Slashdot Mirror


Blogger Launches 'Google Bomb' At McCain

hhavensteincw writes "A liberal blogger has launched a 'Google bomb' project aimed at boosting Google search results for nine news articles showing Sen. John McCain in a negative light. The Computerworld article notes: 'Chris Bowers, managing editor of the progressive blog OpenLeft, is launching the Google bombs by encouraging bloggers to embed Web links to the nine news stories about McCain in their blogs, which helps raise their ranking in Google search results. Bowers is reprising a similar Google bombing effort he undertook in 2006 against 52 different congressional candidates. "Obviously, it is manipulating, but search engines are not public forums and unless you act to use them for your own benefit, your opponent's information is going to get out there," Bowers said.'"

68 of 545 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, that'll help . . . by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    . . . unify the country.

    1. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since when has that become the goal of politics?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unify the country? Why is that considered a good thing? A significant portion of the American public are in favour of the Bush administration, the Iraq war and torture. You aren't going to change their minds. The only way you will unify the country is to meet them half-way. Is that a good thing?

      I've never heard of this "unification" nonsense until the Republican Party started becoming unpopular. Until then, in pretty much every democratic country, it was understood that there is room for disagreement in politics and that this wasn't necessarily a bad thing. But now they seem to be feeding you the idea that all parties should be striving for the same thing (which is basically no different to a one-party system) and the American public seem to be lapping this bullshit up and asking for seconds. WTF is up with that? Can you really not see that it's just a desperate lie told by people who fear losing power in the near future? It's not transparently obvious to you?

    3. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by Niten · · Score: 4, Funny

      They care nothing for the "issues" they espouse and they care even less (than nothing?) for you except for your vote.

      Yeah, much unlike those warm, loving, caring exemplars of humanity and civil service, Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

    4. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The faults of some candidates do not, by themselves, make other candidates worthy. It's about time we learned that.

    5. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Funny
      Heard this joke the other day...

      Q: If Clinton, Obama, and McCain are all out at sea on a sinking boat, who will be saved?






      A: The United States of America


      *Badoom Crash!* Thank you, I'll be here all week. Be sure to try the quiche!
    6. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by Digital+End · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How is this 'typical of the obama campaign'... or insightful for that matter?

      Look at this;
      This is a list of crap email received on Obama. Note the themes and quantity of emails... Really a bit telling to the mentallity of the people sending them out, as well as the people who forward them on and on.
      http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

      Now; Here's the same for McCain.
      http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/mccain.asp

      That said, I'm more then a little pissed at this idiot for the google bomb. These were funny once, but trying to manipulate politcs with them isn't. I view the 'good guys' as being above this.

      That said however, I'm at the point where I'd sacrifice some of my personal views on that to prevent what happened in 2000, and then 2004. If that's the only way to get the idiot vote, go for it... because at this point the idiot vote has to be 50%

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    7. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unify the country? Why is that considered a good thing? I think it's because partisan politics in the States revolves more around mudslinging and villifying people who disagree with you and less around, perhaps, coming to agreements and bipartisan cooperation. It's typical American political "problemsolving": identify a problem and propose a boneheaded solution that won't fix anything. Instead of settling down and being civilized about the other party, why don't we just get rid of bothersome "other" parties?
    8. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by Metasquares · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, but at least it might help Google fix its search engine.

    9. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't want a unified country.

      I want a just, upstanding, ethical, and prosperous country.

      If "unity" means "agreeing with people who advocate theocracy", then I'm against it. If it means "Americans working together to make their country and the world a better place", I'm for it.

      Unity isn't something that you *make* happen. Unity is something that happens as a result of good governance and an educated and civic-minded citizenry.

    10. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by letxa2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The goal of politics should be to do what's best for the country. The goal of politicians is to gain power. So apparently the liberal blogger in question is a politician because he's doing what's best for his candidate, not what's best for the country. Making it hard to find the best information (even if it's not information the liberal blogger wants people to see) about a candidate is not in the spirit of a free society and democracy. Basically, this liberal blogger is decreasing the signal to noise ratio rather than providing useful and compelling reasons to vote for his own candidate.

      Seriously... if Obama were as amazing as we were supposed to believe he is, it would be more than enough to promote his virtues rather than trying to smear the opponent. Guess Obama isn't all that great stuff.

    11. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's typical of the obama campaign in that they consistently tout the negatives of their opponents (either directly, or through surrogates) while simultaneously denigrating their opponents for being negative whether they are or not. obama is not about "change", he is about perception. That is what is "typical" about this.

      If you would sacrifice your beliefs to make something happen that isn't quite what you believe in, then again you get the leader you deserve. Hold them all accountable or hold none. Otherwise, you are a tool for folks like obama and bush.

    12. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Politics aside, I agree with everything you just said.

      I can see this backfiring on him though. What happens when a search for John McCain starts turning up a story about how one side is attempting a political smear as the number one result. I mean it would sort of make McCain the underdog and create some sympathy towards him along with making some potential Obama voters question why they had to resort to that type of tactic.

      Of course some 527 group could just buy an advertising spot and put the story there on any McCain search from a common search engine. All the search engines list the advertisements at the top so it would be the first result. The good thing about it is that they could link to all the sites promoting the google bomb efforts to wow any undecided voter into thinking Obama has something to hid if they had to resort to something like this.

    13. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by Original+Replica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So apparently the liberal blogger in question is a politician because he's doing what's best for his candidate, not what's best for the country. Making it hard to find the best information (even if it's not information the liberal blogger wants people to see) about a candidate

      The validity of you statement depends strongly on the quality and accuracy of the articles in question. If the articles are mostly just "noise" then yes you are quiet right, but if the articles contain information pertinent to gaining a better understanding of the true character of a presidential candidate, information which might otherwise get buried by the whims of Big Media, then these bloggers are providing a service where our "free press" has failed us.

      As to whether this is smearing or not, is again dependent on the accuracy and relevance to the qualification and quality of the candidate. If Obama had pushed an earmark through that funded eugenics research, pointing that out loudly and repeatedly would not be smearing. If someone wearing an Obama '08 shirt threw a brick off an overpass at McCain's motorcade, trying to proclaim that as a gauge of Obama's character would be a smear.

      --
      We are all just people.
    14. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Well apparently Snopes didn't get all the anti-McCain emails that I did. They don't list the "Bush's third term" McCain, or the "McCain will prolong the Iraq war for 100 years" one. Then there was the one about McCain opposing equal pay for women because they weren't as educated as men.

      I also have to wonder how many of those Obama-bashing emails were sent out by Hillary supporters.

      I'm a little fed up with the whole thing - here we are are again with no choices - only the lesser of 2 evils - to vote for in the presidential race. I think the idiot vote will be well over 50% this year, because only an idiot would vote for either one of these globalist elite career politicians.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    15. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by badasscat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously... if Obama were as amazing as we were supposed to believe he is, it would be more than enough to promote his virtues rather than trying to smear the opponent. Guess Obama isn't all that great stuff.

      So your argument is that one misguided follower serves as an indictment of Obama himself?

      I'm sure you could dredge up plenty of assholes on McCain's side too. Here's one now.

      So I'm guessing your vote in November will be "none of the above"? Or possibly Montgomery Brewster? (Bonus points if you get the reference.)

      Everybody's got idiot followers with misguided ideas about how to promote them.

    16. Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The validity of you statement depends strongly on the quality and accuracy of the articles in question. If the articles are mostly just "noise" then yes you are quiet right, but if the articles contain information pertinent to gaining a better understanding of the true character of a presidential candidate, information which might otherwise get buried by the whims of Big Media, then these bloggers are providing a service where our "free press" has failed us. I haven't read them all, but they appear to be mainstream articles. Whatever your opinion of their contents, it's not as if he is revealing information wasn't already available. What is annoying about this guy is that he is trying to turn up the volume on information to create noise, to follow your analogy.

      Apparently he's miffed that we didn't all jump up and thank him for his stunt. I have zero respect for zealots like this guy, regardless of whether they are left or right. It's not because I disagree with his views (I do, but I can live with that), it's because there's just no reasoning with people like this. He's smarter than everyone else, so he's going to tell us all how to think by skewing the information we receive. Our country's politics have been poisoned by weasels like this. I hereby find him guilty of being a jerk, and sentence him to eternity handcuffed to Karl Rove. Oh yeah , and his internet access has been revoked, or at least restricted to something to help him with his manners.
      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  2. Re:I have to say it by mnemocynic · · Score: 5, Funny

    For the lazy among us, here's a direct link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bombs+away!&btnG=Google+Search

  3. Links? by OshMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmmmm I couldn't find the links to the original 9 articles. Could someone post them here? ;)

    1. Re:Links? by dunnius · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Thanks. I was hoping that one of the nine would be McCain violating the campaign finance laws. Oh well, so much for exposing corruption in politics.

      Disclaimer: I am a Libertarian and I hate the two main political parties.

    2. Re:Links? by CaptainPatent · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know martinw89 linked a page containing all of the links, but in case that was too confusing, I better link them again:

      Article 1
      Article 2
      Article 3
      Article 4
      Article 5
      Article 6
      Article 7
      Article 8
      Article 9

      Hope that helps

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Raises tough questions by clang_jangle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find the practice of SEO to be a bit questionable in any event, but soliciting volunteers to essentially manipulate google search results in order to favor a given political agenda just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. Sure, it can argued that the right fights dirty, but where is the honor in stooping to this sort of thing?

    Well, I am old enough to remember the sixties -- maybe I'm just becoming obsolete.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:Raises tough questions by corbettw · · Score: 5, Informative

      I certainly hope you don't think you can counter the likes of Karl Rove simply by being honorable... Rove isn't McCain's campaign director. It's unfair to tarnish McCain for Rove's actions (especially when he was a victim of them, himself, in 2000 and 2004).
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:Raises tough questions by Entropius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The trouble is, because the idiot vote in the USA is so large, you're never going to get anyone elected who *doesn't* make some attempt to be underhanded.

      That doesn't justify it. That doesn't make it honorable, or the right thing to do. But, depending on how pragmatic you are, it just might make it inevitable.

    3. Re:Raises tough questions by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The McCain of today isn't the McCain of then.

      In the last two years McCain has solidly thrown his lot in with Bush.

    4. Re:Raises tough questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rove seems to be involved in McCain's campaign.

    5. Re:Raises tough questions by pluther · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In 2000, yes, but not in 2004.
      In 2004, despite those of us who supported him earlier urging him not to, McCain abandoned his previous policies and swung in line solidly behind Bush.
      He has been there ever since.

      At the time, I suggested that he'd probably made some kind of deal with the Republican central committee that he'll support Bush then and they'll make sure he's the nominee in 2008.

      Nothing I've seen since has convinced me otherwise.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  6. Seems like this is a Match on a Fire by CaptainPatent · · Score: 3, Informative

    Honestly, the generation that gets their information from the internet (instead of cable or newspapers) is going to have a much more liberal bias in general. All you have to do is look at age group demographics for any polling done and you'll see the heavy liberal skew to the younger ages.

    With that being said, there are already going to be many, MANY more blogs with a pro-Obama, anti McCainb standpoint than the alternative already. Having a few more people bump some anti-McCain articles may bump them up a couple slots, but I guarantee with the demographics of internet users, those articles probably weren't doing badly on their own.

    Besides, republicans already have their propaganda machine too *cough* Fox News *cough* Ann Coulter *Cough*

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    1. Re:Seems like this is a Match on a Fire by klingens · · Score: 4, Informative

      Honestly, the generation that gets their information from the internet (instead of cable or newspapers) is going to have a much more liberal bias in general. All you have to do is look at age group demographics for any polling done and you'll see the heavy liberal skew to the younger ages.
        There is a saying here (paraphrased): "A 20 year old liberal will end up a 70 year old conservative and doesn't have to change a single of his views".

      So I don't fear for the conservative parties of the world just yet.

    2. Re:Seems like this is a Match on a Fire by Capitalist+Piggy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Besides, republicans already have their propaganda machine too *cough* Fox News *cough* Ann Coulter *Cough*


      The unfortunate side of all this, all of these talk machines, including Boortz, Rush, Hannity, etc will be repeating, over and over, about how this is a fine example of leftist propoganda, the liberal conspiracy, etc.

      Don't get me wrong. I think Bill Maher and the rest of the leftist paid-to-talk types are complete twits as well. Nothing like seeing someone from either side ignorantly pressing points only for the sake of them being right, left, or endlessly playing devil's advocate.

      Too bad there isn't a fiscal conservative, socially liberal person to vote for. Too bad there isn't a news network without slant anymore. I recognize slant was always there, but CNN learned a little from Fox's ratings and starts coming across as ridiculously liberal when elections near.

    3. Re:Seems like this is a Match on a Fire by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Big picture, on a global scale, that's true: politics have been getting steadily more liberal ever since the Middle Ages, and so those who hold to political views acquired in their youth always seem more conservative as they age. The interesting thing is that in American politics over the last couple of generations or so, the opposite is true. Eisenhower would be considered a mainstream Democrat these days, while Nixon, seen at the time as representing the hard right, would today be a "Blue Dog" Democrat or maybe a "RINO" Republican. Conversely, both Clintons, and Obama, support policies largely in accord with the Republican party of Eisenhower's day. Carter is remembered today as an extreme leftist, but by the standards of the day, he was actually seen as a solidly conservative Democrat. Even Saint Reagan, no matter how much today's Republicans venerate him, would be considered suspiciously leftish by modern Republicans if he were a new candidate running for office today.

      It's a blip, of course, kind of like in the stock market. In the very long term, stocks always go up. But they do so on a jagged line, and those downward dips sure can make a lot of people's lives miserable.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Seems like this is a Match on a Fire by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Besides, republicans already have their propaganda machine too *cough* Fox News *cough* Ann Coulter *Cough* What, as opposed to Obama's fanboys comprising the entire rest of the media?
  7. Against the Principles of Democracy by DeionXxX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't one of the tenants of democracy that everyone have access to all information and then they decide who's best for themselves? This is poisoning the available information so citizens don't have all of the information about a candidate.

    Pretty surprising come from the left, you know, with their morals and such.

    1. Re:Against the Principles of Democracy by rthille · · Score: 4, Insightful


      If 10 million people give $10 each, that's $100 million of democracy.

      If one person gives $100 million, that's 'big money'

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    2. Re:Against the Principles of Democracy by markkezner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I can see the point you're trying to make, it has its flaws.

      The problem is that once you remove folks from the decision making process, you open the doors for abuse of the system. Such a system that you suggest would have to be implemented with extreme care to prevent elites from disenfranchising voters to promote their own agenda.

      Hod does the nation decide who is qualified to make decisions on what issues? How would you resolve disagreements about who is qualified to vote?

      That said, I do not believe that our current system is immune to abuse and manipulation of the ignorant. Not by a longshot.

      --
      Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
  8. What a dick. by saintlupus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, it's always a lot better to make sure that you taint the conversation.

    This is an excellent example of the juvenile "us vs. them" mentality that national US politics has devolved into. I'm a bicycle-riding urbanite liberal stereotype, I still find this sort of idiocy appalling. Let people make up their own minds and hunt for their own information.

    --saint

    1. Re:What a dick. by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the left consistently acted in that way, they'd never elect another person to office, because the Right isn't going to stop doing what they're doing just because the left is.

      Could you elaborate on what dishonorable attacks have been coming from the Right so far in this election? As far as I've seen, the vast majority of the attacks on Obama so far have been from the Clinton camp. McCain on the other hand has (somewhat surprisingly) been trying to take the high ground and has on a number of occasions criticized those who've tried to use spurious claims again Obama.

    2. Re:What a dick. by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh jeez, come on! That's like asking when the last time water was wet. Just the other day on Fox they were talking about how when Barack Obama bumped fists with his wife and they called him a terrorist (link). Or how about that picture of him when he was dressed up in traditional Somali garb (=90% Christian), claiming he was dressing up as an muslim (link, etc. etc. etc. Face it, the modern conservative political view is synonymous with character assassination. You can thank Rove, and the other Republican attack dogs for that.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    3. Re:What a dick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just the other day on Fox they were talking about how when Barack Obama bumped fists with his wife and they called him a terrorist (link)

      Dishonest. She was talking about something someone else said.

      Or how about that picture of him when he was dressed up in traditional Somali garb (=90% Christian),

      You mean the picture that the Clinton campaign released?

      But don't let the facts get in the way of your bias.

      What about Obama claiming McCain wants 100 years of war, even after being called on it twice? Yes, McCain certainly wants 100 years of war when he says "as long as no one is getting killed." That's the candidate himself straight up lying in an attempt to smear. (But then again, Obama just went back on his public financing pledge. Do we sense a pattern?)

      What about 90% of the shit coming out of MoveOn? Anyone who thinks they're not just a smear-machine needs to put the pipe down. They've also went out and used the 100 year war lie, recently in fact. Or the NAACP running an ad in Texas about Bush not sponsoring hate crimes legislation, using the murder of James Byrd, voiced over by his daughter? Bush didn't sponsor hate crime legislation, and in this case, it wasn't needed: two of the three men were sentenced to death and the third was sentenced to life. The NAACP ad didn't mention this, despite being made over a year after the men were sentenced. (Of course, you also don't see the NAACP out shooting to have the men who murdered Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom tried for hate crimes... and that is far worse than the Byrd murder, there's just not a chance to smear Republicans in it for them)

      Trying to pretend it's just Rove and Republicans is fucking dishonest.

    4. Re:What a dick. by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dishonest. She was talking about something someone else said.
      Funny how often Fox finds these people that said something slanderous. Let me explain it to you, they do that to protect themselves from a libel suit. Jon Stewart had a funny piece on it (link).

      You mean the picture that the Clinton campaign released?
      Bullshit. The Clinton campaign didn't release that, the Drudge report only claimed Clinton staffers released it, but they could easily have lied to discredit Clinton because they hate her more than they hate Obama.
      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
  9. what a douche by Alibaba10100 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is a perfect example of how political types can't see anything outside of their petty us vs. them mentality.

    "We're just using McCain's own words -- everything we are targeting are things McCain has done or said himself. There's no bias at all. No bias? By what definition is emphasizing the things someone says that suit your purposes not bias? In fact, this is the most insidious kind of bias. If the pieces being ranked up were opinion pieces, at least viewers would be aware that what they are reading is someone's opinion. But this way, the ordering of the news stories itself contains some random guy's personal bias and the majority of searchers will not know to put their guard up.

    Obviously, it is manipulating
    bingo
    1. Re:what a douche by Alibaba10100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I absolutely agree with that. But placing responsibility on readers to sort out fact from opinion does not exonerate people who try to deceive them.

    2. Re:what a douche by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Republicans aren't able to run on facts and policy so they run on identity and process.

      And that differs from the Democrats how?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  10. Hypocrisy at it's best by wmbetts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You have to love how the left bloggers love to cry fowl at every little turn. Yet, when they attempt to rig search engine results it's somehow okay. Regardless of a person political affiliations this type of action should be frowned upon and they people partaking in the event should be shunned by their readers.

    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
  11. A vote of no confidence? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems to me that this is basically a result of this asshole believing Obama can't win without such underhanded tricks.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:A vote of no confidence? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And, so, his answer is disinformation?

      Imagine the outcry if a conservative blogger made such a statement.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  12. Informed Vote? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Obviously, it is manipulating, but search engines are not public forums and unless you act to use them for your own benefit, your opponent's information is going to get out there," Bowers said.'" Because clearly, the last thing you want to do is let your opponent's perspective out there. This is brought to you by the 'informed populace makes for poor voters' theory.
  13. Will this even work? by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought Google had put in place controls to prevent exactly this kind of thing from tainting search results. Even if he does get a lot of people linking, it seems like Google's own corrective algorithms would prevent it from really making an impact on search results.

    It might be interesting to see what degree other search engines end up being affected as well, as a study in how manipulatable the various engines are.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  14. Defeated by shird · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently Google already has protection against such "bombs":
    http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/01/quick-word-about-googlebombs.html

    I have no idea how the algorithm detects such a bomb, but it appears to be pretty effective.

    --
    I.O.U One Sig.
  15. Backfire by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This sort of stuff just makes the side doing it seem more juvenile and reactionary... which is an image the democrats need to overcome, not encourage.

    I think if they could have shut up their most ardent supporters, the Democrats would have won the last election.

    1. Re:Backfire by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think if they could have shut up their most ardent supporters, the Democrats would have won the last election.

      That's a load of crap. It wasn't the ardent democrat supporters who lost the election, it was the ardent Republican supports being more underhanded. They turned "swiftboating" into a verb. Stuff like this doesn't backfire because the majority of the population just looks at the message and not the messenger.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  16. Tag? by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why is this tagged 'Republicans' when it's a Democrat doing the deed?

    I expect both sides will engage in this kind of thing though to be honest.

    1. Re:Tag? by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Informative

      True, he is a bit of a RINO (Republican in Name Only). He's hard to classify because his positions keep shifting.

  17. Re:Open left of what? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One vote for the democratic party of america is one less vote for the republican party of america, but is it really a vote to the left?

    True - we've got two major parties in the U.S., one representing the center of the right wing, one representing the right wing of the center.

    It's no wonder that, until this charismatic upstart Obama came along, the "sure winner" of the Democratic primaries was a woman who had been the president of her campus's chapter of the College Republicans, and whose husband was called "the best Republican president we've had in a while" by Alan Greenspan.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  18. This is progress? by Asylumn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...unless you act to use them for your own benefit, your opponent's information is going to get out there.
    Heaven forbid people get all the facts and make up their own mind. Let's just prevent our opponents from being able to make their case in the first place!

    How very 'progressive'.
  19. Re:I have to say it by Gewalt · · Score: 5, Funny

    What if my hl isn't en you insensitive clod!

    --
    Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
  20. It is not Gogglebombing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you have a political blog and you are linking to articles about a political candidate on other web sites, how is that Googlebombing? Isn't that actually the way the web is supposed to work?

  21. From the United States Declaration of Independence by ibane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

    If you don't believe and work for this, you will never have it.

    --
    Intellectual property was the desert property of the twenth century.
  22. Re:It doesnt work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You aren't describing conservatives, you are describing the Republican Party. The Republican Party are not conservative in any way, shape or form. Conservatives would be against the Iraq war. Conservatives would be against increasing the size of the government. Conservatives would be against wiping their asses with the Constitution. Conservatives would be against spending far more money than the country has.

  23. Arms race? by WaltBusterkeys · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's true that this could backfire, but it could also cause a massive arms race. If politics weren't messy and dirty enough already, imagine if both campaigns were spending massive amounts of time and energy to control the other side's Google results. McCain supporters would link to dirty articles about Obama, Obama supporters would link to dirty articles about McCain, and the whole Internet would be filled with even more political links than it already is.

    Heck, a really smart campaigner would just outsource the whole thing to India and have thousands of staffers constantly building links to positive and negative results.

    Politics might be the one thing strong enough to overcome all of Google's attempts to stop Googlebombs.

  24. Clearly Works For McCain by nick_davison · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. Announce a Google bomb to the world.
    2. Hit the Google blacklist in 3, 2, 1...
    3. Links conveniently "gone" from Google.

    He's either the most moronic SEO manipulator known to man or his goal is to get the links hidden entirely from Google.

  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Not sure how this is a bomb by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    He's trying to manipulate google, sure, but in a more legit way than doing this: warmongering douchebag. The guy in the article is simply promoting 9 specific articles about McCain and suggesting that others link those articles as well to make sure they climb the search results. It's not that different from just passing the links around and telling people to make sure everyone they know reads them. Whereas doing this charming imposter doesn't just get more people to go to a link; it makes a clear association between that link and a phrase denigrating the object of the link.

    1. Re:Not sure how this is a bomb by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's trying to manipulate google, sure, but in a more legit way than doing this: warmongering douchebag. The guy in the article is simply promoting 9 specific articles about McCain and suggesting that others link those articles as well to make sure they climb the search results. It's not that different from just passing the links around and telling people to make sure everyone they know reads them. Whereas doing this charming imposter doesn't just get more people to go to a link; it makes a clear association between that link and a phrase denigrating the object of the link. I disagree. I think it's a bit dishonest. If this guy gets his way, when someone searches for John McCain, they are likely to get negative articles. I mean, let's forget about getting balanced results and letting people make up their own minds when presented with ALL the facts. Nope, let's make sure they only see the facts WE want them to see so they can make up their minds the way WE want them to.

      Yeah. It's a pretty shitty thing to do, although, with all the people saying things like "McCain WANTS troops to be in Iraq for 100 years", it's not surprising.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Not sure how this is a bomb by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I mean, let's forget about getting balanced results and letting people make up their own minds when presented with ALL the facts.

      Nobody ever gets ALL the facts. You have a finite amount of time on this mudball and most people do not want to spend it studying the minutia about the two idiots who happen to be running this year (and, yes, I have a clear preference, but after the FISA debacle, he's still an idiot). Google's page rank reflects the reality of the situation vis a vis relative web link importance at a particular current point in time. If McCain's opponents are more web-savvy or more energetic, they will have an advantage in this arena and they will have earned it. If you want more "balance", get McCain's people as motivated as Obama's. If they can't be as motivated, maybe that says something about his importance.

      The bottom line is that bitching about the lack of some mythical "balance" on the web is about as useful as complaining about the lack of a mythical immortality for people. It may make you feel better in some strange, warped way but, in the long run, it makes no difference. People have finite time and have only finite means for managing the information they take in over this finite time. Deal with it.

      --
      That is all.
    3. Re:Not sure how this is a bomb by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it's "a bit" dishonest, it's a lot less so than the actual google bombs. I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, I'm just saying it's not a google bomb. And, in fact, it's only slightly different from what goes on anyway -- you have a blog, you don't like mccain, you post links to these articles, other people read those articles and find them worth linking to, they post to their blogs, and so on ... eventually if enough people think it's worthwhile, it climbs the google charts -- really, the only difference is that they're thinking about the google placing in the first place, which was bound to happen anyway. If someone creates a blog and links to articles, it's no big deal and there is nothing wrong with that. But to INTENTIONALLY do so with the intent of skewing search engine results in your favor is dishonest. You are attempting to limit the amount of data a searcher receives while only forwarding the data you WANT them to receive. It's dishonest. If the government were doing this, it would be called censorship.

      Oh and by the way, McCain actually did say the troops could be in Iraq for a hundred years. So for people who think that's important, that fact will be repeated. Yes, he did. Just like in Germany, Japan, S. Korea and a slew of other places we have troops stationed. But saying that troops COULD be stationed there is very different than saying he WANTS troops there for 100 years. Take THIS article for instance. It is titled, "Day 3: McCain Wants 100 Years in Iraq". Sorry, but that is a lie. McCain doesn't WANT troops in Iraq for 100 years. No one does. This is the type of article that we are talking about here. It is blatantly dishonest and if this is the only type of article that appears when searching for McCain, a previously uninformed voter will get the wrong idea based complete, 100% politically motivated bullshit.
      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.