XKCD Inadvertently Causes Googlebomb

MrCopilot writes "As I noted yesterday (and was joined by many others)... in an offhand observation xkcd has singlehandedly changed a small section of the Internet. Changing the results from a Google search for "Died in a Blogging Accident" from 2 to (at this writing) over 7,170 in a little more than 24 hours." If you aren't reading xkcd, you're missing out.

And this is just adding to it

[ShadowMarth]

Not that I don't love XKCD, but is this really /.-worthy? Oh well. Still, awesome, and each post only serves to compound the results!

And by submitting this story

[saibot834]

You probably change Google's result for "Died in a Blogging Accident" more than xkcd did.

Blog writers prosecutions

[arigram]

Considering that many people around the world have been prosecuted for their blogs, imprisoned, tortured and maybe even killed, it is not just humor, its a terrifying fact.

Re:And this is just adding to it

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that the Uncertainty Principle [wikipedia.org]? It certainly would be cool if it was proved this could be applied to the Web or the so-called "Blogosphere".

Re:Blog writers prosecutions

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to look into the meaning of this "accident" word.

I'm Confused

[smackenzie]

I've read every TFA link in the post, but I'm not sure I understand what is going on.

1. What is the true definition of a Google Bomb? Are we confusing this with Google Washing?

2. Why is this incident a Google Bomb?

3. What makes this particular incident Slashdot newsworthy?

I think this might be a funny scenario -- but I don't get it!? Thanks for the info.

Re:And by submitting this story

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably change Google's result for "Died in a Blogging Accident" more than xkcd did.

And you sir might want to follow the chain of events just one tiny step backwards and notice that it was, in fact, xkcd which caused the submission of the story. No xkcd, no /. story ergo xkcd is still to blame :)

Re:I'm Confused

[Feanturi]

Stuff that matters to whom? It mattered to the submitter, and it matters to anyone who finds it amusing or interesting. You are not Slashdot, and neither am I.

Re:Blog writers prosecutions

[Anonymous Coward]

they have oil.

I think I'll let xkcd speak for me

[aztektum]

clicky [xkcd.com]

Re:The original Google Bomb is a VERY bad thing

[martin-boundary]

Why does everyone assume that this behaviour by SEOs is *bad*? It's Google's algorithm that's got problems with corner cases, and they have zero incentive to fix the flaws in it if everyone just blames the internet users.

Does a google bomb affect *every* search engine? No. It affects *one* search engine with a lot of clout.

Does a google bomb involve illegal hacking of google's servers? No. It involves creating links on people's own damn blogs and websites.

It's sad that people buy the moral victimization that Google's marketing has come up with. This idea that people on the web shouldn't be allowed full free speech, because it's "bad" to write anything they want in case it causes headaches for Google's engineers. At best, it's fanboyism gone wild.

A search engine should reflect what's out there, period. If a lot of blogs link to one site, a search engine should reflect that. If it causes trouble to their algorithm, they should fix their algorithm. But above all, it's not Google's job to tell people that what they're doing on the web is morally "bad".

Re:I think I'll let xkcd speak for me

[mfnickster]

You can skip step 1 (Randall did).

Re:The original Google Bomb is a VERY bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a matter of perspective. As a free speech advocate, I agree with you: It's your site, create links as you wish. As a web user, I agree with Google: I'm not looking for the website which is operated by the most successful link farmer. I want relevant search results. I don't mind the occasional prank with an obscure search term, but the technique also works (worked) with search terms which are expected to deliver useful results, and then it makes searching more arduous.

You're right, it's not Google's job to tell people what is morally "bad", but that's not what they do. They tell people that Google disapproves of Googlebombing because it complicates the relevance-calculation. They also adjust the algorithm to reduce or eliminate the effectiveness of Googlebombing and link farming.

So far, common wisdom is that Google only punishes for on-site misbehaviour (behaviour which, in Google's opinion, undermines the calculation of useful results: selling links, keyword spamming, cloaking, linking to bad neighborhoods, etc.) Google does not punish a site for off-site factors (being at the receiving end of a Googlebomb, being linked to from bad neighborhoods,) but a site will usually not benefit from these factors either.

Duplicate content can have negative effects even when the duplication isn't caused by the original site, but that is not a punishment, it's just part of the relevance calculation: Google tries to find the most relevant copy and all others are discounted (as you would expect: What good are dozens of identical sites clogging up the search result pages?) When the algorithm gets it wrong, a copy site gets the good ranking and the original site drops. This can be used against a site, but to exploit that problem, there has to be a big over all relevance difference between the attacking site and the attacked site (in favor of the attacker,) which is usually not the case.

A search engine should reflect what's out there, period.

That topic got closed years ago. Back then, some argued that Google's rank algorithm was a form of censorship because it favored some pages over others. The users have spoken: They use Google because search engines which "blindly" reflect what's out there don't return useful search results. The sites are all listed, but order is important and the users like the order which is calculated by Google's algorithm.