Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blogger Launches 'Google Bomb' At McCain

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the everyone-needs-a-hobby dept.

Google 545

hhavensteincw writes "A liberal blogger has launched a 'Google bomb' project aimed at boosting Google search results for nine news articles showing Sen. John McCain in a negative light. The Computerworld article notes: 'Chris Bowers, managing editor of the progressive blog OpenLeft, is launching the Google bombs by encouraging bloggers to embed Web links to the nine news stories about McCain in their blogs, which helps raise their ranking in Google search results. Bowers is reprising a similar Google bombing effort he undertook in 2006 against 52 different congressional candidates. "Obviously, it is manipulating, but search engines are not public forums and unless you act to use them for your own benefit, your opponent's information is going to get out there," Bowers said.'"

cancel ×

545 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I have to say it (1)

Gearoid_Murphy (976819) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894955)

google bombs away!

Re:I have to say it (5, Funny)

mnemocynic (1221372) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894979)

For the lazy among us, here's a direct link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bombs+away!&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

Re:I have to say it (5, Funny)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895537)

What if my hl isn't en you insensitive clod!

Yeah, that'll help . . . (4, Insightful)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894969)

. . . unify the country.

Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895019)

Since when has that become the goal of politics?

Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895121)

Shortly after it became popular to attack someone for fragmenting the country.
One has to manufacture a "problem" in order to have something to "solve", for all the existence of the problem is dubious, and the capacity of government to solve anything is gravely doubted.
Just yell "By The Audacity of Loose Change!" , however, then sit back and watch the magic...

Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895035)

And trying to alter what information sources people are most likely to see must do wonders for the democratic process.

Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895313)

I think the information available to the general public is already hopelessly skewed one way or the other. This is going to sink into the noise of political bias. It doesn't help that these days people only listen to news sources which tell them what they want to hear anyway.

Besides, the stories are legitimate. Maybe he's actually right to bring attention to them?

I would cite the BBC as an example of how it should go, but I'm increasingly convinced of their pro-Labour bias.

Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895097)

This is typical of the new obama type of campaign. Give lip service to unity and "change" while engaging in the same underhanded tactics that the left has been criticizing the far right for during the last two decades.

Really, the democratic party is becoming something I don't want to be a part of, much like the republican party of the 80's and 90's was taken over by the religious right. obama and his cronies have done nothing put use this opportunity to garner power to themselves for their own end. It's sad the more people like those of you who post on slashdot can't see it. They care nothing for the "issues" they espouse and they care even less (than nothing?) for you except for your vote.

Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . (4, Funny)

Niten (201835) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895305)

They care nothing for the "issues" they espouse and they care even less (than nothing?) for you except for your vote.

Yeah, much unlike those warm, loving, caring exemplars of humanity and civil service, Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . (5, Insightful)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895349)

The faults of some candidates do not, by themselves, make other candidates worthy. It's about time we learned that.

Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . (5, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895393)

Heard this joke the other day...

Q: If Clinton, Obama, and McCain are all out at sea on a sinking boat, who will be saved?






A: The United States of America


*Badoom Crash!* Thank you, I'll be here all week. Be sure to try the quiche!

Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . (5, Interesting)

Digital End (1305341) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895569)

How is this 'typical of the obama campaign'... or insightful for that matter?

Look at this;
This is a list of crap email received on Obama. Note the themes and quantity of emails... Really a bit telling to the mentallity of the people sending them out, as well as the people who forward them on and on.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp [snopes.com]

Now; Here's the same for McCain.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/mccain.asp [snopes.com]

That said, I'm more then a little pissed at this idiot for the google bomb. These were funny once, but trying to manipulate politcs with them isn't. I view the 'good guys' as being above this.

That said however, I'm at the point where I'd sacrifice some of my personal views on that to prevent what happened in 2000, and then 2004. If that's the only way to get the idiot vote, go for it... because at this point the idiot vote has to be 50%

Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895299)

Unify the country? Why is that considered a good thing? A significant portion of the American public are in favour of the Bush administration, the Iraq war and torture. You aren't going to change their minds. The only way you will unify the country is to meet them half-way. Is that a good thing?

I've never heard of this "unification" nonsense until the Republican Party started becoming unpopular. Until then, in pretty much every democratic country, it was understood that there is room for disagreement in politics and that this wasn't necessarily a bad thing. But now they seem to be feeding you the idea that all parties should be striving for the same thing (which is basically no different to a one-party system) and the American public seem to be lapping this bullshit up and asking for seconds. WTF is up with that? Can you really not see that it's just a desperate lie told by people who fear losing power in the near future? It's not transparently obvious to you?

Re:Yeah, that'll help . . . (1)

boyko.at.netqos (1024767) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895527)

The country doesn't need to be unified. The country needs to be fixed. I'd rather have a cantankerous, belligeren

Links? (5, Funny)

OshMan (1246516) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894993)

Hmmmm I couldn't find the links to the original 9 articles. Could someone post them here? ;)

Re:Links? (3, Informative)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895017)

Re:Links? (4, Insightful)

dunnius (1298159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895091)

Thanks. I was hoping that one of the nine would be McCain violating the campaign finance laws. Oh well, so much for exposing corruption in politics.

Disclaimer: I am a Libertarian and I hate the two main political parties.

Re:Links? (2, Funny)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895245)

Oops!

(*whooosh*)

Re:Links? (5, Funny)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895113)

I know martinw89 linked a page containing all of the links, but in case that was too confusing, I better link them again:

Article 1 [aol.com]
Article 2 [msn.com]
Article 3 [nwsource.com]
Article 4 [latimes.com]
Article 5 [motherjones.com]
Article 6 [cnn.com]
Article 7 [salon.com]
Article 8 [usatoday.com]
Article 9 [cbsnews.com]

Hope that helps

Re:Links? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895389)

Now there is a list of upstanding, unbiased, ethical organizations...not.

Re:Links? (2, Insightful)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895399)

Articles in Salon and Mother Jones cast McCain in an unflattering light? No way!!!

Next we'll be reading that the evil "Far Right" Republican bloggers are Google-bombing articles from foxnews.com. ;-D

Re:Links? (1)

OshMan (1246516) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895533)

Thanks you've been very helpful!

It is not Gogglebombing! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895551)

If you have a political blog and you are linking to articles about a political candidate on other web sites, how is that Googlebombing? Isn't that actually the way the web is supposed to work?

Open left of what? (3, Insightful)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895011)

One vote for the democratic party of america is one less vote for the republican party of america, but is it really a vote to the left?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008 [politicalcompass.org]

Re:Open left of what? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895155)

I'm from Finland and on that chart at coordinates -8, -8... As a foreigner following the presidential campaigns I must agree with your analysis: neither of the major candidates are where I stand.

However, in U.S., the president has too much influence over the political discussion; in Finland she's just a figurehead with some powers in foreign affairs.

As it is now, if I were U.S. citizen, I'd gladly vote for the lesser evil, or Obama. I don't think he could change much, or would want to, but it is a step in the right direction anyway.

Re:Open left of what? (5, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895383)

One vote for the democratic party of america is one less vote for the republican party of america, but is it really a vote to the left?

True - we've got two major parties in the U.S., one representing the center of the right wing, one representing the right wing of the center.

It's no wonder that, until this charismatic upstart Obama came along, the "sure winner" of the Democratic primaries was a woman who had been the president of her campus's chapter of the College Republicans, and whose husband was called "the best Republican president we've had in a while" by Alan Greenspan.

Raises tough questions (5, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895031)

I find the practice of SEO to be a bit questionable in any event, but soliciting volunteers to essentially manipulate google search results in order to favor a given political agenda just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. Sure, it can argued that the right fights dirty, but where is the honor in stooping to this sort of thing?

Well, I am old enough to remember the sixties -- maybe I'm just becoming obsolete.

Re:Raises tough questions (0, Troll)

HeLLFiRe1151 (743468) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895123)

Actually it's a pull up for Democrats.

Re:Raises tough questions (1, Insightful)

jpellino (202698) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895215)

I certainly hope you don't think you can counter the likes of Karl Rove simply by being honorable...

Had Rove been in the cast of "To Kill A Mockingbird", Atticus Finch would be whispered for being a gay single parent, Tom Robinson would have been fathering children of white women all across the south, and Boo Radley would be president. Oh, wait...

Re:Raises tough questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895267)

Well, unfortunately, if you do stoop to that level, then as has been said before you get the leaders you deserve. And this is the problem. You claim it's ok to use those tactics, but the leaders who would ok that (like obama) are not the kind of people I would want to be president of the local rotary, much less POTUS.

Change we can .. Believe In New Labour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895329)

We had the same kind of almost religious "renewal" here in UK about 12 years ago. It was called new labour. Now everyone hates the guy...

To me Obama is a bit GW Bush but mostly Tony Bliar .. er .. make that "Blair"

moderators, please mod up parent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895395)

its relevant
its not just rant

Re:Raises tough questions (2, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895337)

Doesn't Google have the tendency to lower the page ranks of sites that participate in Google bombs?

Re:Raises tough questions (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895587)

Well, I am old enough to remember the sixties -- maybe I'm just becoming obsolete.

"No disassemble old hippie!"

Seriously, though, honor went out the door a long time ago in American politics... Nixon left the door open for it, Reagan threw it all out and slammed the door shut, Lee Atwater and Bush 1.0 added the padlock and chains (for which Atwater expressed deep regrets before his death).

The only way we'll ever get it back is for things to become so dirty that they affect the majority of peoples' lives to the point that they care. But the average American has no honor anymore, either.

So, yeah, you're obsolete, but in the 68 Mustang Fastback sense, not the 75 Pinto sense...

Seems like this is a Match on a Fire (3, Informative)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895045)

Honestly, the generation that gets their information from the internet (instead of cable or newspapers) is going to have a much more liberal bias in general. All you have to do is look at age group demographics for any polling done and you'll see the heavy liberal skew to the younger ages.

With that being said, there are already going to be many, MANY more blogs with a pro-Obama, anti McCainb standpoint than the alternative already. Having a few more people bump some anti-McCain articles may bump them up a couple slots, but I guarantee with the demographics of internet users, those articles probably weren't doing badly on their own.

Besides, republicans already have their propaganda machine too *cough* Fox News *cough* Ann Coulter *Cough*

Re:Seems like this is a Match on a Fire (4, Informative)

klingens (147173) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895103)

Honestly, the generation that gets their information from the internet (instead of cable or newspapers) is going to have a much more liberal bias in general. All you have to do is look at age group demographics for any polling done and you'll see the heavy liberal skew to the younger ages.
 
There is a saying here (paraphrased): "A 20 year old liberal will end up a 70 year old conservative and doesn't have to change a single of his views".

So I don't fear for the conservative parties of the world just yet.

Re:Seems like this is a Match on a Fire (1)

Alibaba10100 (1296289) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895233)

Its like gerrymandering Texas.

Re:Seems like this is a Match on a Fire (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895237)

I think it is called the preponderance of evidence, the truth will set you free, or whatever else you want to call it. If the facts are that Clinton smoked pot in britain where it was legal, Bush drove drunk in America where it is not legal and tantamount to attempted manslaughter, Rush likely broke that law to feed his drug addiction, and McCain sells beer, selling that requires constant government intervention as the ads are often aimed at small children, then those are the facts. Yes, on the internet it is much more difficult to censor those fact. So, yes, if your leaders are hypocrites, then persons who have access to the facts are going to be more likely to more likely to move to another choice. For instance, if one candidate wants to provide access to government health care, and the other claims that government health care is not good enough even though he has sent his entire life on government benefits, that might be a fact that gets out into the open and makes people question his credibility.

Re:Seems like this is a Match on a Fire (5, Interesting)

Capitalist Piggy (1298699) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895319)

Besides, republicans already have their propaganda machine too *cough* Fox News *cough* Ann Coulter *Cough*


The unfortunate side of all this, all of these talk machines, including Boortz, Rush, Hannity, etc will be repeating, over and over, about how this is a fine example of leftist propoganda, the liberal conspiracy, etc.

Don't get me wrong. I think Bill Maher and the rest of the leftist paid-to-talk types are complete twits as well. Nothing like seeing someone from either side ignorantly pressing points only for the sake of them being right, left, or endlessly playing devil's advocate.

Too bad there isn't a fiscal conservative, socially liberal person to vote for. Too bad there isn't a news network without slant anymore. I recognize slant was always there, but CNN learned a little from Fox's ratings and starts coming across as ridiculously liberal when elections near.

Against the Principles of Democracy (5, Insightful)

DeionXxX (261398) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895047)

Isn't one of the tenants of democracy that everyone have access to all information and then they decide who's best for themselves? This is poisoning the available information so citizens don't have all of the information about a candidate.

Pretty surprising come from the left, you know, with their morals and such.

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895185)

Huh? It's hardly "poison" to tell the truth.

They're Google-bombing. That means they've chosen several informative articles and are working to make them the top search results when one searches for "McCain". It does not change anything about what is accessible. The pro-McCain sites will still be there, on the interbutts, waiting for you to sign on.

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895207)


Perhaps they see this as a counter to the big-money support of the right (and the status quo) by the 'main stream media'?

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895297)

Senator Obama is crushing Senator McCain in that regard. Also, it is Obama who is refusing public financing, and McCain who cosponsored Feingold-McCain.

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895531)

The parent said "big-money", which isn't quite the same thing as "money". The problem with "big-money" support is that such donors tend to expect something (e.g. favourable legislation) in return, whereas someone who gives a few hundred bucks isn't expecting anything.

Also, while McCain co-sponsored McCain-Feingold, he also violated it by requesting public financing for the primary, getting certification, using the certification both as collateral for loans and as a means to get on various state ballots without having to meet signature requirements, then said he wasn't accepting it (which isn't allowed once you have actually derived any benefit from certification) and breached the associated spending limits.

Fortunately for McCain, the FEC lacked a quorum to actually do anything about this.

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895355)

Um, that "big money" support charge doesn't really hold water with the amount of money Obama is raising.

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (4, Insightful)

rthille (8526) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895405)


If 10 million people give $10 each, that's $100 million of democracy.

If one person gives $100 million, that's 'big money'

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (0, Flamebait)

glueball (232492) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895213)

Just wait until the skeletons in Obama's closet in Illinois start coming out. It's a contest to see if the national media can keep the local media (Sun-Times, Trib, Herald) and prosecutors quiet long enough.

Whitewater and the Clinton-esque cover-up was *nothing* compared to this stuff.

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (2, Interesting)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895571)

Whitewater and the Clinton-esque cover-up was *nothing* compared to this stuff.

Whitewater was nothing. The GOP attack machine tried and tried but found nothing there, finally having to turn to Clinton's sex life to secure the impeachment they wanted.

(Of course, Clinton had committed all sort of impeachable offenses against the Constitution. But since they were the same sort that GOP presidents had committed - not surprising, given Clinton's conservative heart - there was fat chance of those being used against him.)

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895599)

Please share. If you have knowledge of these things we'd like to hear more. I personally have the feeling that obama is hiding a great deal (beyond what has already be spoken about) and would like to finally know the "real" obama. Specifically, this business with black liberation theology and michelle obama's thesis bothers me since I am not racist but they seem to be.

Moreover, the type of campaign obama is running, disavowing smear tactics and criticizing his opponents for it while directly engaging in it himself is appalling. If find myself thinking the same thing that I did with Kerry: Is this the best that the dems can do? No wonder Nader won't have anything to do with them.

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (1)

renbear (49318) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895607)

Just wait until the skeletons in Obama's closet in Illinois start coming out. It's a contest to see if the national media can keep the local media (Sun-Times, Trib, Herald) and prosecutors quiet long enough.

Whitewater and the Clinton-esque cover-up was *nothing* compared to this stuff.

What are you waiting for, then? Well?

*crickets*

Yeah, I didn't think so. You go on wishing... the rest of us will elect Obama, and start repairing the damage done to America over the past 8 years. Neo-conservatism-- nay, crypto-fascism-- has had its day. It's time to move on.

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895221)

No one is deleting anything and you can still find pro-McCain article with Google... on the second page of search results. :)

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (1, Interesting)

metlin (258108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895345)

Not all of us care about democracy - I'd rather have a meritocracy than a democracy.

The fact that the vote of someone who dropped out of highschool and became a bum is equal to someone who has a PhD in Biology is laughable. Even worse is the fact that the votes of the former have equal say in government policies in biology.

Just how much does a plumber really know about biology, or economics, to be part of the decision making process? Just how much does religion matter in making environmental policies that are for the good of the planet's ecosystems?

Democracy as it exists today is a sham - it does nothing more than push forth mediocrity. Not everyone should be part of the decision making process, and even then, not everyone should be a part of *every* decision making process.

You don't solicit the opinions of plumbers and druggies when your child is sick, do you? Then why do you let the votes of these people matter when it comes to legislating medical policies?

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895429)

That's why we have a representative democracy. Public elections are more about picking a representative you can stomach than they are about deciding issues in an informed manner (sure, there are all sorts of issues that go to the ballot, but they are rarely more about information than they are about 'feelings').

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (3, Insightful)

markkezner (1209776) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895519)

While I can see the point you're trying to make, it has its flaws.

The problem is that once you remove folks from the decision making process, you open the doors for abuse of the system. Such a system that you suggest would have to be implemented with extreme care to prevent elites from disenfranchising voters to promote their own agenda.

Hod does the nation decide who is qualified to make decisions on what issues? How would you resolve disagreements about who is qualified to vote?

That said, I do not believe that our current system is immune to abuse and manipulation of the ignorant. Not by a longshot.

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (1)

Mauzl (1312177) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895347)

Google bombs don't destroy information. They just push it to page 2. Or page 54.

Isn't one of the tenets of politics -not- giving the voters all the information?

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895471)

This is poisoning the available information...

Hmm. If googlebombing is "poisoning the available information", so is any act of speech taken with effectiveness of communication in mind.

This is no different than cranking out handbills noting that McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade [usatoday.com] or John McCain thinks it would be okay if U.S. troops stayed in Iraq for another hundred years [motherjones.com] . No one is engaging in slander, libel, rumormongering, or censorship here; they're spreading true and relevant information.

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895523)

Pretty surprising come from the left, you know, with their morals and such.
Actually, I thought that the right was known for always pushing that they held the moral higher ground. You know, that whole "Christan/family/constitution/tradition" thing. Since when did the Left all of a sudden become the "holders of morality"?

I've always found both sides to be as equally immoral.

Re:Against the Principles of Democracy (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895553)

Yeah, it's clearly an attempt to censor and to deprive the public of easy access to both sides of the argument. But that's nothing new.

McCain deserves what he gets though. He's the #1 censor and violator of free speech in the last 50 years with his McCain Feingold campaign finance reform act.

BTW: About those "morals". Those apply to other people. There's always enough leeway to make an exception for anything you're doing yourself. That's the beauty of making up your own set of morals. The most moral thing is when your side wins.

I am curious about the naming of his Blog (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895055)

I see excellent things like openSSH, and openOffice. Why choose "OpenLeft", instead of "openLeft"?

Re:I am curious about the naming of his Blog (2, Funny)

arotenbe (1203922) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895111)

I see excellent things like openSSH, and openOffice. Why choose "OpenLeft", instead of "openLeft"?
Because the actual names are "OpenSSH [openssh.com] " and "OpenOffice.org [openoffice.org] "?

Re:I am curious about the naming of his Blog (0, Redundant)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895209)

I was chuckling over the implications of the meaning of the words when they are capitalized or not. I guess I was seeing something deeper. Usually the implication of something "left" is not as constrained as something "right". "open" has a different meaning than "Open". And given that the current political climate has accelerated faster than Global Warming; it just tickled my funny bone.

Re:I am curious about the naming of his Blog (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895473)

The overwhelming majority of people see title case when they see 'Open', not a specific, nuanced definition of the word.

False Alarm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895063)

The articles portraying John McCain in a negative light just show him smiling.

A negative image to be sure, a picture of John McCain smiling is not a "Google Bomb".

Re:False Alarm (0, Troll)

dattaway (3088) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895147)

Rather than a "miserable failure," he'll be a "clone of a miserable failure."

Like there is a HUGE diff between Obama an McNutso (0, Troll)

hoyeru (1116923) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895083)

BOTH sucked American Israel Public Affairs Committee's dick several weeks ago. Americans are such morons to think there is a diff between the Democrat and Republican party.

Awesome job! (1)

Gay for Linux (942545) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895085)

This is fantastic. How dare an opponent's "information" be spread. American democracy is built on the prevention of open dialog and the containing of messages that opposes one's own propaganda.

What a dick. (5, Insightful)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895099)

Yeah, it's always a lot better to make sure that you taint the conversation.

This is an excellent example of the juvenile "us vs. them" mentality that national US politics has devolved into. I'm a bicycle-riding urbanite liberal stereotype, I still find this sort of idiocy appalling. Let people make up their own minds and hunt for their own information.

--saint

Re:What a dick. (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895505)

You know as well as I that your philosophy only works for people who are both willing and able to look for information on their own, which most people are not. If the left consistently acted in that way, they'd never elect another person to office, because the Right isn't going to stop doing what they're doing just because the left is. On the contrary, they'd take as much advantage of it as possible.

Re:What a dick. (3, Insightful)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895603)

If the left consistently acted in that way, they'd never elect another person to office, because the Right isn't going to stop doing what they're doing just because the left is.

Could you elaborate on what dishonorable attacks have been coming from the Right so far in this election? As far as I've seen, the vast majority of the attacks on Obama so far have been from the Clinton camp. McCain on the other hand has (somewhat surprisingly) been trying to take the high ground and has on a number of occasions criticized those who've tried to use spurious claims again Obama.

I'm for Obama but this is just stupid (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895107)

This is not a valid way to promote Obama.
Just let people figure it out themselves.

It's very simple. Do you want something at least SLIGHTLY different than the past eight years? No matter what you want to say against Obama, you are guaranteed something different than the past eight years. With McCain it will be virtually identical except we'll be bombing Iran (and anti-choice for women).

Re:I'm for Obama but this is just stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895575)

Different in all the bad ways: -I make above average wages and do NOT want to pay your health care -I spent 9 years to legally become a citizen, and I do not want some ass who came here illegally getting it in any less -I already get 1/2 of my income taken away for various bullshit taxes, and do NOT want it to go up anymore should i continue?

what a douche (5, Insightful)

Alibaba10100 (1296289) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895135)

This is a perfect example of how political types can't see anything outside of their petty us vs. them mentality.

"We're just using McCain's own words -- everything we are targeting are things McCain has done or said himself. There's no bias at all.
No bias? By what definition is emphasizing the things someone says that suit your purposes not bias? In fact, this is the most insidious kind of bias. If the pieces being ranked up were opinion pieces, at least viewers would be aware that what they are reading is someone's opinion. But this way, the ordering of the news stories itself contains some random guy's personal bias and the majority of searchers will not know to put their guard up.

Obviously, it is manipulating

bingo

Re:what a douche (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895321)

and the majority of searchers will not know to put their guard up.

On the other hand, in politics as with science ... once should always have one's guard up. Period.

Re:what a douche (5, Insightful)

Alibaba10100 (1296289) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895541)

I absolutely agree with that. But placing responsibility on readers to sort out fact from opinion does not exonerate people who try to deceive them.

Re:what a douche (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895391)

Exactly. What you said, but double.

Re:what a douche (0, Flamebait)

maop (309499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895411)

Just like publishing a newspaper is manipulating. Just like casting a vote is manipulating. Just like running ads is manipulating. Republicans aren't able to run on facts and policy so they run on identity and process.

Re:what a douche (3, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895579)

Republicans aren't able to run on facts and policy so they run on identity and process.

And that differs from the Democrats how?

Hypocrisy at it's best (3, Insightful)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895159)

You have to love how the left bloggers love to cry fowl at every little turn. Yet, when they attempt to rig search engine results it's somehow okay. Regardless of a person political affiliations this type of action should be frowned upon and they people partaking in the event should be shunned by their readers.

Re:Hypocrisy at it's best (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895547)

You have to love how the left bloggers love to cry fowl at every little turn.

That's because they're busy pointing out that most war mongering Republicans are actually sniveling, wet-their-britches chickenhawks.

Re:Hypocrisy at it's best (1)

mean pun (717227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895613)

You have to love how the left bloggers love to cry fowl at every little turn.

African or European?

Obama has started a "Fight the smear" campaign (0, Troll)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895163)

While the lefties have started a "Fight with smear" campaign.

How can we spin this so we can make those evil Republicans look bad?

Is Google on board with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895165)

Since this is now on the front page of Slashdot, do you think Google may put a stop to it?

Or better, come up with a heuristic that prevents this kind of crap in general? A tough problem, for sure, but those Google guys can be crafty.

A vote of no confidence? (3, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895175)

Seems to me that this is basically a result of this asshole believing Obama can't win without such underhanded tricks.

Informed Vote? (5, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895211)

"Obviously, it is manipulating, but search engines are not public forums and unless you act to use them for your own benefit, your opponent's information is going to get out there," Bowers said.'"
Because clearly, the last thing you want to do is let your opponent's perspective out there. This is brought to you by the 'informed populace makes for poor voters' theory.

Will this even work? (4, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895269)

I thought Google had put in place controls to prevent exactly this kind of thing from tainting search results. Even if he does get a lot of people linking, it seems like Google's own corrective algorithms would prevent it from really making an impact on search results.

It might be interesting to see what degree other search engines end up being affected as well, as a study in how manipulatable the various engines are.

Defeated (4, Informative)

shird (566377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895277)

Apparently Google already has protection against such "bombs":
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/01/quick-word-about-googlebombs.html [blogspot.com]

I have no idea how the algorithm detects such a bomb, but it appears to be pretty effective.

Re:Defeated (2, Informative)

assassinator42 (844848) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895539)

This isn't really a Google bomb though, at least not like the kind discussed in that article. Those aimed to return a site from an unrelated query, by doing something like miserable failure [wikipedia.org] . This is aiming at queries of "John McCain" or "McCain", phrases the pages actually contain.
Although actually looking at the page, he does seem to be going at it in the same way: Linking "McCain" or "John McCain" to the articles. An earlier poster linked them as "article 1" and such, which might be less apt to trigger their Google bomb detection.

Backfire (4, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895311)

This sort of stuff just makes the side doing it seem more juvenile and reactionary... which is an image the democrats need to overcome, not encourage.

I think if they could have shut up their most ardent supporters, the Democrats would have won the last election.

Tag? (4, Informative)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895353)

Why is this tagged 'Republicans' when it's a Democrat doing the deed?

I expect both sides will engage in this kind of thing though to be honest.

Re:Tag? (2, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895563)

Plus the fact McCain isn't really a republican (which is why he threatened, like a little baby, to become a democrat). He's nothing more than a old fart desperate for his moment in the spotlight. People should be concerned about the fact he stands for nothing other than becoming president.

Re:Tag? (3, Informative)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895583)

True, he is a bit of a RINO (Republican in Name Only). He's hard to classify because his positions keep shifting.

McCain Supporter (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895431)

I'd organize the same for Obama in response, but that would be racist and undemocratic.

This is progress? (3, Insightful)

Asylumn (598576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895435)

"...unless you act to use them for your own benefit, your opponent's information is going to get out there.
Heaven forbid people get all the facts and make up their own mind. Let's just prevent our opponents from being able to make their case in the first place!

How very 'progressive'.

This is not unfair or sneaky or wrong (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895439)

A lot of the comments in here complain that these are underhanded, manipulative tactics.

They are not. This is no different than the advertising both sides spend millions on. The whole point of the google search engine, that made it beat the other search engines with their paid results (remember the days of going to four different search engines, and diging down through pages and pages of results, to find something ?) is that google ranked according to what the public expressed as important, via the links they created on web pages. If google didn't rank those stories higher after eveyone started talking about them, then google would be less useful, and start facing competition again.

If these stories were simply untrue, or at least contested, that might be a valid objection. But they are denied in any way by McCain. This is not a "swift boating" or the campaign McCain was victim of in North Carolina to make it seem he had had a child out of wedlock. Citing facts is always fair game in a debate.

I think the Obama supporters might choose better stories, however. While these stories might outrage people who will already vote for Obama, those who are already supporting McCain are unlikely to be moved by them. Perhaps links to McCain's involvement in the Savings and Loan Scandal might be better.

I would like to see what stories the McCain folks would google bomb about Obama. If they are all basically untrue or speculation about his religion or some shit, I think that would tell you who is going to win. Before I participate in this google bombing campaign, I will collect several factual articles about Obama's involvement with that real estate guy, and the ear mark or whatever funding it was that he got for the hospital where his wife worked, and any other well established, factual dirt on Obama. Then I would mix in a link to McCain's POW internment, which I view as a plus on his side, and a few articles on some of the good positions he has taken. On Obama's plus side, I think I would link "Obama isn't in this list" to a list of who voted for the Iraq war; that is the reason why Obama will win the election.

Obligitary XKCD quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895449)

John McCain "died in a blogging accident"

monger (1)

chyllaxyn (592599) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895455)

Just another Oberman - O'reilly hate monger, People are smarter than that, ...yawn

Highlighting negative media against the GOP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895495)

I was under the impression that it was the sworn duty of every news person to always portray republicans in a negative light. Why are there only nine articles and why must they be highlighted?

This is NOT Google Bombing (1)

micahfk (913465) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895513)

Google Bombing is when you try to get a site (or sites) to rank for keyword terms that are not in that specific page. At this time Google has prevented all new literal Google Bombings from occurring, however, it can still be done partially.

The article talks about bring up articles to rank for "John McCain" and last I checked... those were not obscure terms for him (unless he recently went to change his name to something else entirely).

So what is he doing then? As I've mentioned, it's not Google Bombing, but instead it's really the opposite of brand reputation management--he's just trying to produce more negative results for his name.

Why not other parties? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895521)

Wouldn't the most patriotic move in the universe be to get away from a 2-party system/hegemony once and for all? Why can't a good google bomb get rid of all references to McCain and Obama and start promoting the other candidates no one gets to hear about in traditional media?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?