He screwed up by aggressively promoting policies that were offensive to Dan Savage. Today's Internet gatekeeper is Dan Savage. Who's tomorrow's?
The point is, the Google bomb isn't the only "artifact" of Dan Savage's campaign. If this association were something that only existed in Google's SERPs I would be more inclined to agree with your point, but it's not. Google is not the only thing, and arguably not even the biggest or most important thing, that was affected. The association with the term is real, for a very real and meaningful sense of the word "real."
Now, I will agree that the association is over-valued due to the Google-bombing, and most users this month are better served by politician than the term in the results page right now, but that's an issue of poorly-ranked results, rather than artificially-constructed results, which is qualitatively less troubling.
If Vidkun Quisling were alive today, would he have a legitimate complaint against Google if searches for his name brought up the dictionary definition I just quoted?
If "Quisling" meant "a man in drag", "pile of manure" or something less tasteful then you may have a point.
Yeah, it happens.
How do you feel about terms less mean-spirited like the "Arab Spring?"
(a) Google believes that most of its users really are looking for Dan Savage's prank when they search for the name of one of the best-known national Republican figures of the last 30 years.
(b) Google is deliberately choosing not to adjust this particular search result for reasons of ideology or pragmatism.
Please understand that I could give a rats about Rick Santorum. I find him odious. I firmly hope he does win the GOP nom so that Obama can win 2012 in a walk.
But [santorum] does not return that particular SERP because the word "Santorum" organically became associated with that particular idea. A group of people decided to rewire, well I guess the Internet, to force that association. If they can do it, anyone else can too. Google's search results should be more credible than that.
Not sure I believe that all the people at Google involved in deciding how search results get tweaked lean the same way politically and are interested in having their ideology reflected in Google results.
That's kind of what you're implying here isn't it?
I think the overall argument we're seeing here is fundamentally the same as those questions about sexism in the tech industry.
Some believe its just a reflection of the fact that most people in that group happen to fit into a certain demographic and that nothing is really broken. Others believe there's a fundamental underlying problem that needs to be fixed.
Santorum is a 2-term Senator who ran poorly for president a couple times, and who was made mildly more famous due to a minor controversy. He's like the Gary Hart of the GOP.
Meanwhile, Google most assuredly does have signals as to which of the results on that first SERP are the ones users are actually looking for.
I think enough of them are that it justifies the prank being among the top results.
Yes, and the spreading santorum site is the first result. So unless you have some actual counterproof, I think the reasonable assumption is that Google is giving the people what they ask for, as usual. Especially since Bing returns the same top result.
Anyway, the whole thesis of this thread is factually wrong, since the top result today on Google for "santorum" is actually the Iowa caucus results table from the Associated Press. So Google has, in fact, manually inserted a search result in response to the surge in interest in Santorum the candidate. (Bing, by the way, has not.)
Here's Google's response on this issue from back in September, after Santorum requested the result be removed: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63952.html
"Google’s search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the web."
Should they be editing out search results where people say they intend to "Xerox" things instead of photocopy them? Same sort of neologism.
(Yes, I get that this was an intentional GoogleBomb, but it has gone beyond that and is now the meaning of the substance).
Disagreeing with a position held by 40% of people != irrational hate speech towards 10% of people.
Obviously, a view isn't made more correct by having more people believe in it, but if one makes entirely baseless attacks on a large demographic, and that demographic responds, I find it hard to be sympathetic.
The issue with the argument is that normal people don't work in real, crazy absolutes. That's a certain type of technical person thing. Normal people don't get to Richard Stallman levels of consistency in action. They stop their environmentalism at perhaps picking up some trash or buying a Prius, maybe even bringing bags to the grocery store, they stop their pro-choice stance at perhaps sending a check to the tax deductible (aka, non-political) branch of Planned Parenthood
Google WILL eventually stop this sort of thing if it becomes pervasive. When it's isolated, and arguable that it shouldn't be fixed, they likely will not fix it.
It isn't like Google lets the billions of spam blogs effect search results when they can detect it's going on. They did at first, but once it became a problem distorting results, they stopped.
I get that you're trying to loudly assert "BUT THAT LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED", and the rest of us are pointing out that "that's debatable; Google surely will figure something out when it's and issue that's very clean cut".
Would you likely see action faster if were say, a conservative renaming of the liquid made after an abortion? Perhaps, due to those political leanings you ascribe to googlers. But will it stop for "left wing" terms eventually as well? Surely.