'Google News' or 'Obama News'? (updated)

[Ryan Ruck]

Rick, that is pretty odd how our rank changed on Google!

[American Patriot]

You see it then? If you go to the other search engines and put in this:

Trans Asian Axis

In that order, we show up on ALL the others at the top. Google doesn't SHOW us AT ALL in the twenty pages I went through.

It shows ME, Mal, and my blog site, it shows MY podcasts. It doesn't mention Ryan Ruck, or Brian Baldwin, or anyone else who posts on this site. It doesn't EVEN take you to TAA.

If you put in: Transasianaxis

You get similar results.

The only way for our site to show at the top is put in:

transasianaxis.com

If you put in the .com, it shows on the TOP

[Phil Fiord]

perhaps Google changed their crawler algorithm or did Ryan change our meta keys? What does out robot.txt say?

[American Patriot]

Not sure Phil, I don't mess with it.

I DID note that we talked about nuking some crawlers some time back (think that was here)... perhaps we did?

Another thing, there are some tools on Google that tell webmasters how to optimize their sites.

[New Guy]

i know my forum sites aren't indexed either by google, has something to do with the way the urls are built.

[New Guy]

side note: a way around it (nver tried it but should work) would be to submit a sitemap to google for transasianaxis.com which has links to forum threads in it.

[Phil Fiord]

Good night! Putting in my company website in Google gets me top page hits, my site being 3rd with many references to other matters I have commented on under my company name. Hits 1 and 2 are comments under my company name.

I see that one matter seems to have changed my ranking. Twitter. My website was page 2 unless i put in .com before. I haven't checked it in a while, so imagine my surprise and the only change is having gone on twitter for my company. Totally changed my rank.

Funny part is I use twitter to keep in touch with family and a few friends on daily life.

[Ryan Ruck]

Phil, I have made no changes to the meta tags. And I can tell you for a FACT that when you entered the different TAA combinations as Rick is saying, our site was indeed #1 listed. Very odd...

[Beetle]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...bama_news.html

'Google News' or 'Obama News'? (updated)

I hope this was an accident, a fluke that can be rationally explained. If not, then our news is being censored beyond the wildest excesses of the Soviet Union. And Google, which has already stooped to co-operating with China in similar censorship, may be a co-conspirator.

On Saturday, September 12, 2009, President Barack Obama spoke before about 15, 000 people at a healthcare rally in Minneapolis. A few hours earlier, a crowd of between 70,000 and 1,200,000 citizens gathered in Washington, DC to protest excessive federal spending and intervention. I think we can safely conclude that any Tibetan monk or Zulu, blissfully unaware of American politics, would nonetheless conclude that the second event was at least as newsworthy as the first.

They'd be wrong. Between 2:00 and 4:00 PM PDT of that day, I monitored the Google News website, which in recent years has acquired some of the aura of omniscient impartiality that the New York Times once enjoyed. As of 3 PM, here's how the two stories were treated:

"Obama Takes to the Road to Promote Healthcare Reform": 14,488 news articles

"Tea Party Protesters March on Washington": 126 news articles

The first story remained at the top of the main page throughout. The second appeared on the main page from about 2:00 to 2:30 and then disappeared into the recesses of the "More Stories - U.S." page. Then it reappeared in the lower reaches of the main page at 3:45, as if the omission had caused some protest or embarrassment. As of 4 PM, Obama's speech was still on top with 15,891 news articles cited and the DC rally had again disappeared, after having peaked at 130 cited articles.
Am I being fussy or is there something strange about this hundred-to-one ratio of coverage? At the bottom of the Google News page, it says, "The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program." I wouldn't dare to disbelieve them but perhaps there's a glitch in their program. Or perhaps it's been hacked. Or perhaps they mixed up their US and Chinese programs.

Or perhaps Google is blameless. Perhaps that really was a fair sampling of news articles and the 100:1 ratio is an index of media bias. Or perhaps someone very influential managed to suppress the story about the DC rally.

In any case, I think an explanation is required. And I hope that some brave congressman will get up, on the Senate or House floor, and demand an explanation.

Update: Reader Robert notes the following:
From the United States:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...-8&sa=N&tab=wi

From China:

http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh...&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=
Computer program or not, Google censors their results to an enormous extent. Could it be happening here? Yes.

[Ryan Ruck]

Up until 9/11/09 I used to use Google News as my home page as well as having the Google toolbar as my goto search.

What caused me to change from those was that Google, on every inane "holiday" (i.e. Darwin's Birthday ), comes up with some variation of their logo that they plaster on their pages to celebrate it. Well, not on 9/11. Nothing to commemorate the murder of almost 3000 people.

Needless to say, I was pretty pissed. I had known about some leftist bias in Google News (using Workers' World as a news source ), have seen many other subtle examples of leftist bias in search results, and knew about their heavy support for Obama. Their complete ignoring of 9/11 was the final straw though.

Enter Microsoft. With their new Bing search engine and related pages (including news), they saw fit to change their main page background image as well smaller logos to the Tribute In Light (this was for US based IP addresses, foreign IP addresses saw a different image). They didn't forget.

I have now set my home page to Bing News and have replaced the Google toolbar with the MSN toolbar. The only downside to moving toward Microsoft based products is their affiliation with MSNBC but, whether that heavily bleeds through to other things, remains to be seen (I do know the MSN toolbar when clicking on the "Latest News" button pulls its headlines from MSNBC).

As an aside, I think the MSN toolbar is much more polished than the Google toolbar. The MSN toolbar makes use of MS's Silverlight which makes it look and work much more slick with animations and various effects. Having some more customization to it would be nice though.

ETA: Not going to give up my GMail account though. Too much work to go switching an e-mail address.

[Beetle]

I have been using Bing and I like it.

[vector7]

Google has been in the tank for the progressives for sometime. For a while I thought they were just getting managed, but they are no longer secretly leaning toward the Left. They also own YouTube.

[Beetle]

Hey Vector,

GooTube would be a good name then.

[vector7]

Hey Vector,

GooTube would be a good name then.

If they begin to stack political video content like they do the news it may get harder to get conservative information out in the future.

Like the double standard socialist landscape in the MSM; conservatives will have to continually work harder to get the message out.

Where would we be with out FOX and Conservative Talk Radio?

[American Patriot]

I believe, might be mistaken, that I brought this up some time back. There's a thread here someplace. Some folks thought I was being a little silly at the time.

[American Patriot]

If they begin to stack political video content like they do the news it may get harder to get conservative information out in the future.

Like the double standard socialist landscape in the MSM; conservatives will have to continually work harder to get the message out.

Where would we be with out FOX and Conservative Talk Radio?

We would be, I'm afraid brainwashed that there isn't really a problem. Over the past few weeks I've spent a lot of time being told that I'm brainwashed, and using "Rightie Talking Points". I've been denigrated on some sites and as used to be the case on Anomalies, simply called a "brown shirted Nazi" or something similar.

Awhile back I brought up Saul Alinsky for a reason. To INFORM you folks of the tactics used by the left. Those tactics haven't gone away and have only depended my resolve to rip these people to shreds when I get the chance.

Fact is, they are still there and the media is helping them.

Educational facilities help them.

Web sites help them.

ACORN helps them.

Community "Organizers" help them.

There is no one here to help our side, but us. You have to be MORE informed than they are, and you have to be able to back your arguments well and concisely. I'm far from being an expert, but I'm sure getting better at it.

[vector7]

I believe, might be mistaken, that I brought this up some time back. There's a thread here someplace. Some folks thought I was being a little silly at the time.

Yep, I pulled the same comments I posted off that thread.

[Ryan Ruck]

Al Gore Advised Google About 'Search Quality'

October 15, 2009

Former Vice President Al Gore a few years ago advised Internet behemoth Google about "aspects of search quality."

Such was reporter by the New Yorker in its October 12 issue.

By themselves, the following paragraphs from this 6500-word piece don't mean much.

However, given the ongoing concerns about Google's political leanings and how its search algorithms might be manipulated to favor liberal news outlets over conservative points of view, the very idea that Gore might have had any input to this process is worrisome to say the least:

Whatever obstacles arise, there's little doubt that Google will remain a dominant force. While rivals like Steve Ballmer, the C.E.O. of Microsoft, may label Google "a one-trick pony," [CEO Steve] Schmidt has a ready rejoinder: "I like the trick!" Google's search engine was responsible for ninety-eight per cent of the company's twenty-two billion dollars in revenues and $4.2 billion in net profits last year, and Google today accounts for almost seventy per cent of the world's Internet searches. Schmidt added, "The Google model is one-trick to the extent that you believe targeted advertising is one trick." And if Google can find a way to sell advertising on YouTube, on mobile phones, and through its cloud-computing programs, Schmidt says, Google could become the first media company to generate a hundred billion dollars in revenues, more than twice as much as any of the world's biggest media companies: Time Warner, the Walt Disney Company, and News Corp.

Google's achievement of this goal depends in no small measure on the restless, we-are-never-satisfied energy of its founders and its engineers. Al Gore recounted a conversation he had with [co-founder Sergey] Brin and [co-founder Larry] Page several years ago in the conference room near their office. Gore raised specific concerns about aspects of search quality. "They had to go to another meeting," Gore recalled, "and said, 'If you can stay, Al, we'd like to bring in the search-quality researchers and specialists in charge of this part of the business.' Ten of them came in. Larry and Sergey left. I spent another three hours. And then, when it was over, I gave Larry and Sergey an oral report."

Some weeks later, Gore said, laughing, "I went up to their office and found that all ten of these people had been moved in. All ten of them!" He described how Page and Brin had had to cram twelve computer monitors into their office, and "move around some of their toys-a remote-control helicopter, flying messenger boards . . ." The researchers and specialists stayed-until Brin and Page "satisfied themselves that they had an ongoing system for maintaining hyper-vigilance." He added, "I defy you to think of any other executives in the world who would bring a team like that into their personal office for weeks on end."

So, a few years ago, Gore raised some concerns about "search quality," and then sat in Google's office for three hours watching ten "search-quality researchers and specialists in charge of this part of the business" work on solving problems he shared with the company's owners.

What were these concerns? Were they personally or politically motivated?

The article didn't say. Other than a mention early in the piece about his being a "longtime Google adviser," this was the only reference to Gore.

But, there were some other political points of note made by author Ken Auletta:

In some cases, Google's expansion has been hampered. The Federal Trade Commission held up the acquisition of DoubleClick in 2007, and the following year the Justice Department threatened anti-trust charges until Google agreed to relinquish its advertising agreement with Yahoo. Federal courts will decide the fate of Google's bid to digitize books, and in May Christine A. Varney, the new head of the Justice Department's antitrust division, announced that her department would more rigorously monitor large tech firms.

There is a common belief at Google that the Obama Administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress are more sympathetic to Silicon Valley companies and technology issues. Eric Schmidt is an economic adviser to Obama, and other Google executives, such as David Drummond, the chief legal officer and senior vice-president of corporate development, were early and fervent Obama supporters. But Democrats traditionally favor more regulation, not less, and Google has powerful rivals that command attention in Washington. Google also touches on issues-privacy, concentration of power, copyright-that tend to draw scrutiny.

Interesting, especially when one considers what analyst and consultant Scott Cleland wrote about Google's political interests in January 2007:

There is an increasing body of evidence that Google may be less concerned about promoting a free, open and "democratic" Internet, and more concerned with promoting a regulated Internet for the benefit of "Democrats."

Politico's Daniel W. Reilly wrote that same month:

Google has been steadily building up its lobbying prowess, establishing its Google NetPAC before the 2006 elections. And with 98 percent of the company's campaign donations going to Democrats in that cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Google surely will be looking for returns soon. [...]

Company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin are also widely believed to have the ear of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., whose district is not far from Google headquarters in the Silicon Valley. In particular, Davidson said, Google hopes that she will pursue her "Innovation Agenda" to provide more federal money for high-tech research and training.

Cleland followed up his original piece on this subject with this in August 2007:

• Google's political activism is also relevant because Google has a very ambitious and ravenous appetite for special favors and corporate welfare in Washington:
  
  
  • net neutrality protection from broadband competition; and
    
  • open access wireless spectrum subsidies of billions of dollars.
    
• Lastly, and most interestingly is Google's "political sales" effort to get politicians elected as reported in a recent front page Wall Street Journal article: "Google goes to Washington with its own brand of lobbying."
  
  
  • "...about 150 young Democratic operatives-in-training recently munched on animal crackers as Google Inc. executives pitched the Internet company's offerings. Google's newly hired team leader for political sales, Peter Greenberger, explained how attendees could use online ads and other services from Google to help their candidates win. ... "It's free." Free in the sense that Google isn't charging money for the service. But the Internet giant is ultimately hoping for something in return: greater influence in the nation's capital. As Google's ambitions grow -- along with the ranks of its rivals -- the company is relying on people like Mr. Greenberger to reinvent corporate influence-peddling for the Internet Age. Instead of just hiring a roster of lobbyists and tossing out millions of dollars in campaign contributions, Google has embarked on a quiet march through the conference rooms of Washington to explain how its products can help politicians get elected."
    

How does this all relate to Gore giving Google search quality tips a few years ago? Who knows, but as NewsBusters has been reporting almost since its inception, Google has regularly demonstrated a liberal leaning as well as anti-conservative proclivities:

• Is Google Becoming Big Brother?
• YouTube, Google, and the Liberal Bias Virus
• Is Google Purging Conservative News Sites?
• Is Google's Earth Day Logo Advancing Global Warming Alarmism?
• Google CEO: Internet Key to 2008 Presidential Campaign

With this in mind, NewsBusters would be very interested in exactly what concerns Gore shared with Google a few years ago, and what the company's experts did in response.

If it turns out this is much ado about nothing, then we can all sleep better.

On the other hand, if his suggestions were either personally or politically motivated -- the personally part might have had something to do with his global warming activism or his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" for instance -- America has the right to know.

*****Update: Heartland's Paul Chesser reminds us about a video recently released by Google Earth starring -- who else -- Al Gore!

[American Patriot]

Bump

[American Patriot]

Think we need to link these two threads. This one and http://www.transasianaxis.com/vb/sho...7200#post37200