In this article, Google changed their story due to the outcry of free speech advocates. (HEY! That’s us!)
Well, I’m sorry that it ever happened you spineless bastards. It seems like that cult masquerading as a religon always seems to buy it’s way out of problems and out of negative publicity.
Fuck them!
SHIT! preview, preview, preview! I meant your NOT you’re
whatami
I expect you meant “too” too. Carry on.
It would have been great for Google to stand up to the Co$ bully tactics, but lawsuits, regardless of their relevance, are expensive undertakings. They take away resources that should be focused on providing services and turning profits. Co$ knows this, which is why they file all these lawsuits. Additionally, the DMCA is a poorly written piece of trash which has stomped on the fair-use principle and might actually give the Co$ the legal ammunition it always wanted.
Just a note: you probably meant to spell “its” correctly, as well.
I recently heard that Google is considering changing the way its search engine works, so that instead of listing sites by relevance, it would list them in the order of how much money they’re paying to Google.
Why eactly is Google obligated to fight free speech battles on your behalf? They are a for-profit enterprise, not a civil liberties interest group.
Plus, it seems to me that here the market worked pretty effectively: Google saw that it was offending a large number of its consumers and changed course. Isn’t that what we want to happen – for businesses to listen to their customers?
(On preview, I see I’ve been beaten to this point by D_Odds.)
err… I can’t even spell corretly, why am I ranting about Google?
Okay, you’re (got it right this time) right D_Odds. They are a private enterprise, why is it their battle. I guess I was just looking at it as one more time when Co$ has made a move and succeeded. I really can’t stand them!
whatami
I think that’s a universal sentiment around here. I’m still waiting for the pro-$cientology and/or pro-Chick response. I’m keeping an industrial size acetylene torch on stand-by for the roasting.
Do you have a cite for that? Because that’s not what Google says:
Right. That would be why when I was searching for project accounting seminars this morning I was directed to a porn site by one of their search results.
Totally fucking relevant.
Horse shit.
[just thanking the heavens that there is an active Google rant so that I can add my 2 fucking cents to it…]
I search for porn and don’t get any irrevelent stuff. 
Actually, I have had great luck with my Google searches, I do a search on average of 4 times a day and always been satisfied with the results.
As for the OP, Google has no business being in the censorship or copyright industry, they need to focus on the business of indexing websites for the search terms provided.
A search for Project Accounting Seminars doesn’t turn up anything that resembles porn in at least the first 2 pages of links.
I think you nailed it right on the head with your OP–in that you were directed to a porn site by one of the search results–that is, one of the sites you visited had a redirect or pop-up porn window. It most likely didn’t have anything to do with Google. How many links deep into the site were you?
Regardless of the Scientology issue, it is in Google’s best interest to find some way to stop this “Google bombing”.
Back in the early days of the search engines, it was thought that meta-tags were a good way to index pages; then people realized that they could lie in their metatags. The search engines either stopped indexing or changed the relevance they placed on metatags as a result.
Whether it is Scientology or an anti-Scientology doing it, if they are manipulating the search results from Google, then that is bad for Google overall.
Let me get this straight. You don’t understand why people think google is obligated to fight free speech battles, yet you assert that the market is functioning correctly because google is listening to its customers, who think google is obligated to fight free speech battles.
I see.
While I cut out some of your stuff Ob, I guess I don’t understand your post. Are you saying that an anti-Scientology site shouldn’t be listed along with a Scientology site?
That’s like asking for a search on cancer and not being able to get both sides of the story listed, if that is what you are saying.
As for using keywords via meta tags, most people use them properly at least in my experience. I haven’t really researched how Google indexes sites but if what I am reading from your post an anti anything site should not be considered. Please correct me if I am wrong. If it has nothing to do with the search then it’s warranted but if I were to use the search term “Scientology” I would expect all pro and all con sites to come up.
< scratches head >
He said that Google will change its course of action if the vast majority of its customers are upset with them. In other words, corporations try to make their customers happy (at least superficially so).
His second point had nothing to do with free speech. Don’t be so quick to jump the gun.
What SPOOFE said. My point is that Google is under no moral obligation to pursue free speech rights. That market forces in this case pushed them in the direction of protecting free speech is just a happy coincidence.
I’m taking no position on what should be in the results page for a search on scientology. I don’t care if searching “scientology” gets you a talapia aquaculture farm as a first result.
I am saying that Operation Clambake intentionally set out to manipulate the results returned by Google. Scientology probably did the same thing.
The key factor in how Google prioritizes search results is a system of evaluating how often a page is linked to by other pages. Having more pages link to a specific page implies that the page is considered important and trustworthy (working much like the Science Citation Index, a scientific paper that is cited more often in other papers is viewed to be more significant). In recent months the idea of “Google bombing” has grown. That is artificially linking pages and cites together so as so increase a google ranking.
This has been particularly affective when done by weblogs, and one weblog owner was recently able to get his anti-X page to be returned as the first result of a search for X (I forget which company was being attacked). This was done by announcing his campaign and gettting dozens of other weblogs to link to his page.
This is bad for Google. Google’s great improvement over traditional search engines was its citation ranking and it improved result relevancy and value by at least a magnitude. If Google doesn’t take steps to negate these intentional manipulations then that will be begin to erode confidence in its value. That is all I am saying.
I have no opinion of Operation Clambake. My opinion, at a high level, of Scientology is not particularly negative. If the Operation Clambake organically develops into the fourth or even first result for searching “scientology” that is fine, but if it appears there because the owners of the site have decided that is where they want to be, then that is not good; any more than if I took my book review site and manipulated things so that it was the first result in a search for “britney spears”.
I think Google’s self censorship has gone further than you seem to believe. After running a search on “cancer” I noticed that pro-cancer sites were notably absent.
ob, okay, that makes more sense…I wasn’t understanding what you were saying, now I get it.
And Doghouse? They don’t have a kick in the shin emoticon, so just imagine one. 