Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Has everyone forgotten the “Santorum Google problem”?

Has everyone forgotten the “Santorum Google problem”?

It was the hot topic some weeks and months back, a joke since he was not a contender.

But now that Rick Santorum is on the verge of either a victory or great showing in Iowa, some journalists are just frothing with joy at the prospect of the English-speaking world collectively doing a Google search for “Santorum,” via Pwire:

Ryan Lizza is secretly rooting for this scenario: “Santorum wins Iowa and much of the English-speaking world Googles his name. Try it yourself, but please not at work or when children are in the room.”

Forget the English-speaking world.  I can think of a few other worlds where it could be, shall we say, interesting.

When an unintended search algorithm “issue” arose with regard to Michelle Obama, Google took steps to correct the problem.  Let’s see if it does so for “Santorum.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

One of my theories for why Rick Santorum decided to run this cycle was that he wanted to get enough press to reclaim his name on Google search results. If enough people write about him on the web, it should eventually push down the unsavory result that currently appears.

“When an unintended search algorithm “issue” arose with regard to Michele Obama, Google took steps to correct the problem. Let’s see if it does so for “Santorum.””

Silly Professor – you know the answer to that.

Happy New Year, BTW.

In my opinion, Gov. Palin was demeaned through sexual attack. I expect it to be no different for Sen. Santorum. Many people know about the Google bomb…even if Google removes it…Wikipedia covers it. C’est la vie. Seems to me, Sen. Santorum plans on dealing with it in as it becomes known to the wider public.

Whether they have “adjusted” the algorithm or not, his name search isn’t overwhelmed by the filthy minded spewing of anti-humanity anally fixated perverts as it used to be.

Perhaps, as noted above, his efforts at a nomination has reduced the level of hits with a disgusting origin.

I also think that that campaign actually did more harm (thankfully) to the protagonist’s agenda by making clear it’s disgusting and infantile fixations.

The majority of Americans don’t find those kind of topics amusing or enlightening and repel more than attract or invoke sympathy.

The joke’s on Dan Savage I believe.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to jakee308. | January 1, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    Agree except the ‘infantile’

    Very young humans know nothing of this stuff,

    In fact the whole exercise is illogical.

    “Santorum ” has definitive latin roots -either from the Santoni – a peoples of the Aquitania or from Sanus – meaning healthy . Of course there are derivatives -sanity sanitation sanitarium -which were incorporated wholy into many languages from the sanitary movement & advances in the 19th century.

    Dan Savage & co are hardly Oscar Wildes.

Google took out an ad apologizing for any offense taken to the image results, but it didn’t “take steps to correct the problem”, because there was no problem with their algorithm. They removed the image result in response to an assertion that the website hosting it violated Google’s rules, but when it was re-posted on another site that didn’t violate Google rules and it rose again, it wasn’t blocked. The image is blocked when searched for under their “safesearch” filter, but so is the offending Santorum result.

You’re going to need more to argue that Google is being partisan in how they handle offensive search results. When hackers manipulated the algorithm so that the search term “miserable failure” came up with George W. Bush, that was fixed pretty quickly. But that’s different than this, the Santorum site that arrives first in Google’s results received that position legitimately, removing it would be taking sides in a battle to redefine a word. Until the site violates Google’s rules, staying neutral requires Google refrain from interfering.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Awing1. | January 1, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    They did correct the problem. They removed the image. It doesn’t show up anywhere near the top now when you search “Michelle Obama” in Google images.

      You would expect that to occur over time because the vast majority of links to images, particularly from “trustworthy sites” that Google gives more weight to such as .gov and .edu, of Michelle Obama are to other pictures now that shes been the First Lady for some time.

      Unless you have evidence that Google lied when they explicitly stated they don’t interfere in results that are simply offensive, I’m going to have to disagree with you.

        tsrblke in reply to Awing1. | January 1, 2012 at 7:48 pm

        Sorry Proff, by Awing1’s closer to the mark ont his one, We don’t know a whole lot abotu Google’s page rank algorithm, but it does seem to incoperate some form of decay into the rankings (which wouldn’t only make sense, since things that no longer are relevent will drop off, but things that remail such will stay high.)
        Although they did find reasons to squealch the original image (the malware claim if the article is correct.)
        That being said, Google’s a business, and their in the business of not offending anyone if at all possible, so I’d have made the same choice were I them.

I hope Santorum wins Iowa and shows Dan Savage that he’s no kingmaker. Google should have removed that clown’s website from the top spot a long time ago.

Dan Savage performs a useful function: If you know someone admires him, then you can probably dismiss him as not worth your time.

If Politico is to be believed, Santorum requested the offensive results be removed in September of 2011, and Google declined, saying anyone who wants content removed from Google rankings should contact the web site containing the offending content directly. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63952.html

Sigh. These people are so juvenile. One has the dream that observers’ thoughtful pursuit of political aptitude in candidates will yield somewhat intellectual and intelligible results.

It is not to be. It seems the Left (and sometimes the Right) cannot rise above junior high scatological and sexual references.

Perhaps in a better world.

Or when SOPA passes.

You know how it would go. Google would not only not delete anyting derogatory but look for more. They would delete his pluses as much as possible. Google is in the tank for the dims and especially obama. And so is facebook, Apple and probably Microsoft.

If Google keeps all data and it is available on demand, where are all the speeches obama made prior to 2004 that are gone? What about his collegs grades. I can tell you this. When I key in my name and my sister’s name, Google comes up with the fact that we sold some property in 2001. If they keep that kind of trivia interesting to no one but us don’t say they don’t delete whatever they want to if facts are not there. Look what Google did to Atlas Shrugs data also.

Correction: Only when I key in my sister’s name does anything show up. Somehow I don’t exist.

Drowning Dan Savage’s work is one of the real upsides of Rick Santorum’s rise. Normal people just going about their business unintentionally smack sicko grand plans. Heh.

I’ll have to do extra Santorum searches to add my two cents.

Honestly, I doubt this is going to actually hurt Santorum. When one’s opposition has dropped to the level of shit-sex jokes, it reflects more strongly on the quality of one’s opposition, than it does on oneself.

It is disgusting, but that is who we are are up against this cycle.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend