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.
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.
I didn't know "Santorum" was a guy's name until years after it became a name for the sex term.
I believe Congressman Santorum screwed up big time and now has something moderately well known named after him. Such is life. The substance is literally called that now. Tough luck for the politician.
I live in the UK. Literally the only thing I know about Rick Santorum is that he is a homophobic bigot, and the only reason I know that is because of the Santorum neologism. The same goes for the people around me. In my experience, outside of the US "Santorum" is an internet joke first and a politician second. The word "Santorum" is a bona fide cultural phenomenon, whereas until a few weeks ago the man Rick Santorum was just a crank ex-Senator taking a shot at the primaries.
Spreadingsantorum.com has relevant, keyword-dense content and a substantial number of high-quality links, more than enough to outweigh any possible penalty for the hokey googlebombing links. By almost any SEO criterion I am aware of, it beats ricksantorum.com by a country mile. If Rick Santorum wants to solve his Google problem, he needs to play the game like anyone else - add quality content and build quality links.
For Google to manipulate these SERPs in the interests of propriety or prudishness would be absurd. They have an explicitly stated policy of ranking based on their algorithm, with the exception of webspam. Tinkering with results manually is a can of worms they have no interest in opening. They've stuck to their guns on much thornier problems than this.
I think the only problem here is that Google isn't updating fast enough to reflect an increased interest in Santorum the person.
When you say: I think his politics are repugnant, but less than 1% of Google search queries for his name are looking for Dan Savage's prank.
I am sure this is true today but I think it was definitely not true a month ago, and a year ago the opposite would probably be true. The difference between this and other Google bombs is that people really do the word Santorum in everyday conversation. (Well, perhaps not 'everyday', but definitely in contexts unconnected to Google search results and with the alternate definition of the term in mind.) I would expect that most people searching for "Santorum" before 2011 probably heard the word in that context and are wondering what it means.
99% of searches for "santorum" today might be searching for the man, but I seriously doubt that number was anywhere near as high e.g. six months ago. Should Google change their results around in response to sudden and transient current events like a politician suddenly gaining the spotlight?
I also think that your description of the smear campaign as an attempt to game Google is misleading. It is fundamentally an attempt to add a new word to the English language. It seems to be working pretty well. Getting it to rank high on Google isn't an attempt to game Google, it's an attempt to create a new word.
I don't think that those who are not skilled with SEO should get a free pass from Google because they can't get their shit together.
The santorum definition is a media campaign, just like any other. I don't see why it should be penalized because it attempts to spread what some might consider the distatefullness of Santorum's political views.
A similar campaign can be held for any word, personality, or cause. This is more like a political campaign than any form of manipulation. Google shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing which popular movements should be "penalized" and which shouldn't.
Now if content farms, SEO or other forms of manipulation are involved then I agree 100% with you.
But I don't like the idea of a corporation suppressing a popular cause, which is really what this is.
Is there evidence of a real SEO type manipulation going on here? If so, your point would be a lot stronger if you provided some links (I am going on the principle that the accuser should provide the evidence which is why I haven't provided evidence of the nonexistence of manipulation).
I would sincerely like to know if there is evidence of widespread manipulation of search results here.
The intent of the campaign wasn't to Google bomb Santorum and it wasn't an attempt to "game Google's search rankings". The original intent of the campaign was to define the word "Santorum" and the fact is, it was successful.
Now that there are two definitions of Santorum, why should google favor one over the other?
If a man like Santorum was President, Google would probably be required by law to fix it. The problem with your excellent comment is that nobody gamed Google's search ranking. Google can't censor the result as it is legitimate.
The real problem here is Santorum's insane ideas and forcing his delusional beliefs on the public. Thus the Internet public has chosen to redefine his name as cultural slang. For Google to censor this would be simply wrong.
> But Google's overall politics happen to be the same as my politics, so Santorum gets unequal access to the 2012 Internet.
I doubt if Google are manipulating their search engine results based on a dislike of Santorum; do you have any evidence otherwise?
> 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.
The internet contains the totality of the uhman experience, so it is associated with the culture wars (and with everything else humans do).
> Google should penalize the shit out of it.
It should be up to Google how they run their website, provided they doing do anythning dishonest.
> Google obsessively tweaks all manner of other links in the index
Via algorithm or manual intervention? I thought they were dead set against manual tweaks. I imagine their todo list of algorithm improvements is never ending, so I'm not too quick to judge them on this.
It is a PR issue for Google, though. If someone is searching for Santorum, there's a pretty good chance they're a cultural conservative. When they see listings like this at the top of the search results, do they come away with a worse perception of Santorum or of Google? I wouldn't vote for Santorum, but I didn't really like seeing "frothy mix of lube and fecal matter". C'mon, Google, I just ate.
I agree with you on that clearly the it's a result that should not be shown. But there's still the problem of figuring out how to fix it in practice. Should Google point-fix this particular instance, fix it algorithmically even if the change is negative on the whole, or hold out for an algorithmic fix that is neutral or positive.
There are strong engineering reasons to not point-fix stuff. Maybe in this case there are stronger legal/political/PR reasons to get any fix at all out quickly. There certainly wouldn't have been any 2 weeks ago, when Santorum was still an also-ran.
You call the link disgusting as if it's some sort of universal value, but "disgust" is a culturally constructed physical reaction. Not everyone is disgusted by the same things you are. Some people think kimchi is disgusting. Other people think it's the most delicious thing on this planet.
I'm not trying to dissuade you from your disgust, but try to appreciate that not everyone shares your values.
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.
Google's algorithm takes into account the timeliness of events. So despite his recent success, people are probably still looking up the word, rather than the person (and on a large enough scale to overcome the timeliness weighting).
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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).
[+] [-] tptacek|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] gte910h|14 years ago|reply
I believe Congressman Santorum screwed up big time and now has something moderately well known named after him. Such is life. The substance is literally called that now. Tough luck for the politician.
[+] [-] jdietrich|14 years ago|reply
Spreadingsantorum.com has relevant, keyword-dense content and a substantial number of high-quality links, more than enough to outweigh any possible penalty for the hokey googlebombing links. By almost any SEO criterion I am aware of, it beats ricksantorum.com by a country mile. If Rick Santorum wants to solve his Google problem, he needs to play the game like anyone else - add quality content and build quality links.
For Google to manipulate these SERPs in the interests of propriety or prudishness would be absurd. They have an explicitly stated policy of ranking based on their algorithm, with the exception of webspam. Tinkering with results manually is a can of worms they have no interest in opening. They've stuck to their guns on much thornier problems than this.
[+] [-] mlinsey|14 years ago|reply
When you say: I think his politics are repugnant, but less than 1% of Google search queries for his name are looking for Dan Savage's prank.
I am sure this is true today but I think it was definitely not true a month ago, and a year ago the opposite would probably be true. The difference between this and other Google bombs is that people really do the word Santorum in everyday conversation. (Well, perhaps not 'everyday', but definitely in contexts unconnected to Google search results and with the alternate definition of the term in mind.) I would expect that most people searching for "Santorum" before 2011 probably heard the word in that context and are wondering what it means.
[+] [-] mikeash|14 years ago|reply
I also think that your description of the smear campaign as an attempt to game Google is misleading. It is fundamentally an attempt to add a new word to the English language. It seems to be working pretty well. Getting it to rank high on Google isn't an attempt to game Google, it's an attempt to create a new word.
[+] [-] cperciva|14 years ago|reply
I'd be surprised if there weren't a large number of searches resulting from "hehe, if you Google for Santorum this really funny page comes up".
[+] [-] DTrejo|14 years ago|reply
The santorum definition is a media campaign, just like any other. I don't see why it should be penalized because it attempts to spread what some might consider the distatefullness of Santorum's political views.
[+] [-] tryitnow|14 years ago|reply
Now if content farms, SEO or other forms of manipulation are involved then I agree 100% with you.
But I don't like the idea of a corporation suppressing a popular cause, which is really what this is.
Is there evidence of a real SEO type manipulation going on here? If so, your point would be a lot stronger if you provided some links (I am going on the principle that the accuser should provide the evidence which is why I haven't provided evidence of the nonexistence of manipulation).
I would sincerely like to know if there is evidence of widespread manipulation of search results here.
[+] [-] brown9-2|14 years ago|reply
How do you know this?
[+] [-] drewrv|14 years ago|reply
Now that there are two definitions of Santorum, why should google favor one over the other?
[+] [-] ithought|14 years ago|reply
The real problem here is Santorum's insane ideas and forcing his delusional beliefs on the public. Thus the Internet public has chosen to redefine his name as cultural slang. For Google to censor this would be simply wrong.
[+] [-] cabalamat|14 years ago|reply
I doubt if Google are manipulating their search engine results based on a dislike of Santorum; do you have any evidence otherwise?
> 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.
The internet contains the totality of the uhman experience, so it is associated with the culture wars (and with everything else humans do).
> Google should penalize the shit out of it.
It should be up to Google how they run their website, provided they doing do anythning dishonest.
[+] [-] nhebb|14 years ago|reply
Via algorithm or manual intervention? I thought they were dead set against manual tweaks. I imagine their todo list of algorithm improvements is never ending, so I'm not too quick to judge them on this.
It is a PR issue for Google, though. If someone is searching for Santorum, there's a pretty good chance they're a cultural conservative. When they see listings like this at the top of the search results, do they come away with a worse perception of Santorum or of Google? I wouldn't vote for Santorum, but I didn't really like seeing "frothy mix of lube and fecal matter". C'mon, Google, I just ate.
[+] [-] jsnell|14 years ago|reply
There are strong engineering reasons to not point-fix stuff. Maybe in this case there are stronger legal/political/PR reasons to get any fix at all out quickly. There certainly wouldn't have been any 2 weeks ago, when Santorum was still an also-ran.
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|14 years ago|reply
I'm not trying to dissuade you from your disgust, but try to appreciate that not everyone shares your values.
[+] [-] arn|14 years ago|reply
which boils down to trust (in Google results) and free speech/censorship
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] drumdance|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pyoung|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] da5e|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gyardley|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsz0|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Zirro|14 years ago|reply
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|14 years ago|reply
This is exactly how the freedom of speech is meant to work.
[+] [-] omaranto|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelochurch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yoyo000|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mynameishere|14 years ago|reply
No, I don't support Rick. He's worthless..