New Campaign Tactic - Google Bombing 252
jeian writes "My Direct Democracy, a liberal group blog, is trying out a new campaign tactic — Google bombing. From the New York Times article: 'Searching Google for Peter King, the Republican congressman from Long Island, would bring up a link to a Newsday article headlined King Endorses Ethnic Profiling.' Google's policy has typically been to not intervene and let the algorithms work by themselves, but could this change if Google-bombing becomes a common tactic?"
Avoiding the Appearance of Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
If Google adjusts their code to "rectify" a politically-oriented gaming of the system, then Google would appear to many people as politically biased. "You fixed it for Johnny Blue, but you didn't fix it for Sally Red, so you must be one of them blue-state LIBeral activist fanatic type companies!" "You tweaked Sally Red's ranking but left alone Johnny Blue's sort results, so you must be one of them red-state NEOnazi NEOcon corporate welfare hack jobs!"
all's fair in love and war (Score:5, Insightful)
however, google in a very short time has come to inhabit a very important space in the media
it is largely unregulated in the usa now (not so in other countries), but it won't stay that way for long. too many powerful interests will have too many concerns about google and its power,and google will not survive unscathed
so i say: no regulation
but my brain tells me regulation of google is coming regardless
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thought Google Had Responded (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Miserable Failure is the classic example (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thought Google Had Responded (Score:5, Insightful)
Linking by keywords is a very important aspect of how google manages to return relevant results.
The text a person uses to actually link to a site gives weight to the use of the destination site, to this end when linking we should always try to give a relevant phrase.
Linking slashdot as this [slashdot.org] is less useful than something like Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters [slashdot.org].
Re:Miserable Failure is the classic example (Score:5, Insightful)
By actaully using the candidates name, they have to overcome a whole lot more, all of the actual political blogs, news articles, campaign sites, etc. I don't think it will work at all.
Re:Probably not (Score:2, Insightful)
Positive spin on 'Google bombing' (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the fact that the person who started this went out of his way to focus on substantive articles from real newspapers does a lot to distance this from the sort of 'prank' it could have been. If this were all focused on a parody site, or they were doing something deceptive like linking "John Kyl" to the site of a child molester with the same or similar name, I think that would be irresponsible. But especially when the first few entries are still his senate biography, campaign site, and wikipedia entry, I don't see the problem with this.
Interestingly, since a few hours ago when I read the article in the Times and first Googled "Jon Kyl," the article in question has disappeared from the first couple pages. Is Google actually taking a hand here? It sure looks like something has happened.
An informed society (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about everyone else but I go to Google when I need information. I don't get a clear view of what's going on in the world from the infotainment media. Googleboming interferes with that. Anyone abusing Google's algorhythms as a political tool cares more about pushing their propaganda than my right to self education. I try to keep that, disrespect for me the end user, in mind as I look through my bombed search results.
Re:Probably not (Score:3, Insightful)
Errmmmmm yeah. That must be why they link to hundreds of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity fan sites.
Re:all's fair in love and war (Score:2, Insightful)
So, I don't really see a problem whether you get positive or negative information. They're not going to spam the top 20 pages of search results with all negative articles, and also, negative articles for some are positive for others. Example: I think racial profiling is swell, and I hate those damn hippies who oppose it!!
If they get fake articles ranked up, then I guess that could be a problem, but who's going to believe only one result uncorrelated with other more official sites like CNN? If I read a ridiculous article on some crazy radicalist website, I would look for the non-partisan counterpart elsewhere...
Someone who is completely clueless about politics isn't going to even know the politician's name to google him/her. Chances are, if you're looking up a politician, you're going to have confirmation bias and pick the information you want to believe anyway.
Re:It took this long? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the loyal opposition thinks that correlating "miserable failure" with Bush or anyone else somehow a) matters and b) has appreciable effect on the thought process of a voter, then this is a sad thing.
Not shilling for Bush here, but what a sophomoric use of talent!
How about some dispassionate critiques of the current world political situation, followed by some fresh, well-researched suggestions for where policy should go, and some non-establishment faces to implement the ideas on the ballot?
Please?
Jon Stewart, Fox, and the Question Mark (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post reminds me of the Jon Stewart sketch regarding news programs (esp. Fox) and the question mark. You can claim anything you want as long as you frame it in the form of a question.
Of course, then you go beyond that and make a baseless claim without any evidence, with the claim being obvious hyperbole. (Well, obvious to anyone with a brain. I'm assuming that includes you, but maybe you'll prove me wrong.)
Re:all's fair in love and war (Score:3, Insightful)
Love.
War.
Politics.
Industry.
Commodities Trading.
Real Estate.
Sporting Events.
Academia.
Pretty much any situation where people allow ambition and greed to supercede ethics and morality is, without regulation, nasty. The minute you deregulate something, the sleaze comes crawling out of the woodwork; all it takes is a fraction of a fraction to ruin it for everyone.
The sad truth is that an individual can get very, very far in life by cheating, lying, stealing, killing, and basically living live with callous disregard for the well-being of one's fellow man. For much of human history, this was the norm; there's a reason Hobbes described the nature of human life as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." The fittest do indeed survive, but odds are very, very, very, very good that you, me, and most everyone we know don't fall into the "fittest" category. No matter how good we think we are, there's somebody out there who'd be willing to snap our necks for personal gain without so much as blinking.
Some degree of regulation is what allows our great, if imperfect, society to function as well as it does. Take away all regulation, take away all rules, and you'll be left with a game where the victor will be he who bites the deepest, punches the hardest, and gouges out more eyes than anyone else. Excessive regulation can and does stifle progress, but excessive deregulation gives the worst types of people the best advantage over the rest of us.
Re:Miserable Failure is the classic example (Score:1, Insightful)
Google isn't going to stop this if they're smart, because their job is to index the web, and the so-called google-bombers aren't gaming the system, they're changing the web.
This is like someone saying that I tried to trick them into thinking their car was red by painting it red. Sorry dude... it's not a trick, your car really is red now. And the web really does have a whole ton of legitimate references to illegal and immoral acts by republican politicans.
Google would be stupid to try to "stop" this... these people are doing Googles job for them.
Ask Dan Rather... (Score:2, Insightful)
Conservatives aren't motivated to rig Google. Guilty as charged. That's not the same as using the Internet.
Re:Miserable Failure is the classic example (Score:5, Insightful)
It should read:
And the web really does have a whole ton of legitimate references to illegal and immoral acts by any politican.
There's absolutely no reason to pick on one side or the other, when the entire lot of politicians are completely corrupt, stupid, and need to be tossed out altogether in favor of honest people (if there are any left).
Re:It took this long? (Score:3, Insightful)
The new technique, having a candidate's name bring up a damning article on them, is more potent. Around election time, people WILL start googling candidate's names to learn more about them, and they WILL stumble upon these articles, which probably make accusations that the reader might not have heard before.
In short, Googlebombing, which started off as a toy and a mean-spirited way to get back at people, is now becoming an actual tool which could have actual effects on elections.
Re:Miserable Failure is the classic example (Score:3, Insightful)
Arguably, a search engine's job (google's other divisions notwithstanding) is to help you find things that you're looking for. Indexing is a means to an end, not just an end in itself.
Re:Miserable Failure is the classic example (Score:4, Insightful)
I am so FRUSTRATED by people on either side claiming matter-of-factly that the OTHER guys are the immoral, illegal ones while ignoring the crimes of their own (there has been plenty by Democrats this year). You guys are essentially two battling religious factions, each with your holy books and saviors. Who's to say one holy book is any more right than the other?
Re:Miserable Failure is the classic example (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you serious?
The job of a web search engine is to reflect the web by determining relevancy of content. What these folks are doing isn't "changing the web." They're gaming the system by lending influence to specific search results that doesn't accurately reflect the normal relevant results presented by Google's neutral algorithms. The behavior of a small group of extremists does not accurately reflect the web any more than one black person committing a crime represents all black people; in other words, the way they're changing the web is self-serving only to them and not the web and does not accurately reflect the web.
The guy specifically calls it "search engine optimization." Now, Slashdot is often posting stories about sleazy spammers and their SEO tactics, and this itself is essentially spamming. Regardless of which political affiliation you are (this is Slashdot, so I know which direction it leans), you should be getting your message out by rationally explaining it to the folks; not by using spamming and misdirection. Tactics like this only hurt politics. Next time someone mentions the "Republican propaganda machine," I'll just point them to this article as proof that they are selectively ignoring the sleazy tactics of members of their own party.
If these guys wanted to bring attention to certain information about opposing candidates, they should do what every rational person should do which is take out a print advertisement or a TV spot and get the message to the voters. This kind of stuff reminds me of people ripping down opposing candidate posters and putting up their own. Your red car analogy doesn't fly, unless you did something like go through the neighborhood and paint everybody's car red just to point out that one guy's car was red, rather than just hanging up flyers to let people know that the friggin' car is red.
Re:Disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they are a core group of activists changing the indexed Google results for the web, not the web itself. They are manipulating algorithms that are designed to maintain neutrality as much as possible.
This is exactly what search engine optimization is--tricking Google into pushing your result to the top over others that are legitimately linked on the web. I don't know about you, but I don't want a search engine corrupted by special interests.
There's nothing wrong with publicizing an article by creating a web page. Simply because a group of people think their particular article is so noteworthy that it deserves to be viewed above all others despite Google's relevancy algorithms placing it low on the list doesn't mean they have the right to game the system. To support the tactics of this group is to support spammers who game Google; it is the same mindset of entitlement ("My results belong above everyone else's, just because I say so!").
Re:Miserable Failure is the classic example (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Any politician? I was right with you up until the time you got all cynical on us. This could have been avoided by you saying, "And the web really does have a whole ton of legitimate references to illegal and immoral acts by many politicans." This way, you make it clear you mean a lot, but not all politicians are corrupt, unless you really can prove that the Mayor of Bogusville, Montana has a web page that points out a ligitimate reference to illegal and immoral acts by him/her.
BTW, just as a question - suppose every Democratic congressperson had gotten a speeding ticket and every Republican had been convicted of bribery - would you still make the same argument you did above? There are degrees in corruption, just as there are shades of gray. Being the party in power, I have no doubt that the Republicans, especially with the advent of Tom DeLay's K Street Project, whose very purpose was to lock Democrats away from contributions (usually the source of most corruption trouble), have racked up more than their fair share of corrupt influences over the past ten or so years.
If you really think both parties are equally bad, your cynicism is very sad and is probably leading you towards doing nothing that will ever improve the situation. On the other hand, if you're just another partisan hack but for the other side, trying to say "Everyone does it, so everyone is equally bad!" so that you can rebut the OP with an aire of non-partisan superiority, I despise you and your hypocritical little charade.
Re:Miserable Failure is the classic example (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Miserable Failure is the classic example (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I'm tired of the argument that all politicians are corrupt. Two points - the first is that I do think that it's rare for politicians to make it through the election meat grinder without compromising their morals at least a little and taking some cheap shots. I wish negative campaigning weren't so effective, but that generally doesn't rise to what I'd call corruption. Second point is that I do think corruption is higher in politics than in the general population because of the power. And the more power, the more entitled they feel in lining their friends pockets and taking a little for themselves too. But that doesn't mean they're all corrupt.
You don't get K Street, no-bid contracts and gargantuan levels of pork when there is sufficient balance in government. You can and should assume that Democrats would be as corrupt in the Republicans' shoes. William Jefferson and Alan Mollohan are corrupt Democrats, and there would be many more like them if their party controlled the Executive Branch, the House, the Senate and had filled 7 of the 9 Supreme Court positions. So vote for some balance. Demand some accountability. And don't fall for the "blame game" sidestep. It's called accountability.