Slashdot Mirror
Google Zeitgeist '05
Garett Rogers writes "Google has just released their Google Zeitgeist 2005. From the site: 'It turns out that looking at the aggregation of billions of search queries people type into Google reveals something about our curiosity, our thirst for news, and perhaps even our desires. Considering all that has occurred in 2005, we thought it would be interesting to study just a few of the significant events, and names that make this a memorable year. (We'll leave it to the historians to determine which ones are lasting and which ephemeral.) We hope you enjoy this selective view of our collective year.'"
Am I missing something? What is Janet Jackson doing at the top of the search list?
Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
Position 1 could be orders of magnitude more searched for than position 2.
On the other hand, position 1000 could have nearly as many searches as position 10...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
"As a company that tries to do no evil, we were quite pleased to see that [the force] outdraws [the dark side] in search queries."
So when will we see them admit that people are searching for [block banner ads] when they annoy people with graphical Google Ads?
And why the @*^!! is the browser useragent info and platform info still missing? "Do no evil"? I think it was wrong to pull that info out of the results. C'mon guys! Put it back!
i am a soviet space shuttle
Bah I've got karma to burn, do your worst, but ... LOOK at all the apple products on that list! 5 in total! Sure they're all ipod related (even itunes) but to me that's pretty cool. Unless you're still adament about not getting an ipod because somehow OGG is better for your precious ears ;) ....
-- (Score:i , Imaginary)
I guess more people would like to get their information from a more objective source of news rather than the American media which has been blackmailed, threatened, cajoled, etc. from actually questioning the policies and actions of the US government.
-- If it isn't broken, you haven't let my users have a crack at it yet --
.. for us webdevs is missing again (for a second or third year) - the browser stats :((
also I see less and less in each issue of the Zeitgeist (I suppose as they figure out that more and more of the info is pretty valuable to be released for free)
Last time I checked, it was the media's responsibility to report the news, and your responsibility to question government policies. Are you so lazy as to want the reporters to do your job for you? Are you so foolish as to think that the media can be trusted to discharge your responsibilities better than you can yourself?
Plus, how can a news source be simultaneously objective and questioning policy?
Plus, what makes you think that the BBC is immune from whatever market forces, black-hearted corruption, or government pressure you believe plagues CNN?
Plus, it's not like the current government administration (whether in the U.S. or in Great Britain) is the only faction with a vested interest in manipulating the media. Have you considered the possibility that the BBC is just as biased as CNN, only you don't notice because it's your own faction controlling the BBC?
We can't really get into your proof of these allegations (that the U.S. government is pressuring the U.S. media to run biased coverage) since, presumably, you'd simply point out that now that they control the media, they're hiding the proof, too!
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Last time I checked, it was the media's responsibility to report the news, and your responsibility to question government policies. Are you so lazy as to want the reporters to do your job for you? Are you so foolish as to think that the media can be trusted to discharge your responsibilities better than you can yourself?
It is the media's job to report when experts disagree with Government policy. BBC does this, CNN doesn't do so as often. Fox rarely does this at all.
Plus, how can a news source be simultaneously objective and questioning policy?
Look at a BBC news report. They will state something like: Expert A disagrees with Policy X, stating that it will have dire consequences for Issue Y. However, Expert B disagrees, stating it will dramatically improve Factor Z.
Plus, what makes you think that the BBC is immune from whatever market forces, black-hearted corruption, or government pressure you believe plagues CNN?
The BBC is independent of the Government and any corporate influence. If the BBC misreports something, there is an inquiry. If they accept money for a report, heads roll. The BBC's independent nature is what allows it to be impartial.
We can't really get into your proof of these allegations (that the U.S. government is pressuring the U.S. media to run biased coverage) since, presumably, you'd simply point out that now that they control the media, they're hiding the proof, too!
I doubt the US Government is directly influencing the media, however US media has a reputation for chest-thumping "patriotism" (earning CNN the moniker of "the Combat News Network"). Look at the run-up to the Iraq war. While news outlets around the world were doubting the existence of WMD in Iraq, and quoting experts that stated they didn't exist, most US media outlets were extolling the virtues of invading Iraq. It was truly appalling. Even the New York Times, which is usually as unbiased as the BBC, was reporting WMDs as fact. I don't know if this is due to consumer pressure, corporate pressure, Government pressure, or simply nationalistic short-sightedness, but it disgusted people around the world.