Google "failure"

[nelson]

I mean it, go google "failure."

Unless the owners at Google have very recently changed their "failure" results database, you'll find at the top of the results the official autobiography of George W. Bush as hosted at whitehouse.gov. Which is very interesting to say the least.

Whether you appreciate that or not, the fact that Google attempts to use its index to define a living President reveals a clear political intent at the purportedly impartial "search engine."

I discovered it quite some time ago, but there's no telling how long this practice has been going on at Google, nor how successful the company has actually been in influencing (preying on) its unsuspecting user base. A finding like this warrants a major journalistic investigation into the company's tactics and their purpose. But I wouldn't expect any such investigation anytime soon.

Because, in wielding the clout of its feigned objectivity, Google has actually joined the ranks of the traditional media. They're on the same team. And the traditional media does not ever hold itself accountable.

But one thing we absolutely do know from the tough lesson the traditional media is still having a hard time swallowing. The moment an information source, like CBS News, Google, or other media organizations, seeks to utilize its clout to influence the minds of users, it has in fact taken the first step in a decline toward irrelevancy.

Therefore I'm bearish on Google. The company's focus has strayed from providing information; it is now providing the information they want me to find.

[DesertSon]

A few years ago had you typed "french military victories" into a google search engine you would have recieved a mesage asking if you meant " french military defeats?" The 1st link was to a site that gave a historical time line of all French military actions and the respective outcomes. I heard about this through a mainstream news source and found it to be quite humorous, of course it did not take long after the report before google changed the link. Now you know this will never get the same attention or reaction from the media!

It is the company's right of course to push their opinion and or agenda in any way they see fit. On the same note we have the right to stop doing business with them. Will I go to Ask.com next search I need? Probably. Will I pay google to list a business for me, absolutely not. The great thing about this country is the right to make those choices, what too many would like to do however is make choices for you or make it hard for you to choose different than the mainstream. Is it easy to type into Google at the top of my browser, Yes. Can I type in Yahoo and/ or Ask instead, yes but it's an extra step. Most times taking that extra step makes all the difference.

[nelson]

Thanks for your comments DesertSon. Interesting about the french military victories, never knew that one.

Boy do I absolutely agree that the markeplace should decide whether honest companies will make a buck! And like you I exercise my freedom of choice to type www.yahoo.com. :cool:

I also agree that any company is entitled to push their opinion any way they see fit, provided they are honest about their agenda. When companies deceive unsuspecting consumers this inhibits free market economics, and often warrants disciplinary action by our government. I think Google doing this by purporting to provide an objective service when actually promoting a deliberate agenda.

[Freethinker]

A little off topic.....I have a French War Rifle for sale. Never fired, only dropped twice.


Seriously, Nelson, the Google thing isn't a political issue at all. There are enough folks who spam google by putting links on their websites that direct the word failure to George Bush's page. If enough people do this, then the google spiders, as they crawl through cyberspace, prioritize this connection and it becomes the first most common connection when you google the word failure.

I don't see this as a political stance, as it is exploitation of the liberal world using google as a tool.

[nelson]

Freethinker, if outside manipulation solely determines Google's search results, how does one explain Google's past success as an accurate search engine? I contend the algorithm that produces their results is not entirely automated, as the company has claimed, but carefully audited and the results frequently edited. Any company worth its share price maintains ultimate control over its product. Don't forget Google also determines which URLs it will index and which it will not - try a little research into conservative bloggers who have been banned from the Google index. And remember the close ties between Google execs and the Democratic party. Make no mistake it is very political and a powerful influence precisely because few people realize that.

I'm not the only one making this discovery.

Is Google Purging Conservative News Sites?
http://newsbusters.org/node/5477

[retread]

The company's focus has strayed from providing information; it is now providing the information they want me to find.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/politics/26googlebomb.html?ei=5090&en=cf9c1ba8c49c62b2&ex=1319515200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Google is a manipulator and they are often manipulated.

[MYCAR47562]

Wow This Is Interesting shall i delete my google bar

[gtrman66]

I use dogpile.com Best search engine ever!

[The G]

3years later and it still true :)

[nelson]

A new article (below) discussing what was mentioned in this thread long ago.

In short, when Bush was Google-bombed, there was no correction for years.
When Obama was Google-bombed, the correction was virtually immediate.

I realize how search ranking works at Google. But don't be naive, Google retains complete control over their search results. This article provides evidence that the bias is not limited to television and other media - it extends to Internet sites. It's not just the powerful Google that exerts its bias - Wikipedia and other influential sites do the same. It's an unfortunate sign of the times.

Unlike Bush's 'Google Bomb,' Google Quickly Defuses Obama's
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485632,00.html

[Remphoto]

Brent Bozell's http://www.mediaresearch.org/ provides abundant, factual examples of mainstream bias. BTW, Bozell, like his late Uncle William F. Buckley, is a man of great intellect and integrity. Former network newsman Bernard Goldberg has written another well-documented book on media bias. The title, "A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media " says it all.

[nelson]

This piece from Newsbusters discusses more than just Al Gore's advising Google. It expands on the topic to discuss Google bias in general, and includes various other references.

Al Gore Advised Google About 'Search Quality'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/15/al-gore-advised-google-about-its-search-quality



.

[TaxmanHog]

..... I contend the algorithm that produces their results is not entirely automated, as the company has claimed, but carefully audited and the results frequently edited.


This is my belief also, I suspect the content editor brigade had a rouge employee make an adjustment to the counter results during the posts original listing, which caused a few hits to balloon into many, then the novelty inquiry factor legitimately tripped the counter up geometrically just by our fact of testing the system. :coffee