| Revision as of 18:04, 15 January 2016 editAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,556,866 editsm Dating maintenance tags: {{Dl}}← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:52, 19 January 2016 edit undo104.192.25.200 (talk) ←Replaced content with 'Rick Santorum is a good man, and Dan Savage is a sinful idiot.'Tag: blankingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Rick Santorum is a good man, and Dan Savage is a sinful idiot. | |||
| {{Use mdy dates|date=October 2012}} | |||
| The '''campaign for the neologism "santorum"''' started with a contest held in May 2003 by ], a sex columnist and ] activist. Savage asked his readers to create a definition for the word "santorum"<ref>{{cite book |title = And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture| last=Wasik| first=Bill| publisher = Viking Adult; First Edition|year = 2009| page = | isbn=978-0-670-02084-3}}</ref><ref name=sl031503/> in response to then-U.S. Senator ], and comments about ]. In his comments, Santorum had stated that "n every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."<ref name="Corvino2013">{{cite book|last=Corvino|first=John|title=What's Wrong with Homosexuality?|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=UjJPBF7sm5EC&pg=PP120|accessdate=24 April 2013|date=2013-01-04|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780199323913|pages=120–}}</ref> Savage announced the winning entry, which defined "santorum" as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". He created a web site, ''spreadingsantorum.com'' (and ''santorum.com''), to promote the definition, which became a top internet search result displacing the Senator's official website on many ], including ], ], and ].<ref>{{cite news|work=] | |||
| |url=http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/02/rick_santorum_has_come_to_term.html |publisher=nymag.com |title=Rick Santorum Has Come to Terms With His Google Problem |date=February 16, 2011 |first=Dan |last=Amira |accessdate=May 27, 2011}} | |||
| *{{cite news |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/rick-santorum-google-prob_n_824117.html |work=] |title=Rick Santorum's 'Google Problem' |date=February 16, 2011 |accessdate=May 27, 2011 |first=Jason |last=Linkins}}</ref> | |||
| In 2010 Savage said he would take the site down if Santorum donated US$5 million plus interest to ], a group advocating legal recognition of ]s.<ref name="MotherJones" /> In September 2011 Santorum asked ] to remove the definition from its search engine index. Google refused, responding that the company does not remove content from search results ].<ref name="Burns" /> | |||
| ==Santorum's comments on homosexuality== | |||
| {{main|Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality}} | |||
| In an interview with the Associated Press on {{#formatdate:April 7, 2003}}, Santorum said there is a relationship between the ] and ] and ]. He argued that ] involves accepting any adult consensual behavior in the privacy of people's homes, even if the behavior might otherwise be considered deviant. Santorum believes this attitude leads to an unhealthy culture.<ref name=USATodayApril232003/> | |||
| Santorum said that, while he had no problem with homosexuality, he did have a problem with homosexual acts, "as I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual." He continued: <blockquote>We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now,<ref>This was a reference to '']''</ref> that has ] and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.<ref name=USATodayApril232003>{{cite news |url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm |title=Excerpt from Santorum interview |newspaper=USA Today |issn=0734-7456 |date=April 23, 2003}}</ref></blockquote> | |||
| Santorum said he was arguing against any relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman, the basis in his view of a stable society: "That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."<ref name=USATodayApril232003/> | |||
| The interview prompted an angry reaction from gay rights activists<ref name="defends comments">{{cite news|title=Santorum defends comments on homosexuality|url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/santorum.gays/index.html|publisher=CNN|date=April 23, 2003|accessdate=March 13, 2008}}</ref> and some politicians.<ref name=Brewer/> A spokesman for the ] described Santorum's views as divisive and reckless<ref name=CNN20030422>Loughlin, Sean. , CNN, April 22, 2003.</ref> while conservative activists saw them as a "principled opposition to same-sex marriage".<ref name=Brewer/> | |||
| ==Response by Dan Savage== | |||
| ] | |||
| On {{#formatdate:April 25, 2003}}, in a '']'' ], Savage responded to Santorum's comments, arguing that the remarks amounted to an overt ] appeal to ] voters.<ref>{{cite news |last=Savage |first=Dan |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/25/opinion/gop-hypocrisy.html |title=G.O.P. Hypocrisy |newspaper=] |issn=0362-4331 |date=April 25, 2003}}</ref> A reader of Savage's column, '']'', subsequently suggested a contest to create a new definition for "santorum".<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14267| title=Bill, Ashton, Rick| accessdate=2012-02-29| publisher= Savage Love}}</ref> Observing that he had previously sought to coin the sexual ] "]", Savage agreed, writing on May 15, "There's no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head."<ref name=sl031503>{{cite news |url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14267 |title=Savage Love: Bill, Ashton, Rick |first=Dan |last=Savage |newspaper=] |issn=1935-9004 |date=May 15, 2003}}</ref><ref name=dwyer>{{cite news |last=Dwyer |first=Devin |url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/rick-santorums-google-problem-resurfaces-with-jon-stewart-plug/ |title=Rick Santorum's 'Google Problem' Resurfaces with Jon Stewart Plug. |periodical=ABC News |date=May 10, 2011}}</ref><ref name="CMMH">{{cite news |title=Rick Santorum vs. the internet |first=Meg |last=Heckman |url=http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/262299/rick-santorum-vs-the-internet?CSAuthResp=%3Asession%3ACSUserId%7CCSGroupId%3Aapproved%3ABA4A9537C4BF4594E11F4B09D8217743&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1 |newspaper=The Concord Monitor |location=Concord, NH |date=June 12, 2011 |accessdate=June 22, 2011 |quote=The less vulgar include...}}</ref> | |||
| He said on {{#formatdate:May 29}} that he had received 3,000 suggestions, and posted several nominees for readers to choose from.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14422 |title=Savage Love: Do the Santorum |first=Dan |last=Savage |newspaper=] |issn=1935-9004 |date=May 29, 2003}}</ref> On {{#formatdate:June 12}} he announced the winner as "that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex".<ref name=Brewer>{{cite book |last=Brewer |first=Paul Ryan |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=U34pJTdF-VcC&pg=PA67 |title=Value War: Public Opinion and the Politics of Gay Rights |year=2008 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=978-0-7425-6210-3 |lccn=2007037833 |ol=10721857M |pages=67–68, 86}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14566 |title=Savage Love: Gas Huffer |first=Dan |last=Savage |newspaper=] |issn=1935-9004 |date=June 12, 2003}}</ref> | |||
| Savage set up a website, ''spreadingsantorum.com'', to spread awareness of the term;<ref name=Brewer/> the site features the definition over a brown splattered stain on an otherwise-white page. Savage also set up another website, ''santorum.com'', that displays the same content. '']'' reported in July 2006 that the site appeared at the top of a Google search for Santorum's name. When asked whether he was concerned about the effect on Santorum's children, Savage responded that gays and lesbians also have children, who are required to listen to comparisons of gay relationships to ] and ]. He also said, "The only people who come at me wringing their hands about Santorum's children are idiot ] who don't get how serious the ] is about destroying us."<ref name=Spikol>{{cite news |last=Spikol |first=Liz |url=http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/38419699.html |title=Savage Politics |newspaper=] |date=October 4, 2006}}</ref> Savage offered in May 2010 to remove the site if Santorum donated $5 million to Freedom to Marry, an advocacy group for ].<ref name=MotherJones>{{cite journal |last=Mencimer |first=Stephanie |url=http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/rick-santorum-google-problem-dan-savage |title=Rick Santorum's Anal Sex Problem |magazine=Mother Jones |issn=0362-8841 |date=September–October 2010}}</ref> | |||
| In February 2011, Savage said he would revive his campaign.<ref>{{cite web|title=Dan Savage Vows to Revive 'Santorum' Campaign|publisher=Roll Call|url=http://www.rollcall.com/news/-203600-1.html|author=Steve Peoples|date=February 23, 2011}}</ref> {{as of|2012|1}}, the sexual term was still the top result for Santorum's name on several search engines, including Google, ], and ].<ref name="MotherJones"/><ref name=AmiraFeb162011>{{cite journal |last=Amira |first=Dan |url=http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/02/rick_santorum_has_come_to_term.html |title=Rick Santorum Has Come to Terms With His Google Problem |magazine=] magazine |issn=0028-7369 |date=February 16, 2011}}</ref><ref name="Interview with Rick Santorum">, ''The Daily Rundown'', MSNBC, June 9, 2011.</ref> | |||
| In a July 2011 video on '']'', Savage proposed to redefine Santorum's first name if Santorum did not stop criticizing homosexuality.<ref name=McGlynn>{{cite news |first=Katla |last=McGlynn |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/dan-savage-rick-santorum-video_n_910924.html |title=Dan Savage Has A New Name For Rick Santorum |work=] |date=July 27, 2011}}</ref><ref name=Rovzar>{{cite journal |first=Chris |last=Rovzar |url=http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/07/dan_savage_threatens_to_re-def.html |title=Dan Savage Threatens to Re-Define Rick Santorum's First Name, Too |magazine=] magazine |issn=0028-7369 |date=July 28, 2011}}</ref> In his {{#formatdate:August 17, 2011}} column, Savage observed that "Santorum hasn't laid off the gay bashing, as it's all he's got," and endorsed a reader suggestion to re-define "rick" as a verb, thus making 'Rick santorum.' into a complete sentence.<ref name=SL-01-11-2012>{{cite news |url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=9539475 |title=Savage Love: www.humpseattle.com |first=Dan |last=Savage |newspaper=] |issn=1935-9004 |date=August 17, 2011 |quote=The definition I proposed in my video was a little too long and involved, so I vote for adopting yours, HTH.}}</ref><ref name=SL-08-17-2011>{{cite news |url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=11589595 |title=Savage Love: Santorum Surges |first=Dan |last=Savage |newspaper=] |issn=1935-9004 |date=January 11, 2012 |quote=To "rick" is to remove something with your tongue—the "r" from "remove", the "ick" from "lick"...}}</ref> | |||
| ==Reception and political impact== | |||
| The word ''santorum'', as defined, has been characterized as "obscene",<ref name="Time170511">{{cite news |title=Rick Santorum: The GOP’s Most Undervalued Presidential Candidate |first=Michael |last=Grunwald |url=http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/17/please-do-not-google-the-name-of-this-undervalued-republican-candidate/#ixzz1TEEBqZ2Z |newspaper=Time |date=May 17, 2011 |accessdate=December 1, 2011 |quote=The “serious” Republican candidates for President, apparently,...}}</ref> "unprintable",<ref name="WaPo042011">{{cite news |title=Should we have a right to be forgotten online? |first=Elizabeth |last=Flock |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/should-we-have-a-right-to-be-forgotten-online/2011/04/20/AF2iOPCE_blog.html |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=April 20, 2011 |accessdate=December 1, 2011 |quote=Spain's Data Protection Agency has caved to the demands...}}</ref> or "vulgar".<ref name=Kors_Huff>{{cite news |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-kors/dan-savage-interview_b_859172.html |title=Q&A With Dan Savage: On Obama, Fox News' Shepard Smith and Success of 'It Gets Better' Project |first=Joshua |last=Kors |date=May 8, 2011 |work=] |accessdate=July 26, 2011}}</ref> | |||
| The ] chose "santorum" as the winner in its "Most Outrageous" category in the society's 2004 "Word of the Year" event,<ref>, American Dialect Society, January 7, 2005, p. 2.</ref> as a result of which several newspapers reportedly omitted that category from their coverage of the announcement.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Sheidlower |first=Jesse |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2112150/ |title=Linguists Gone Wild! Why "wardrobe malfunction" wasn't the word of the year |periodical=] |date=January 11, 2005 |quote=We dismissed one potential problem—that newspapers wouldn't print the term if it won—on the grounds that we shouldn't censor ourselves. And indeed, in the afternoon's voting, ''santorum'' did win, but many newspapers simply skipped this category in their coverage.}}</ref> | |||
| '']'' reported in 2006 that the word had inspired punk rock and blues songs;<ref>, ''Google Current'', July 15, 2006.</ref> '']'' columnist Liz Spikol wrote that it had begun appearing on bumper stickers and T-shirts.<ref name=Spikol/> ] mentioned it on '']'' more than once; his reference to it in May 2011 caused the word to be one of the most queried search terms on Google the following day.<ref>Stewart, Jon. , ''The Daily Show'', July 12, 2006. | |||
| *Stewart, Jon. , ''The Daily Show'', May 9, 2011. | |||
| *Stewart, Jon. , ''The Daily Show'', May 9, 2011. | |||
| *Hughes, Sarah Anne. , ''The Washington Post'', May 10, 2011. | |||
| *, ABC News, May 10, 2011. | |||
| *Friedman, Megan. , ''Time'' magazine, May 10, 2011.</ref> ] of '']'' also referred to it on more than one occasion.<ref>Colbert, Stephen. , ''The Colbert Report'', February 21, 2011. | |||
| *Sehgal, Ujala. , ''Business Insider'', February 22, 2011. | |||
| *Colbert, Stephen. , ''The Colbert Report'', April 24, 2011.</ref> | |||
| {| class="toccolours" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; width:30em; max-width: 27%;" cellspacing="5" | |||
| |style="text-align: left;" |"An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum'... In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage." | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="text-align: left;" |''The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English'', 2006 | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="text-align: left;" | | |||
| |}Savage's campaign was widely discussed in the media, but the word itself did not gain wide acceptance, according to ''The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English'' in 2006.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-first=Tom |editor1-last=Dalzell |editor2-first=Terry |editor2-last=Victor |title=The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English |publisher=Routledge |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-415-21258-8 |ol=7486776M |pages=x–xi |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=4YfsEgHLjboC&pg=PR10&dq=santorum |volume=1 |quote=An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage.}}</ref> The 2007 update of this work, '']'', does not contain an entry for "santorum".<ref name="PartridgeDalzell2007">{{cite book |editor1-first=Tom |editor1-last=Dalzell |editor2-first=Terry |editor2-last=Victor |title=The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English |year=2007 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-415-21259-5 |lccn=2007028776 |ol=10187548M}}</ref> | |||
| Stephanie Mencimer wrote in ''Mother Jones'' in 2010 that "some observers even suggested may have contributed to" Santorum's 2006 defeat by ].<ref name=MotherJones/> Savage had attempted to contribute $2,100 to Casey's campaign, but the donation was returned.<ref>{{cite news |last=Budoff |first=Carrie |url=http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15130708.htm |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20060906031529/http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15130708.htm |archivedate=September 6, 2006 |newspaper=Philadelphia Inquirer |title=No thanks, Casey donor told |date=July 27, 2006}}</ref> | |||
| Noam Cohen of '']'' described the situation as a ] of online identity. He questioned whether automatic search algorithms should be entirely devoid of human discretion.<ref>{{cite news |last=Cohen |first=Noam |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/business/media/an-identity-hijacked-on-the-online-highway.html |title=Dealing With an Identity Hijacked on the Online Highway |newspaper=] | |||
| |issn=0362-4331 |date=September 25, 2011}}</ref> | |||
| The issue resurfaced during the ] in which Santorum was a candidate. A commentary in '']'' suggested a difficulty in avoiding ]s when writing about Santorum because of Savage's campaign.<ref>{{cite news |last=Heer |first=Jeet |title=Can Rick Santorum become U.S. president if his name isn’t even safe for kids to Google? |url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/can-rick-santorum-become-us-president-if-his-name-isnt-even-safe-for-kids-to-google/article2294581/ |accessdate=January 7, 2012 |newspaper=The Globe and Mail |date=January 6, 2012 |location=Toronto}}</ref> | |||
| ===Santorum's reaction=== | |||
| Santorum discussed the issue in a February 2011 interview with '']'': "It's one guy. You know who it is. The Internet allows for this type of vulgarity to circulate. It's unfortunate that we have someone who obviously has some issues. But he has an opportunity to speak."<ref name=Peoples>{{cite news |last=Peoples |first=Steve |url=http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_84/-203455-1.html |title=Santorum Talks About Longtime Google Problem |newspaper=Roll Call |date=February 16, 2011}}</ref> | |||
| After announcing he might stand for the 2012 presidential nomination, he told '']'' in April 2011 that he had not hired anyone to help move Savage's website lower in search results, but hoped his possible run for president would shift his own site to the top organically.<ref>{{cite web |last=Moody |first=Chris |url=http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/28/santorum-says-he-has-no-plans-to-fix-his-google-problem |title=Santorum says he has no plans to fix his 'Google problem' |work=] |date=April 28, 2011}}</ref> | |||
| In a June 2011 interview, Santorum said, "There are foul people out there who do horrible things. It's unfortunate some people thought it would be a big joke to make fun of my name. That comes with the territory."<ref name="RawStory06-09-11">{{cite web |url=http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/santorum-hopes-google-will-do-something-about-filth-on-the-internet/ |title=Santorum hopes Google will do something about 'filth on the Internet' |author=David Edwards |date=June 9, 2011 |publisher=] |accessdate=July 24, 2011}}</ref> | |||
| In July 2011, Santorum said that news coverage of this matter would be very different if he were liberal instead of conservative: "The Mainstream Media would hit the roof—and rightly so!"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ricksantorum.com/blog/2011/07/dan-savage-and-his-obscene-attack |title=Dan Savage and His Obscene Attack |work=ricksantorum.com |accessdate=September 30, 2011 |quote=I can only imagine if this happened to a liberal. Maher and his friends in the Mainstream Media would hit the roof—and rightly so! But when it happens to a conservative, they applaud and laugh.}}{{dl|date=January 2016}}</ref> | |||
| ==Google-bombing== | |||
| ''The New York Times'' reported in 2004 that people had tried to use ]s to link the names of several American politicians, including George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Rick Santorum, to what it called "unprintable phrases".<ref>{{cite news |last=McNichol |first=Tom |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/22/technology/circuits/22goog.html |title=Your Message Here |newspaper=] |issn=0362-4331 |date=January 22, 2004}}</ref> Bloggers linking to ''Spreading Santorum'' caused it to rise in Google's rankings.<ref name=MotherJones/> | |||
| In 2010, Michael Fertik of ] (now ''Reputation.com''), a company to help people influence their Web presence, described the search engine issue as "devastating" and said it was "one of the more creative and salient Google issues" he had ever seen.<ref name=MotherJones/> Mark Skidmore of ] said Santorum would find it difficult to shift Savage's site, because Savage had over 13,000 inbound links against 5,000 for Santorum's own site.<ref name=MotherJones/> Chris Wilson in '']'' described the situation as a "classic 'Google bomb'."<ref>{{cite journal |first=Chris |last=Wilson |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2298206/ |title=Lube Job: Should Google associate Rick Santorum's name with anal sex? |magazine=] |date=July 1, 2011 |accessdate=August 1, 2011}}</ref> | |||
| ===Santorum's request for intervention by Google=== | |||
| When asked in June 2011 whether ] should step in to prevent the definition appearing so prominently under searches for his name, Santorum said they should intervene only if they would normally do so in this kind of circumstance.<ref name="Interview with Rick Santorum"/> In September 2011 Santorum asked Google to intervene by altering the indexing of the content, saying, "If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country...To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can't handle but I suspect that's not true."<ref name="Burns">{{cite web |url= http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63952.html |title=Rick Santorum contacted Google, says company spreads 'filth' |first=Alexander |last=Burns |work=]|date=September 20, 2011 |accessdate=September 21, 2011}}</ref> In response to Santorum's request, a Google spokesperson asserted that Google does not "remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines."<ref name="Burns" /> | |||
| According to ] (TPM), "Google did crack down" on google-bombing in the past.<ref name="Sullivan" /> In an interview with TPM, search engine expert ] stated that Santorum mischaracterized the campaign as a "Google bomb", when it was actually a relevant use of the search query ''santorum'' to create "a new definition for the word".<ref name="Sullivan" /> Sullivan argued that, in a Google bomb, pranksters persuade Google's algorithm to send the wrong results for a certain term (e.g., when pranksters caused the search term "]" to point to the ] website's ] page). In Santorum's case, on the other hand, the term "santorum" still points to a web page about a "santorum"—which happens to be Savage's neologism instead of the Senator from Pennsylvania. Sullivan concluded that, "for to say Google could get rid of it would be like him saying, 'I don't like the word 'unicorn' and I think that that definition should go away.'"<ref name="Sullivan">{{cite web |last=McMorris-Santoro |first=Evan |url=http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/search-engine-expert-rick-santorums-new-crusade-against-google-is-total-nonsense.php?ref=fpb |title=Search Engine Expert: Rick Santorum's New Crusade Against Google Is Total Nonsense |work=] |date=September 20, 2011}}</ref> | |||
| Some sources describe the neologism campaign as a ].<ref name="Rolph">{{cite news |last=Rolph |first=Amy |url=http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/09/22/rick-santorum-wants-google-take-down-frothy-mix-definition/ |title= <!--Seattle's Big Blog:-->Rick Santorum wants Google to take down 'frothy mix' definition |newspaper=] |date=September 22, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Zorn |first=Eric |url=http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/09/poor-rick-sntorum.html |title=Poor Rick S@ntorum |newspaper=] |date=September 21, 2011}}</ref> However, despite three times as many inbound links,<ref name=MotherJones/> observers have noted that search engines ] and ] had been presenting the offending links second behind Santorum's web site.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/24/googles-hypocritical-anti-bullying-pulpit/ |title=Google's Hypocritical Anti-Bully Pulpit |first=Penny Young |last=Nance |publisher=Fox News |year=2011 |accessdate=September 27, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Albanesius |first=Chloe |url=http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393604,00.asp |title=Santorum's 'Google Problem' Persists, Should Link Be Removed? |magazine=] |issn=0888-8507 |date=September 26, 2011}}</ref> | |||
| === 2012 ranking algorithm changes === | |||
| In February 2012 the link to the site briefly vanished from the first page of Google search results for "Santorum" after Google changed its ] algorithm.<ref> By Helen A. S. Popkin, MSBNC</ref><ref name="SantorumResultDisappears02292012">{{cite news |url= http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Spreading-Santorum-vanishes-from-Google-3371167.php |title='Spreading Santorum' vanishes from Google |first=Joel |last=Connelly |date=February 29, 2012 |accessdate=February 29, 2012 |work=Seattle Post-Intelligencer}}</ref><ref>Noam Cohen, , ''The New York Times'', March 1, 2012</ref><ref name="Bingham">{{Citation | last = Bingham | first = Amy | title = Santorum’s Google Problem: Nasty Definition Sinks in Search | newspaper = ABC News | date = March 1, 2012 | url = http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/santorums-google-problem-nasty-definition-sinks-search/ | accessdate = March 3, 2012}}</ref> A further change restored the site to the first page of Google results, and its ranking on other search engines underwent no significant changes.<ref>{{cite web | last = Sullivan | first = Danny | title = Santorum’s Changing "Google Problem"—& Search Engine Land—Make The Rachel Maddow Show | publisher = Search Engine Land | date = March 8, 2012 | url = http://searchengineland.com/santorum-google-problem-rachel-maddow-show-114060 | accessdate = 2012-03-09}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/02/29/rick-santorums-google-problem-subsides/|title=Rick Santorum’s Google Problem Subsides|work=The Wall Street Journal|author=Ian Sherr and Geoffrey A. Fowler|date=February 29, 2012}}</ref><ref name=Miller20120301>{{cite web|url=http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2156606/Spreading-Santorum-Loses-Its-Frothy-Spot-Atop-Google|title=Spreading Santorum Loses Its Frothy Spot Atop Google|author=Miranda Miller|publisher=Search Engline Land|date=March 1, 2012}}</ref> The placement of the site in search returns may vary depending on who is searching.<ref name="Bingham"/> Google stated that the change was not the result of specific manual intervention to produce this result.<ref name=Miller20120301/> | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| {{wiktionary|santorum}} | |||
| {{wikiquote|Campaign for "santorum" neologism}} | |||
| * | |||
| {{Dan Savage}} | |||
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Campaign For Santorum Neologism}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 06:52, 19 January 2016
Rick Santorum is a good man, and Dan Savage is a sinful idiot.