"A Quick Word About Googlebombs"

H/T to Patrick Casey for publishing a link to the ComputerWorld article exposing Chris Bowers' execution of the Googlebomb strategy to manipulate search results for negative articles related to John McCain and other Republicans running for office, as well as those Open Left refers to as "Bush Dog Democrats". 

Patrick wasn't sure that Republican bloggers have the skills to be able to accomplish this type of data manipulation on the web, but no worries there, for George Johnston of the Old Fashioned Patriot blog is happy to share his instructions with us, which he wrote on October 27, 2003:

New Web Project

Let's get everyone to link to http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html
with the words "Miserable Failure" Our goal is to make Shrubya the top google pick.

It's fun, it's easy just <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html" >Miserable Failure</a> in your favorite web page will look like Miserable Failure

Because of the way that Google's algorithm works, a page will be ranked higher if the sites that link to that page use consistent anchor text.  In the above example, the words Miserable Failure are what's called the anchor text.  A Google bomb is created if many sites link to the page in this manner.

Danny Sullivan of SearchEngineLand has this to say about Googlebombs:

There have been a variety of Google bombs over the years (such as on this list), but the Bush bomb is most famous.

When the campaign succeeded, Google came under fire but argued no one was "hurt" by the activity. From a New York Time article in December 2003:

Craig Silverstein, Google's director for technology, says the company sees nothing wrong with the public using its search engine this way. No user is hurt, he said, because there is no clearly legitimate site for "miserable failure" being pushed aside.

Moreover, he said, Google's results were taking stock of the range of opinions that are expressed online. "We just reflect the opinion on the Web,'' he said, "for better or worse."

I took some issue with that statement:

Unlike what Google claims in this latest incident, the results that currently come up for miserable failure do not "reflect the opinion on the web," nor is it true that "no user is hurt" or that there is no "clearly legitimate site for 'miserable failure' being pushed aside."

This Google Bombing was done by at most a few hundred links pointing at the biography, if that many. Google annoyingly makes it impossible to tell exactly how many links are involved using the term, but to say that this particular campaign is the same as the "opinion on the web" is absurd. So only a few hundred people are able to speak for millions of web users? This isn't the web's opinion -- it's a particular opinion on the web.

Users are also hurt, because there are indeed "legitimate" sites for this query that get knocked down in the results.

What's a legitimate site? Seems like the Dick Gephardt For President site deserves top ranking, since he appears to have christened Bush's administration a "miserable failure" as part of his campaign slogan. In short, Gephardt's site is an originating source for this term and actually provides much more useful information for those wondering how it relates to Bush than the biography prank.

Rather than be first, Gephardt is ranked eighth. Only two weeks ago, he was ranked third. At this rate, the game Google's happy for people to play (see new entries of Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore) will have pushed Gephardt's site out of the top results and into oblivion altogether.

Another good listing is an article from the Atlantic Monthly that explores how Gephardt is using "miserable failure" as part of his campaign to attack Bush. Again, this is a far more useful site for users than ranking the Bush biography first. Only two weeks ago, this was ranked second. Now the gaming has pushed it to fifth.

Ha ha!  That's a kind of poetic justice.  Allegedly, Google made an algorithm change in January, 2007 which is supposed to reduce the number of instances of these events.  it would be rather amusing if Chris Bowers' strategy is less efficient than he assumes it to be.  Another interesting side note is that the article exposing this strategy in Computer World prompted the following comments:

As much as anything, Bowers' campaign advertises his personal politics. He would have done better to keep still. However, he did help me to decide between Obama and McCain come November. I'm going for McCain. With friends like Bowers, who needs Obama?

                                                   * * * * * * * * * *

This is typical of the left. It seems that free speech is only free if it is about left wing nut job causes. Otherwise, you are a fascist. The left wing shows the strongest definition of fascism in the USA.

                                                   * * * * * * * * * *

Yeesh - something very nasty and orwellian here. And he's actually admitting it so clearly he doesn't see anything wrong with it. Not a guy I'd want on my side. Not good at all.

To be fair, these comments don't represent a majority.  There are always those with this point of view:

All you McEnron fans here have your panties in a wad because of a little "Google Bomb?" I guess that's the breaks when you have neither the material nor the supporters to do it yourselves.

Thankfully for us, McFlipFlop has given us PLENTY of material to work with just due to his sheer mendacity.

So the point is, now you know how Bowers is doing it and if you'd like to do it yourself, feel free with the caveat that Google's new algorithm may not provide exactly the results you desire.  Nor will it provide exactly the results Bowers desires, either. 

-- Deputy People's Commissar Bunny-Bun