[From the googleblog]
Googlebombing 'failure'
9/16/2005 12:54:00 PM
Posted by Marissa Mayer, Director of Consumer Web Products
If you do a Google search on the word [failure] or the phrase [miserable failure], the top result is currently the White House's official biographical page for President Bush. We've received some complaints recently from users who assume that this reflects a political bias on our part. I'd like to explain how these results come up in order to allay these concerns.
Google's search results are generated by computer programs that rank web pages in large part by examining the number and relative popularity of the sites that link to them. By using a practice called googlebombing, however, determined pranksters can occasionally produce odd results. In this case, a number of webmasters use the phrases [failure] and [miserable failure] to describe and link to President Bush's website, thus pushing it to the top of searches for those phrases. We don't condone the practice of googlebombing, or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results, but we're also reluctant to alter our results by hand in order to prevent such items from showing up. Pranks like this may be distracting to some, but they don't affect the overall quality of our search service, whose objectivity, as always, remains the core of our mission.
Okay so a few dedicated people decided to make this happen. Just so everyone knows, a google results page does not equal truth. It indicates clever Computer science skills.
How long are we going to try and censor a picture of a breast before we accept that it is just a breast. Sex, and nudity is a fundemential part of being. Unless we plan to move the ways of creation into the lab (for all pregnancies) then the idea of censoring sex images is mindless. It is a fact of life. (Almost) none of us were created in a lab. Some were, that is understandable, but the vast majority of us were not delivered by the stork. Are you ready for this, our parents... HAD SEX. I know its a scarey thought, but its a fact. Once a child learns that it came from a man and a woman engaging is sexual intercourse, what is the harm in them seeing a depiction of it. We are arguing, essentialy, for this realization to be delayed 6-8 years. Why is some 10 year old seeing a picture, or even a movie, of a sex act so horrible. In the world we live in today there is no way to prevent this anyway. Lets say somehow, and it would have to be an act of god, they (bg brother) is able to prevent any minor from accessing a picture of anykind that depicts any sort of sex act, or nude body part; then what. This minor will simply look to another medium. This means no more cable TV, Playboys, Pinups, or R-rated movies for anyone. Becuase lets face it, there is no self destrucing mecanism on a playboy that will keep a minor from ever glancing over the pages.
Trying to restrict the internet is a loosing battle. Why not put the efforts twards educating our children about the truths of sex, and sexual images. Because has anyone ever held up a town because they saw a naked woman with a naked man having sex. The answer is no. A resounding no. Perhaps if there was no reason for a child to have to scour the web to see what all of his friends are talking about at school, he wouldnt.
Slashdot Mirror
facebook is only for legit high school and college students. that might be why your not familiar...
[From the googleblog] Googlebombing 'failure' 9/16/2005 12:54:00 PM Posted by Marissa Mayer, Director of Consumer Web Products If you do a Google search on the word [failure] or the phrase [miserable failure], the top result is currently the White House's official biographical page for President Bush. We've received some complaints recently from users who assume that this reflects a political bias on our part. I'd like to explain how these results come up in order to allay these concerns. Google's search results are generated by computer programs that rank web pages in large part by examining the number and relative popularity of the sites that link to them. By using a practice called googlebombing, however, determined pranksters can occasionally produce odd results. In this case, a number of webmasters use the phrases [failure] and [miserable failure] to describe and link to President Bush's website, thus pushing it to the top of searches for those phrases. We don't condone the practice of googlebombing, or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results, but we're also reluctant to alter our results by hand in order to prevent such items from showing up. Pranks like this may be distracting to some, but they don't affect the overall quality of our search service, whose objectivity, as always, remains the core of our mission. Okay so a few dedicated people decided to make this happen. Just so everyone knows, a google results page does not equal truth. It indicates clever Computer science skills.
How long are we going to try and censor a picture of a breast before we accept that it is just a breast. Sex, and nudity is a fundemential part of being. Unless we plan to move the ways of creation into the lab (for all pregnancies) then the idea of censoring sex images is mindless. It is a fact of life. (Almost) none of us were created in a lab. Some were, that is understandable, but the vast majority of us were not delivered by the stork. Are you ready for this, our parents... HAD SEX. I know its a scarey thought, but its a fact. Once a child learns that it came from a man and a woman engaging is sexual intercourse, what is the harm in them seeing a depiction of it. We are arguing, essentialy, for this realization to be delayed 6-8 years. Why is some 10 year old seeing a picture, or even a movie, of a sex act so horrible. In the world we live in today there is no way to prevent this anyway. Lets say somehow, and it would have to be an act of god, they (bg brother) is able to prevent any minor from accessing a picture of anykind that depicts any sort of sex act, or nude body part; then what. This minor will simply look to another medium. This means no more cable TV, Playboys, Pinups, or R-rated movies for anyone. Becuase lets face it, there is no self destrucing mecanism on a playboy that will keep a minor from ever glancing over the pages.
Trying to restrict the internet is a loosing battle. Why not put the efforts twards educating our children about the truths of sex, and sexual images. Because has anyone ever held up a town because they saw a naked woman with a naked man having sex. The answer is no. A resounding no. Perhaps if there was no reason for a child to have to scour the web to see what all of his friends are talking about at school, he wouldnt.
But thats just my opinon