Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

David,
I checked out the site. Pretty disgusting.

I seem to remember when we heard Sergey Brin speak at Supernova in Santa Clara a year and half ago, he talked about how Google does look at the results and tweaks them in some cases. If memory serves, the two specific examples he gave were suicide and heart attack, where Google looked at the top results generated algorithmically, then tweaked to make sure that a suicide prevention hotline came up on the top for suicide, and a page about what to do if you feel you are having a heart attack comes up for the second. A quick Google shows results consistent with my memory -- if you would like me to check my notes to find out exactly what he said, I can.

So it sounds like Google thinks some things are important enough to ignore the algorithms, and some aren't. I'd ask Google how do those decisions get made? And how does the fact that some of these rankings (e.g. miserable failure, Jew) are the results of gaming the algorithms influence whether they adjust the results or not.

Once Google admit to having changed anything, as they did, then they really have opened Pandora's box for themselves.

I'm glad to see someone trying to keep them honest.

Your entry started me looking for an article about Google fiddling with algorithms to favor advertisers -- was published maybe a year ago. I haven't found that one yet, but this one's pretty interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1868395.stm -- maybe the anti-semites are link bombing.

I see only 35 other sites that link to the site in question. Some are other hate sites, but some are along the line of "here is a list of nasty hate sites to be avoided". Unfortunately, posting such lists just increases those sites' rankings on Google. (As would this discussion, if a link to the site were included.)

There is a bit of a puzzle here. The site in question has a Page rank of 5, while the second site that I get (http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm) has a rank of 6.

Found the article I was thinking of above: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-962913.html. It's old too, but reminds us that there's more to rankings than 'objective' algorithms.

Isn't this an artifact of the same technique that rendered Dubya unelectable? If so, all that non-bigots need to do to counteract it is to get lots and lots of people to link "Jew" to something more appropriate.

If one wanted to "fight back" with one's own gaming of the system, which site would we all point to? There is no real obvious one. (Where would you link for Catholic for a Google #1 rating? To the Vatican? To your church?) So this points out a flaw in Google's algorithm. For very common items with a diversity of strong sites to point to, one negative site can stick out, if only for the "don't go there" reason. We now know to only list the names of those "bad" sites, and not use the "A" tag to link to them, I guess. Google is forcing us to break the linkness of the web. Be careful what you say in public and be careful who you link to. Sigh.

Let's not let the American Nazi Party march in Skokie, either. Oops, I already triggered Godwin's Law (sort of), and I'm Jewish!

First, who searches for "jew"?

Second, "evil" would be manually demoting search results.

Third, PageRank alone does not dictate where a listing places in the result.

I don't, on the surface of it, have an issue with Google and their "hands off" policy. If, that is, they're sticking to it. Some here have suggested that they are not, that there's some kind of editorial deicions being made in some cases. If that's true I would rather they stopped doing it rather than starting down the slippery slope of editorializing their search rankings. Sure, there are cases where the "public good" is served better by giving good heart attack information top rank. But there is also the good of giving people direct and unfiltered access to information. It seems to me that this last principle is the one I would rather my search engine adhere to. And it's more in the spirit of the web itself.

Seems to be DOSed -- traceroutes to Jewwatch.com return with 'unknown host' messages, and the two nameservers, hosted by http://www.stormfront.org/ (itself a white supremacist site) are also offline.

Curiously, stormfront seems to offer DNS servers to other orgs (like jewwatch), while using third-party DNS, so stormfront has not been hit by the DoS attack.

This saddens me -- DoS attacks are a secular version of evil.

Scott, I don't think you are going to get away from editorializing if Google decides on a strict hands-off policy. Rather, you are simply providing a medium for others to editorialize on, by means of link bombing and the like.

A strict hands-off policy would be similar to the current press practice of scrupulously seeking out opposite points of view on every matter, and avoiding any suggestion that one might be of lesser value than the other (Krugman suggests a public figure who believed the earth was flat might well cause the headline: "Earth's Shape: Disagreement").

Part of the problem is the lack of competition between Google and other search engines. Google is god is not good when it comes to disagreement between parties and GoogleGod has to effectively endorse particular parties above others.

To their credit, I think on any given first page of search results, Google represents a balance of sources. That alone must be very difficult to maintain against people who game the system.

But, the days of more equally popular search engines at least suggested a significant imperfection in each's search results: you couldn't say Google was god, you could only say something like Altavista is good and so are Infoseek and Excite, etc.

Ultimately, it seems least problematic for Google to function neutrally (freely) and for people to let their voices be heard. But, more equal alternative channels for voicing in this sense might be good too.

I aggree with pb. Who search for "jew"?

I like to amaze people by telling them that if they want to find me, they just have to Google Cohen (in Hebrew) and I will be the first one.

But it's not really important. What's important are two groups of keywords: the general keywords people will use and stumble upon your site and the keywords people will guess if they want to find you.

For example, Google "jews", which I guess will be a more popular search word than "jew". See who is first. See who is second.

If one wanted to "fight back" with one's own gaming of the system, which site would we all point to? There is no real obvious one.

People have been pushing the Wikipedia entry for Jew.

Not that anyone cares, but I agree with pb and Hanan Cohen. If you search for "jew," you're probably stupid enough to be looking for an anti-semitic site.

To fight back, people need to agree on a site or sites to link to. I suggest the Wikipedia article as a nice, neutral candidate to quickly push the hater site out of first place.

Ironic perhaps that googling "antisemitism" yields learned discourse and serious discussion but no examples like the one you've referenced.

Not that a person has to dig very deep if he wants examples...

What Jews, Muslims, and Christians Agree On:

1. You shall not worship any other god but YHWH.
2. You shall not make a graven image.
3. You shall not take the name of YHWH in vain.
4. You shall not break the Sabbath.
5. You shall not dishonor your parents.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not commit perjury.
10.You shall not covet.

Why the fuss? Frig it. PS: Visit my site, David. Thanks for the tip on blogspot!

If you wish to have a DontLikeTheseSites links page all that is required is a robots.txt file or a ROBOTS META tag on the page in question.
http://www.google(dot)com/remove.html#exclude_pages

Make sure NOFOLLOW is in the content field and google won't index the links to add page rank to those sites.

Google's refusal to filter its content with top-down editorial decisions is a miracle in my opinion, and the fact that Google is now an important, mainstream media outlet makes this policy even more remarkable. The fact that Google offers access to odious viewpoints is a sign that it doesn't take itself to be another private custodian of public thought. We already have Viacom, Newscorp, etc. providing that service.

The low page rank of the top listed site is both an indication that the comments asking "Who searches for jew?" are right and an explanation why google bombing would be possible. But it also means that gaming the system may not have been necessary in the first place. It is simply not a very competitive search in the first place. Thankfully, this is not mainstream material. I think one should be careful before accepting conspiracy theories when they are not really required to explain the phenomenon.

While the search result is unpleasent to say the least it is also hard to do something about as long as search is at all possible - any number of alterations of the term jew could have been used instead with the same news story as a consequence.

Somehow this link bomb doesn't come up anymore.

Jew Watch

Fun with Google.

Google recently posted an explanation of their results and policies with specific reference to this issue:

Google: An explanation of our search results

FYI:

"Jew Watch", Google, and Search Engine Optimization
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/google/jew-watch.php

Abstract: This report examines issues surrounding the high ranking of
an anti-semitic website, "JewWatch.com" for searches on the word
"Jew". The search results present complex issues of unintended
consequences and social dilemmas.

get over it. find smoething better to do you tools. google doesn't give a fuck, and neither does the rest of the world.

hang those kikes

and to think Google is run by jews! I was more offended by the redistribution of the wealth of the United States to start a war based on lies and protection for the little KIKE state, diverting funds for basic infrastructure upgrades in the U.S. earmarked by congress, robbed by a U.S. president whose face is so brown from sticking his nose so far up Sharons ass that he looks like one of the wetbacks he allowed into the country at the behest of hook nosed kikes in 1965.

Death to Jews!

i hate jewish ppl hail hitler

Hmmmm, let's see...

Jews own Google.

Jews own 4 out of 5 of the major News Corporations (Murdoch owns Fox).

Jews own Hollywood.

Jews own every bank.

What's not to like?

i hate jewish ppl hail hitler
Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2006 10:46 AM

me too! Lol~

i hate jewish ppl hail hitler
Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2006 10:46 AM
my opinion is same as you