Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

XKCD Inadvertently Causes Googlebomb

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the first-rule-of-googlebombs-is-don't-talk-about-googlebombs dept.

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.

11 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. And this is just adding to it by ShadowMarth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:And this is just adding to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  2. And by submitting this story by saibot834 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. Blog writers prosecutions by arigram · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Blog writers prosecutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Blog writers prosecutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they have oil.

  4. I'm Confused by smackenzie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I'm Confused by Feanturi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  5. I think I'll let xkcd speak for me by aztektum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    clicky

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
    1. Re:I think I'll let xkcd speak for me by mfnickster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can skip step 1 (Randall did).

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  6. Re:The original Google Bomb is a VERY bad thing by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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".