This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Mule (talk | contribs) at 06:09, 2 June 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:09, 2 June 2005 by The Mule (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Google search for bastards
Searching on google for bastards returns a link to SCO. I believe this was caused by slashdot-crowd. I think this should be added...
- We already have the entry for "litigious bastards" linking to SCO. Was there a separate attempt to link the single word "bastards"? Or was this just an incidental byproduct of the Googlebombing of the phrase "litigious bastards"? JamesMLane 12:29, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it was a seperate instance or due to Google's algorithm, but it's not really that important anyway.
- It might be important (or at least worth mentioning) if the SCO Googlebomb was so powerful that it was able to get to the top listing not just for the specific phrase "litigious bastards," but for the much more common unmodified "bastards." I, for one, was very surprised when I did that Google search (in response to the comment here) and found SCO at the top. JamesMLane 23:10, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Redirect war
No more redirect war. "Googlebomb" wins the Google Test, so it's the true article, and "google bombing" now redirects here. Please leave it that way. Thank you.
Sorry about that. It was kind of confusing, as I couldn't tell what was supposed to lead where, or if there was a real article at all. I didn't mean to redirect war--just confusion. I apologize. The article on Googlebomb looks nice, BTW--thanks for your contribution, and clarification. Meelar 05:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dates on google bombs?
Umm, as Google is a dynamic entity, should we include dates with these google bombs? Now when I google for 'failure' i get Michael Moore. Bush is third or something. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:49, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
- I think that'd be a good idea. "Waffles" don't work any more for example -- you now get a list with waffle recipes. "failure" yields Bush's bio right now. Along with a date, we could even archive the results using screenshots. I'm sure that a few years from now kerrywaffles.com might be gone ... --CPK 18:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Transient google bombs?
Whereever the comment should be please note that Misplaced Pages "Jew" displacing "Jew Watch" was rather short lived, seems to be reversed and is too topical to go in this sort of encyclopedia in my humble opinion BozMo
- I think it is noteworthy that the campaign succeeded, for however short. And we can always hope that it succeeds in the future. The world needs balanced views to be promoted in favor of bigotry anywhere possible. --ssd 15:28, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well if that campaign was noteworthy what about the others that made the national headlines? The first googlebomb I am aware of was "more evil than Satan" for microsoft at the end of 1999. On your criterion that should go in? BozMo
If more evil than Satan truely was the first, then it needs to go in for that reason alone. I just checked, and the first hit is a CNN article on the googlebomb, so it's at least partially successful still. --ssd 20:08, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Note: researched and added. --ssd 20:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, although I struggle with your suggestion that this might have happened "by mistake". The name googlebomb may date from the noughties but the practice was definitely nineties BozMo
- Hey, feel free to adjust my wording. I think it was discovered by mistake, not happened by mistake. Obviously, it happened on purpose, because people liked linking to microsoft that way. I guess I'm sort of implying that they didn't do it with the intent of affecting google, although perhaps they did. It's a causality thing--discover bomb then announce it, or announce bomb and make it happen. that's why I put the "may have" in the wording. --ssd 05:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Santorum
Santorum was not a "slander campaign". You can say it was "not very nice" or even "malicious" to name the stuff after this man, and I'd agree (I hate the homophobic rat, but the man has kids) but it wasn't actual slander. Mike Church 21:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ambition
On the Googlebombing related to Ambition (card game) I said "around April" since I could find no evidence of any Googlebombing activity dated March.
- I removed the Ambition reference. It is not a significant Googlebomb (e.g. it is reported nowhere). This is a conflict interest between you as a WP contributor and you as the inventor of ambition. (sorry!) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Jew
I had re-inserted the mention of Google's "Offensive Search Results" meta-result because, immediately before I made the edit, that item was heading the result list. I just ran the search again with the same result. Perhaps .derf overlooked it because the highlighting that I mentioned is a light blue background that makes the notice blend in with the bar above it that gives the number of hits. At any rate, Ams80 and I both saw it, so it's accurate to see that Google "is...returning" this notice (although maybe not always, for whatever reason). JamesMLane 01:52, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't see it because it got eaten by Proxomitron. Next time, I'll be more thorough. Sorry. --.derf 04:21, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
As of this writing, jew shows the "offensive" banner, has wikipedia in the first slot, and jewatch in slot four! :) I'd edit the article to reflect the reality, but it gets tedious changing it back over and over. --ssd 04:20, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I swear it was gone when I checked. Maybe it's flaky because it's in the "sponsored links" section? In any case, I've added back the wording to try to be accurate regardless of whether or not it's "currently" there. anthony (see warning) 11:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Competition entrants
I am going to replace the links to the websites which are taking part in these googlebombing competitions with links to sites about the competitions. These external links are being repeatedly changed by different people taking part in contests, none being any more worthy of the precious link from Misplaced Pages than any other as far as I can see. Also I think linking to pages about the competitions will be more informative which I guess is the overall aim of external links. -- Ams80 19:06, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Yahoo bomb
This item has been added to and then deleted from the list of "Accomplished Googlebombs":
When I search for "douchebag" on Yahoo!, KPMG does indeed hold the top spot. On Google, though, it's not in the top 120 (all I cared to skim). If there was a deliberate attempt to do a Yahoobomb, exploiting some feature that differs from Google's, it would be worth mentioning in this article, at least until Yahoobombing advances to the point of meriting its own article. Does anyone know anything more about this? (Absent more information, I agree with deleting this entry from the Googlebomb list.) JamesMLane 15:24, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
BtnI
I changed the links to add "&BtnI" a while back without asking, this creates the effect of having clicked the "I'm feeling lucky" button - on reflection, I realized it's possible that this could create the appearance that wikipedia is linking directly to whatever site happens to be on top at google any given week. Should these be removed?
- Personally, I think it would be a good idea to change them back so that it shows the search results so people can clearly see that it's number one or two or whatever (if it's dropped). The way it is now, there's no indication that it's showing you the result from I'm feeling lucky or that it's even showing something from Google at all for that matter. --Chessphoon 19:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Berlusconi
I have noticed that the HTML meta tag preventing Google from indexing Italian president Berlusconi's biography has been removed, and that the "miserable fallimento" Googlebomb works again. Should this section therefore be removed or edited to take account of this? --Andrew 13:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Quixtar Corporation is removing criticism
The Quixtar Corporation is "vandalizing" this Misplaced Pages artice (Google Bomb) by removing all references to its coordinated Google Bomb campaign. On March 4, at 14:07, 14:09 and 16:42, all references to Quixtar were deleted from the article by IP 167.23.0.90 which resolves to Alticor, Quixtar's parent company. A review of the edits made by that IP address show a history of similar deletions on the Quixtar and Amway articles.
Why is a billion dollar corporation vandalizing Wiki? Perhaps they're hiding something?
Quixtar
Hi,
I've flagged this as needing POV attention. I am not associated with Quixtar :-) However, I was reading this article and it reads in a very biased POV way. I think it needs some cleanup.
Misplaced Pages online poker article
We're being googlebombed by bloggers... there's a slashdot article on it. Check the talk page of online poker for more info. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:14, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Category: