Slashdot Mirror
Is Santorum's "Google Problem" a Google Problem?
theodp writes "Fortune contributor Dan Mitchell argues that GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum's 'Google problem' isn't Google's problem at all. 'The fact that searching for 'santorum' puts the profane, anti-Rick Santorum site SpreadingSantorum.com (NSFW) at the top of Google's search results,' insists Mitchell, 'is not an example of a "Google bomb," despite the widespread use of that term to describe the result.' In the same camp is Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan, who also says that Santorum has a search engine problem, not a Google problem. 'It's just that everyone fixates on Google,' Sullivan adds. Which is perhaps to be expected, since Google is the King of Search and also has ties to SpreadingSantorum creator Dan Savage, having featured the sex-advice columnist in Google's The-web-is-what-you-make-of-it Chrome ad campaign (for Savage's admirable It Gets Better Project, not SpreadingSantorum). So, considering Google's vaunted search quality guidelines, is some kind of change in order? Sullivan, while making it clear he opposes Santorum's views, nonetheless suggests Google is long overdue to implement a disclaimer for the 'Santorum' search results. 'They are going to confuse some people,' he explains, 'who will assume Google's trying to advance a political agenda with its search results.'"
Really? You can guarantee that?
Absolutely -- being embarrassed in the locker room crowd at your high school is a problem that is temporary, limited, and soon forgotten by everybody involved. SpreadingSantorum.com is on the internet, known about by millions of people, and is permanently on the record. But maybe you are thinking Savage could have been called a worse profanity or something, which I certainly agree could be true.
With that said, there certainly are cases like you reference where due to depression, extreme social isolation, etc. students commit suicide or are otherwise seriously messed up psychologically; and I won't make light of that with regard to homosexuals or any other people who are picked on. But Savage appears to have emerged from his youth fairly intact, so my opinion stands.
Rick Santorum has been in political office since 1991.
Savages's site has not been around longer. It was designed around somebody not liking Rick Santorum and name calling. Instead of calling somebody names, bring up the issues. Ad Hominem attacks do not promote your point of view, or discredit other points of view. Once you start name calling, your arguments are easily dismissed. We all should have learned by the first grade that name-calling isn't a good way to argue one's point.
If you have issue with Santorum, make those points known. Argue those points. Have people see why your way is better. Perhaps others will see your side. Heck maybe even Santorum may see why you are right and he is wrong and change some of his issues. When name-calling starts, you shut this down.
So yeah, this is a failure on Google's part to allow and promote name-calling as a valid search result.
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
#1, #3, #5, #6, #7, & #9 out of the first ten are the problem. If you want to want to go so far as to define it as a "problem."
But really, #1 is the only one. I don't think it should be pulled or anything, but I think Google owes the users, as an information provider, to put some kind of notification, as suggested above. Or at least add it to the lists blocked by SafeSearch. Because I don't want my 12-year-old daughter to see that definition if she suddenly takes an interest in my disgust at the primary returns.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
I don't care about any of that -- what really sucks about Obama is that he is indistinguishable from Bush. Obama's administration, like GWB's was before, is an evil, warmongering, imperial presidency with all the concomitant destruction of our civil liberties/rights. And worse, because he's a Democrat, the Democrats don't push back, making what was once a radical usurpation of power under Bush, the new normal. We're fucked.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Obviously anyone outraged is a Santorum supporter, and thus a Fox new viewer, and thus never sees the search page because they always use the I'm Feeling Lucky button. Lord knows none of them want to be accidentally exposed to any more information that they have to be.
OK, just so we are straight here... You think it's OK for an Internet site to teach my daughter about anal sex, when she is obviously looking for something else? If Rick Santorum was putting his platform on sites called analsex.com, then you might have a twisted point, but even that's not the case. What's really fucked up is that you think that YOU, I assume an adult, are equating someone talking, that you really don't have to listen to, with a preteen children learning about anal sex.
Here is what is wrong with the country:...
Way to start your post. People with views like yours, that think 12 year olds should be fully educated on gay sex acts, against their parent's wishes is a fine example what is wrong with this country and is EXACTLY what Rick Santorum's whole point is. No one I know, including the members of my church, cares who you fall in love with or who/what you do in your bedroom. What we DON'T want is someone forcing that lifestyle onto our children. This is EXACTLY what you are saying should happen. You are exactly what we don't want and you have successfully proven the Rick Santorum's point!
Seriously, man, you are fucked up.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.