not black hat. It, by and large, uses legitimate anchor text and link building techniques. I don't have a problem if someone wants to explore the gaps in by and large.

2. Google bombers do not have the machinery of powerful state funded resources to spread propaganda. They rely on whit and collective nous. Its sport not crime.

3. I have no problems with Google changing their algorithm to suit commercial imperatives - subject to normal anti-trust and monopoly regulations. I like Google. I admire what they've built in 9 short years. They're a great corporation. It doesn't mean I have to go along with everything they do.

4. Political imperatives are another matter.

5. Google bombs are charming. It's the little guy collectively using nous and whit to take a swipe at the big battalions. I admire the collective chutzpah of Google bombers. Blair scoring top for "liar" makes every UK tax payer, victim of crime, badly treated national health service patient, poorly educated state school pupil and neglected old age pensioner, feel a little better about their lot. How else do they get back at the vested interests of government? Surely there are parallels in the US.

6. Let's not talk about controlling junk on the Internet. One man's junk is another man's intellectual stimuli.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by dburdon

Its sport not crime.

Very nicely put.
And a consequence is mere fun. Way far away from the consequences of the real machinery: blood and desperation.

[dviney]

Originally Posted by hallstrom

To dburdon:
Since when did these forums become political forums. You don't even live in this country, so how can you speak for the electorate and why in an SEO forum are you attempting to do so?

Disagree fundamentally. Everything in the end is political - it's just a question of time and degree. As the web becomes a more and more important media for people, so it's political power grows - and we as SEMs or bloggers or webmasters need to recognise that we are a part of that.

In the UK, we are busy dismantling freedom of speech principles that have served us well for centuries - and locking people up for heckling politicians. Long may the web remain the one place where you can get the truth - uncensored and uncontrolled!

I think Google have made a big miscalculation in interfering with their SERPS in this way, not least becuase they have now made themselves a "moderator", in legal terms, by seeking to remove or reduce offensive material. This surely now puts them at risk of being sued by individuals who feel slandered by content that shows up in their results.

To paraphrase Plato, first comes business, then laws to regulate business, then politics to represent those disadvantaged by laws. The web is now big business - laws, regulations and politics are just around the corner - big time!

[hallstrom]

dviney, you wrote

Long may the web remain the one place where you can get the truth - uncensored and uncontrolled!

who says that what is written on the internet is the truth? The internet is filled with lies, half truths, miss statements and unfounded opinions. Google Bombs could be and were used to spread many of those unfounded opinions. I can't speak for what is going on in the UK but over here political parties on both sides and special interest groups use the internet to slam their oponents with impunity. I see blog posts, editorials and articles every day that are used to insult and spread unfounded rumors. That is not free speach, that is abuse of free speach. Free speach should be used to spread useful information. It should not be used to harm others.

The average internet user is not as internet savy as those of you that run and post frequently to these SEM forums. Many think that if it's written it must be true. There is an old saying "throw enough stuff against a wall and some of it will stick". Well, Google Bombs threw plenty of stuff against the wall and some of it stuck whether it was true or not.

There have to be some controls over 'free speach', after all you don't yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
http://www.resourcesforattorneys.com
Resources For Attorneys

[bj]

There have to be some controls over 'free speach', after all you don't yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire.

No, no, no. That type of law would be the death of the internet, not to mention democracy on the internet. It would just turn it into more pablum for the masses, Bud TV and the Home Shopping Network, under the guise of "Think of the CHILDREN." Yeah. Just like we needed to have all of our phone conversations monitored to protect us from the big bad terrorists. We do not need more laws to "govern" free speEch (nor do we need more lawyers to "interpret" those laws.)

I do not give you permission to censor our internet.

Maybe you'll be happier living in China. I hear they keep people really "safe" there.

[hallstrom]

Oh, now I get it bj, you want an internet where people can lible people, tell lies about them and insult them, where pedophiles and perverts can corrupt our children and debase women. A place that people can hide behind while they say things to and about people that they wouldn't do or say to their faces. A place where they can be tough and do or say anything they want without worrying about consequences. A place where they can spread malicious gossip without getting caught. A place where people can send e:mails in order to cheat the elderly without going to jail. A place where people can send malicious e:mails in order to crash sites of people or companies that they don't like. You don't want democracy, you want anarchy.

You say

I do not give you permission to censor our internet

. Well, I have news for you. There have to be some rules or eventually there will be no internet. It will be ruined by people who take advantage of it.

You talk about democracy yet you say you won't allow things. That not democracy that's autocracy. Democracy is where the majority rules and no one person can forbid anything. By the way, you do not live in a democracy. The United States is a democratic republic. There is a big difference. If you don't know the difference look it up. No true democracy has ever worked nor will any true democracy work. A true democracy by it's very nature is doomed to failure just a a true democratic internet is doomed to failure and an internet ruled by anarchy is doomed to fail even sooner. This forum accepts that as shown by the fact that they have terms and conditions that have to be agreed with before one can join.

You write about free speach yet you get angry when anyone writes about anything that you disagree with. Does that mean that free speach is fine for you but you won't allow me the same.

Finally, I would like to apologize to everyone on this forum. I wrote in to complain about talking politics in this forum and helped to get everyone more off track. I did not mean to insult or impune anyone and I highly respect your abilities when it comes to search engine optimization and marketing. As far as I am concerned, WebProWorld is one of the best if not the best SEO - SEM forum on the internet. Thank you for lending your expertise.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
http://www.resourcesforattorneys.com
Resources For Attorneys

[bj]

I'd much rather we were FREE to google bomb and that searches came up that reflected public opinion. Yes, google bombs, in their own weird way, DO reflect public opinion, even though it may not be your opinion.

Google just went in a wrong direction with this decision. I expect that within a few months this board will be full of people complaining about how Google's returns for search terms aren't nearly as relevant as they used to be.

BTW, Hallstrom, I don't need your protection, neither does my family, neither do my friends. We're perfectly capable of judging for ourselves what content we want to see. We don't need you, nor anyone else, to do that for us.

[hallstrom]

To bj: I did not offer you or your family my protection. I worry about my family and loved ones, not people I don't know.

Back on point. Google bombs don't express public opinion. They only reflect the opinions of a small segment of the population that know how to create and use Google Bombs. The majority of people don't even know what a Google Bomb is.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
http://www.resourcesforattorneys.com
Resources For Attorneys

[TrafficProducer]

The majority of people don't even know what a Google Bomb is.

And this is possible one of the problems, as with any website users find them and may read them as the whole truth, not balanced.

But hey! Do Google Bombs include Political Party websites?

[activeco]

Originally Posted by hallstrom

The average internet user is not as internet savy as those of you that run and post frequently to these SEM forums. Many think that if it's written it must be true.

I think you are very aware of the influences of 'regular' controlled media.

...you want an internet where people can lible people, tell lies about them and insult them...

See above.

Democracy is where the majority rules and no one person can forbid anything.

He who controls the masses, controls democracy.

[bj]

Hallstrom, you said:

Oh, now I get it bj, you want an internet where people can lible people, tell lies about them and insult them, where pedophiles and perverts can corrupt our children and debase women. A place that people can hide behind while they say things to and about people that they wouldn't do or say to their faces. A place where they can be tough and do or say anything they want without worrying about consequences. A place where they can spread malicious gossip without getting caught. A place where people can send e:mails in order to cheat the elderly without going to jail. A place where people can send malicious e:mails in order to crash sites of people or companies that they don't like.

THEN you said:

To bj: I did not offer you or your family my protection. I worry about my family and loved ones, not people I don't know.

First of all, you contradicted yourself. Second of all, passing laws that "regulate" the internet under the guise of PROTECTING your family (or mine, or whoever's) ignores the fact that statistically it is far far far more likely for a child to be molested/sexually assaulted by a family member than by a random stranger off the internet. 90.2% of sex crimes against minors (17 and younger) were by acquaintances and family members, and that percentage only gets higher as they get younger. It is also far more likely for a woman or elderly person to be assaulted or robbed by a family member or close family friend. In other words the internet has nothing to do with the vast majority of crimes, but yet the few crimes that do actually occur because of the internet get HUGE play in Big Media, and we all know they have their own agenda they're pushing. As you are pushing yours.

[bj]

A place where people can send malicious e:mails in order to crash sites of people or companies that they don't like.

I just re-read this, and inquiring minds wanna know- When did this ever happen? To my knowledge it's very implausible (if not downright impossible) technically, to crash a site by email.

[kgun]

I have my own experienc, read the story on the first link in my signature. That was not the goal with my sites. I had to delete the Google AdSense search box there, so Google should not be related to the story. What if 20 % of what is written there is correct? This is the only way I have to tell my story. The big money rob me, and make my day and night very hard.

But this was not about my personal story, but it is an example.

There is a saying in Norway:

"Det er avis, men ikke bevis (bvis)".

Translated to English word by word.

It is newspaper (avis), but not evidence (bevis).

The politician that can not stand lies, should find another job. What is truth to you may be a lie to another person. Some times, the interpretation of a message depends on the colour of the glasses you read the story through.

[hallstrom]

To kgun, I agreee with your quote

The politician that can not stand lies, should find another job. What is truth to you may be a lie to another person. Some times, the interpretation of a message depends on the colour of the glasses you read the story through.

However at other times the interpretation can depend on a lack of knowledge or experience.

To bj, you write

Second of all, passing laws that "regulate" the internet under the guise of PROTECTING your family (or mine, or whoever's) ignores the fact that statistically it is far far far more likely for a child to be molested/sexually assaulted by a family member than by a random stranger off the internet. 90.2% of sex crimes against minors (17 and younger) were by acquaintances and family members, and that percentage only gets higher as they get younger. It is also far more likely for a woman or elderly person to be assaulted or robbed by a family member or close family friend. In other words the internet has nothing to do with the vast majority of crimes, but yet the few crimes that do actually occur because of the internet get HUGE play in Big Media, and we all know they have their own agenda they're pushing. As you are pushing yours.

Try telling that to the parents of a child who was molested by an internet predator or a woman who has been stalked through the internet.

To activo, you wrote

I think you are very aware of the influences of 'regular' controlled media.

. I agree, however, there are some rules in place to control the regular media and it still abuses the system. The internet with out rules can and does abuse the system far more. I have no problems with those adults that want to view porn over the internet. The problem is that even a 10 year old can view porn over the internet and it doesn't matter how many filters their parents place on the computer, the porn providers can override those filters and children also learn how to override those filters. If newspapers in this country provide porn to children they can be shut down. That is not yet the case with the internet. Newspapers in the United States can be sued if it can be proved that what they printed was malicious. Try suing a internet company in China for printing false malicious stories about someone in the United States. An internet company can shut down and restart almost instantly. A newspaper can not do the same thing.

You also wrote

He who controls the masses, controls democracy.

. Again I agree. That is why there is no such thing as a true democracy and that is why a true democracy is doomed to failure just as a true democratic internet is doomed to failure. Just try running a forum without some rules. It will go under because unscrupulous people will take advantage of it.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
http://www.resourcesforattorneys.com
Resources For Attorneys

[bj]

The problem is that even a 10 year old can view porn over the internet and it doesn't matter how many filters their parents place on the computer, the porn providers can override those filters and children also learn how to override those filters.

Um, Hallstrom? Who let the ten year old have UNSUPERVISED ACCESS to the computer and the internet? How about personal responsibility here? The responsibility lies with the parent(s), not with lawmakers.

Secondly, since when do ten year olds have access to credit cards to view and buy porn? What motivation would a commercial porn provider have to "override those filters"??? Again, your agenda is very clear here. Let's use any excuse to shut the rabble up and take away their voice.

Thirdly, there are already laws in place, enforcement is the problem. The last thing we need are more (unenforceable) laws. In fact, wasn't that Republican Senator, Foley, the one responsible for that legislation?

[activeco]

Originally Posted by hallstrom

To activo, you wrote

I agree, however, there are some rules in place to control the regular media and it still abuses the system. The internet with out rules can and does abuse the system far more.

It is very questionable.
The internet, especially interest groups (such as this one), does not exist as a large conglomerate. It is more like countless small communities, each having its own rules. Even more interesting, the rules tend to settle towards mutual respect, fair level of freedom and other positive values, according
to current civilisation achievements or at least what we think they are, just what you would expect from a small community. I would say it is even more civilised than most of the so called "free" physical societies.
Porn? It is more an ethical question than anything else (please don't put me immediately into the porn industry, I have nothing to do with that). What about movies and games where heads are exploding, blood bursting everywhere, all of that with a nice background music, causing adrenaline rushing? Of course all the bad guys are the current political targets. No wonder that the guys dropping the bombs on Afghanistan's or Iraqi's villages are screaming out of satisfaction and extasy. Everything that don't belong to our (their) cultural or known environment must be coming from faceless and feelingless beings and as such mercilessly destroyed.
What about our modern slaves? How many millions of teriffied and desperate animals have been killed every day to feed our bellies, while there are many substitutions, even healthier than meat?
How many more really important bad things are happening right now, while we denounce sex?

You also wrote

Again I agree. That is why there is no such thing as a true democracy and that is why a true democracy is doomed to failure just as a true democratic internet is doomed to failure.

I often say that democracy is like 100 wolves and 50 sheep voting about tonight's dinner menu. The art of the ruling elite is to convert wolves to sheep or the other way, on demand. Most of the former hippies today support winner/loser philosophy and the law of the stronger. To put the first part of equation here: He who controls information, controls the masses...
However internet, unlike physically bounded territory (where everyone, regardless of his/her convictions is forced to identify him/herself as the member of that territorial group), is more prone to the real spontaneous democracy (or scattered democracies) due to its nature of the interests and common values societies. I don't think it will fail, if it stays free (not "free" as a free beer).

[hallstrom]

To bj, I'm glad that you know what my agenda is. At least someone does. I think that this subject is being beaten to death. We are no longer discussing SEO and SEM and this has gone from discusion to argument. I enjoy discusion because I can learn, but to me arguments are a waste of time. Why don't we just agree to disagree and let others get this topic back on line.

I wish you luck in your current and future projects. Have a nice day, evening and life. Maybe I'll run into you in some other topic.

To you and everyone else, thank you for having allowed my to be part of this forum topic.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Legal resources

[TrafficProducer]

In other words the internet has nothing to do with the vast majority of crimes,

I agree, but the Internet has opened new ways for crime to take place.

This is the same for anything Invented, discovered of produced by ManKind.

Even thinks that have been made for the good of mankind have been used for harm.

The question is Google Bomb GB Update distorts the essence of Google

To anwer this we need to know the "Essence of Google"

For that just look at what happened to China Google. Surly that shows that Essence of Google is/has been Distorted**

Like most stuff, money talks, and big money talks louder.

It shows just how much the Internet, (OUR INTERNET), can be controlled by outside forces which we have very little influence over.

Distorted** does this equate to corrupted???

If Google are just trying to produce a more balanced search engine; good...

but is they are doing it because of Political Pressure or cash; bad. * as in China.

** China+Google+Internet+politics
~~~
Define Google Bomb

What Goole say about thier Essence :-
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. As a first step to fulfilling that mission, Google's founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin developed a new approach to online search that took root in a Stanford University dorm room and quickly spread to information seekers around the globe. Google is now widely recognised as the world's largest search engine -- an easy-to-use free service that usually returns relevant results in a fraction of a second.

[kgun]

TrafficProducer, another great post that takes the thread back on track.

[dburdon]

As far as I know:

Fraud is a crime;
Paedophilia is a crime;
Theft is a crime.

Therefore these things are, and should be, banned by the appropriate authorities from utilising the Internet.

Diminishing the standing of sanctimonious politicians is a sport. These people use huge resources (often our money) to project an image of themselves which is eons from reality and the truth. If we start censoring Google bombs, then how about censoring political caricatures?

[activeco]

Originally Posted by dburdon

Fraud is a crime;
Paedophilia is a crime;
Theft is a crime.

Therefore these things are, and should be, banned by the appropriate authorities from utilising the Internet.

Correct. The current politics of the most influental governments is a crime too. And they utilise any possible mass media to reinforce support for their crimes.
Google is the private company and they may self decide how to deal with similar issues. Will they loose their "do no evil" charisma if they control Googlebombs and basically go against their core philosophy?
No, I don't think so. The keyphrase is "deliberate manipulation" here and they are rightfully against it.
Still, a pity for closing down a way for a few non-zombies to say something.

[TrafficProducer]

False Positives, this could be one issue.

When kicking out Google Bombs they may also remove, or limit, none Google Bombs that appear similar to bombs but are just posted by users who are Genuine.

[bj]

The "False Positive" thing has been a concern of mine since they announced this, even more so than the fact that they're skewing their own results so their {sarcasm}sainted reputation{/sarcasm} stays intact and so they can say people can't manipulate them.