
How Rick Santorum Is Making His "Google Problem" Worse - kirpekar
http://searchengineland.com/how-rick-santorum-is-making-his-google-problem-worse-106665
======
tptacek
I find the Santorum "Google Problem" disquieting, to say the least.

I think his politics are repugnant, but less than 1% of Google search queries
for his name are looking for Dan Savage's prank. Google knows this. Google
obsessively tweaks all manner of other links in the index. But Google's
overall politics happen to be the same as my politics, so Santorum gets
unequal access to the 2012 Internet.

Savage's prank actually discredits the Internet. Surely nobody's mind is going
to be changed by that disgusting link. Instead, it just serves to associate
Internet content with the culture wars. I don't think I'll upset too many
HN'ers when I assert that the people most likely to be offended by that link
are the people we'd most like finding better ways of informing themselves than
talk radio.

Finally, and most obviously, we all happen to share the same sense of humor
and political stance as _today's_ Internet gatekeeper. But we are by no means
assured of compatibility with the next one.

That "Santorum" link is perhaps the most notorious attempt ever to game
Google's search rankings. Google should penalize the shit out of it.

~~~
lukev
I would agree with you, except it's not one company or person gaming google.
Thousands of different internet users have linked his name to the gag site.
The reason it's at the top is that it legitimately IS the center of the web of
links for the keyword "Santorum." The links driving the popularity of the site
are not from content farms or SEO networks, but legitimate blogs, tweets and
articles. It's not a result of SEO gaming, but a genuine internet-wide smear
campaign (which of course is reflected on Google).

So the only motivation Google would have for penalizing the site is that it
_is_ the result of a smear campaign. And that sets a very dangerous precedent
- for Google to identify and penalize sites based on intent or message would
be censorship much worse than just allowing their algorithm to run its course.

~~~
brc
Didn't Google kill the 'miserable failure' google bomb of years ago?

If I were Google's team I would kill this just because it looks very bad for
Google. Let's assume Santorum goes on to win the Republican Primaries and then
the Presidency. Is President Santorum going to be receptive or agressive if
someone from Google (or the search industry in general) turns up on their
doorstep?

It's the sort of thing that stays with people for a long time, rightly or
wrongly.

This isn't a plea to treat all potential presidents with kid gloves, it's a
plea to make sure that pranks against public figures of all kinds are squashed
once they become known.

~~~
zak_mc_kracken
> Is President Santorum going to be receptive or agressive if someone from
> Google (or the search industry in general) turns up on their doorstep?

So Google should start manually tweaking sites supporting public figures in
order to garner favors from them in case they get in a position of power?

Talk about setting a bad precedent.

~~~
brc
Please read the comment fully next time:

"This isn't a plea to treat all potential presidents with kid gloves, it's a
plea to make sure that pranks against public figures of all kinds are squashed
once they become known."

~~~
zak_mc_kracken
> This isn't a plea to treat all potential presidents with kid gloves, it's a
> plea to make sure that pranks against public figures of all kinds are
> squashed once they become known

You're still missing the point. It should not be up to the search engine to do
that: just let the search engine reflect what the web thinks.

------
drumdance
Until very recently Rick Santorum was pretty much a nobody. His name was more
likely to come up in a blog post about gay rights than on the front page of
the NY Times.

Today, people are searching because he's literally front page news. This would
seem to be an example of Google not keeping up with real-time events.

OTOH, in a few months or even weeks he'll probably be out of the race, so
reversion to the mean seems likely.

~~~
tptacek
A nobody? He chaired the Senate GOP Conference.

~~~
scarmig
Along with such notable somebodies as James McClure (who is currently being
Google-bombed by a pickle company) and Norris Cotton (being victimized by a
fluffy fiber).

~~~
tptacek
I'm not sure we're working from similar definitions of terms.

------
da5e
Some Iowa cafe owner, dubbed his creamy chicken salad as the Santorum Salad.
Apparently without irony.

~~~
ams6110
Since most people who support Rick Santorum are probably not gay, it's not
surprising that some/many have never heard of this term.

------
gyardley
It seems the only search engine not reflecting the boorish behavior of some
random sex columnist is DuckDuckGo:

<http://duckduckgo.com/?q=santorum>

Hard to tell if it's an intentional, exceptional tweak - it could be, but it
could also be a general rule along the lines of 'if there's a lot of news and
it's a person in Wikipedia, lead with Wikipedia and then show the news.'

Either way, it's smart.

~~~
Lewton
Turn off safe search and it's the top result

------
rmc
As someone who engages in anal sex from time to time, it's great to have a
word (santorum) for something that there was no word for before.

------
jsz0
In one way I feel bad for the little guy as it's a horrible smear campaign
against his name however when I look at some of his extreme policies I'm
suddenly less sympathetic. He implies a lot of nasty things about a lot of
different groups of people. I can't see any good reason others shouldn't do
the same against him.

------
Zirro
First, please, don't get me wrong because I am absolutely against his anti-gay
policies myself.

From what I've read, the site which has given Santorum a meaning have made the
demand that he stops talking negatively about homosexuals. If he does, the
site will go away. This makes me think, even though I somehow think he
deserves it: Isn't this essentially against free speech? Forcing someone to
censor their opinions through non-violent troublemaking?

I probably didn't manage to phrase that well-enough to please anyone, but at
least I've voiced my concerns.

~~~
meepmorp
This isn't forcing Santorum to censor his opinions, nor is it even an attempt
to do so. It's counter free speech. He's free to say what he pleases, and a
lot of people are free to call him a frothy anal sex byproduct.

This is exactly how the freedom of speech is meant to work.

------
michaelochurch
He'll never mop that up.

------
yoyo000
Mr. Tit Money is an anagram of Mitt Romney

------
mynameishere
Search engines need to keep a close eye on concerted efforts to manipulate
results based on childish, political horseshit. Google is either failing
technologically (unlikely), or is intentionally maligning a credible political
candidate (very likely).

No, I don't support Rick. He's worthless..

