

The crappy Google problem that dogs Mitt Romney - bdking
http://www.itworld.com/software/250662/crappy-google-problem-dogs-mitt-romney

======
paulhauggis
The "crappy" google problem that only seems to plague republican candidates.
When Michelle Obama was depicted as a monkey, it was taken out of the search
results twice (once in an article and once in images.google.com a few months
earlier).

It's funny how Google just seems to shrug its shoulders when it involves
candidates it doesn't like. They have more control over their content than
almost any company in the world. If they aren't removing it, it's intentional.

I for one, don't like corporations that use its media presence to control
politics.

This, to me, is evil.

~~~
Kylekramer
While I agree Google's politics mean they are probably less likely to care if
GOP candidates are slandered, I don't think it is as simple as "if they aren't
removing it, it's intentional". They removed the Michelle Obama thing, but
pretty quickly put it back when they got called out on how it was a clear
violation of search trust. And like "miserable failure", the algorithms over
time adjusted and fixed the problem.

I would agree it would be evil if it was intentional, but this a search
problem across Google, Bing, Baidu, and many others. Google has been pretty
good about responding via improvements rather than just straight banning,
except with the temporary Obama thing. I mean, for the longest time they had
to buy an ad over searches for "jew" and link to
<http://www.google.com/explanation.html> despite the background of their
founders.

~~~
Natsu
> They removed the Michelle Obama thing, but pretty quickly put it back when
> they got called out on how it was a clear violation of search trust.

I don't remember the "put it back" part and I can't find the infamous photo
any more on Google images unless I add "monkey" as a keyword. But I don't get
the point of all this to begin with. Why not focus on real policy differences
rather than name calling?

As one of those independent voters they're allegedly after, this doesn't help
anyone's campaign. I'm going to decide based on what vote does the most good
or causes the least harm both in this election and in the future, not based on
someone's skill at manipulating Google into accepting slanderous definitions.
They're much better off making the case that Romney's position on the issues
is untenable, rather than pulling stunts like this.

------
joejohnson
When I visit <http://spreadingromney.com/> I only see the first definition.
Perhaps the creator of the website removed and references to Mitt Romney?

~~~
citricsquid
What do you mean? There is only one definition and it links (the word terror)
straight to the article explaining about Romney and the dog.

~~~
joejohnson
In the article is lists the definition as: Romney v. 1) To defecate in terror.
2) Former Governor Mitt Romney.

Similarly, spreadingsantorum.com used to read: Santorum n. 1\. The frothy
mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.
2\. Former Senator Rick Santorum

But now spreading santorum has removed any reference to the person Santorum. I
wonder if lawyers advised the people responsible for these websites to remove
any explicit mention of the candidates.

------
fourspace
Might be my favorite HN headline. I see what you did there.

~~~
nollidge
It was taken from the original article.

