Comments on: Google Explanation Lacks Truth http://www.onebigdog.net/google-explanation-lacks-truth/ "Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls. Don't ever argue with the Big Dog because the Big Dog is always right" Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:14:18 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Adam http://www.onebigdog.net/google-explanation-lacks-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-144089 Adam Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:11:06 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8401#comment-144089 Well Blake, Google said "we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it" and Big Dog has not proven his exertion they do actually do it. So, that's why I'm having a hard time understanding it. Are you following me? But maybe since you've got such a strong handle on the subject of search engine technology you'd like to clue me in. I'm glad though that you measure my level of honesty based on my ability to admit to something Big Dog has not proven. What we need is lot more political hacks in the world like you... Well Blake, Google said “we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it” and Big Dog has not proven his exertion they do actually do it.

So, that’s why I’m having a hard time understanding it. Are you following me? But maybe since you’ve got such a strong handle on the subject of search engine technology you’d like to clue me in.

I’m glad though that you measure my level of honesty based on my ability to admit to something Big Dog has not proven. What we need is lot more political hacks in the world like you…

]]> By: Blake http://www.onebigdog.net/google-explanation-lacks-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-144085 Blake Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:44:03 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8401#comment-144085 If Google says that they do NOT do something, but it can be proven that THEY TRULY DO THAT THING, then they have lied- How hard is that concept for you to grasp, Adam? And if they did this thing to get Barry elected, and other sites also did this, it is a true conspiracy. At the least they lied- even you should admit this, if you are honest. If Google says that they do NOT do something, but it can be proven that THEY TRULY DO THAT THING, then they have lied- How hard is that concept for you to grasp, Adam?
And if they did this thing to get Barry elected, and other sites also did this, it is a true conspiracy.
At the least they lied- even you should admit this, if you are honest.

]]> By: Adam http://www.onebigdog.net/google-explanation-lacks-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-144004 Adam Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:23:14 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8401#comment-144004 I'm not really getting the conspiracy aspect of this. There is no evidence that this was censorship or even intentional, just the anger and frustration of those with the blocked accounts, all of which were returned to service. Google has not lacked truth in any of the ways you've suggested. I’m not really getting the conspiracy aspect of this. There is no evidence that this was censorship or even intentional, just the anger and frustration of those with the blocked accounts, all of which were returned to service. Google has not lacked truth in any of the ways you’ve suggested.

]]> By: Big Dog http://www.onebigdog.net/google-explanation-lacks-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-144003 Big Dog Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:19:05 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8401#comment-144003 Seems to me that Google would check it out first. I clicked the link on a number of pro Obama Blogger sites and they were not deactivated while being checked as Spam... <a href="http://bloggasm.com/whos-responsible-for-shutting-down-a-number-of-anti-obama-blogspot-accounts" rel="nofollow">Hmmm...</a> <a href="http://ancavge.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/google-and-blogger-shut-down-sibel-edmonds%E2%80%99-blog/" rel="nofollow">Hmmm again...</a> Seems to me that Google would check it out first. I clicked the link on a number of pro Obama Blogger sites and they were not deactivated while being checked as Spam…

Hmmm…

Hmmm again…

]]> By: Adam http://www.onebigdog.net/google-explanation-lacks-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-143989 Adam Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:54:25 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8401#comment-143989 They aren't removing content from Blogger because of unpopularity either way. I can find one instance of a series of interrelated anti-Obama blogs being disabled because of spam triggers but restored later after a stink was raised. You cite sources yourself showing Google has been working on defeating Google bombs since 2007. You're imaginary view of a Google corp that is in the tank for Obama and alters their search engine code to help him is kind of silly. They aren't saying content is so important that they would not remove it. They were speaking specifically about search engine results and you have provide no evidence of them being untruthful in any other manor. They aren’t removing content from Blogger because of unpopularity either way. I can find one instance of a series of interrelated anti-Obama blogs being disabled because of spam triggers but restored later after a stink was raised.

You cite sources yourself showing Google has been working on defeating Google bombs since 2007. You’re imaginary view of a Google corp that is in the tank for Obama and alters their search engine code to help him is kind of silly.

They aren’t saying content is so important that they would not remove it. They were speaking specifically about search engine results and you have provide no evidence of them being untruthful in any other manor.

]]> By: Big Dog http://www.onebigdog.net/google-explanation-lacks-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-143987 Big Dog Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:40:11 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8401#comment-143987 The impression they give is that they do not remove something because it is unpopular. They do as evidenced by Blogger. They removed the Bomb for Barry very quickly. The point is that they have a history of removing search results and other items that are unpopular. They are not truthful. The idea that content is so important that they would not remove it is wrong. Search or otherwise. The impression they give is that they do not remove something because it is unpopular. They do as evidenced by Blogger.

They removed the Bomb for Barry very quickly.

The point is that they have a history of removing search results and other items that are unpopular.

They are not truthful.

The idea that content is so important that they would not remove it is wrong. Search or otherwise.

]]> By: Adam http://www.onebigdog.net/google-explanation-lacks-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-143986 Adam Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:22:47 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8401#comment-143986 I'm still not getting your point. We've both said they were talking about search engines and not blogger so where do you get the lack of truth? On what do you base the idea that they changed the google bomb only because of Obama? I’m still not getting your point. We’ve both said they were talking about search engines and not blogger so where do you get the lack of truth? On what do you base the idea that they changed the google bomb only because of Obama?

]]> By: Big Dog http://www.onebigdog.net/google-explanation-lacks-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-143980 Big Dog Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:17:00 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8401#comment-143980 There is no allegedly about it. The statement while dealing with search results (which I pointed out by the way) is a confirmation that Google does not remove content because it is omportant to them and their integrity. I point out that they do remove content as with Blogger, as when they remove certain sites from search resuults and page rankings and as when they played with the Bombs. You claim the change was in the way displayed. Not so. For many years the Bush bomb remained. It was changed to display what a GB was in 2007 and used the Bush one as an example (also the WMD not found one and the Dumb Mother effer one) but then some folks changed the GB to Obama bam a few days after he took office and bam the algorithm was changed and the results were changed blah blah. They are in the tank for Obama and that is fine but they should just say it and move on. There is no allegedly about it. The statement while dealing with search results (which I pointed out by the way) is a confirmation that Google does not remove content because it is omportant to them and their integrity. I point out that they do remove content as with Blogger, as when they remove certain sites from search resuults and page rankings and as when they played with the Bombs. You claim the change was in the way displayed. Not so. For many years the Bush bomb remained. It was changed to display what a GB was in 2007 and used the Bush one as an example (also the WMD not found one and the Dumb Mother effer one) but then some folks changed the GB to Obama bam a few days after he took office and bam the algorithm was changed and the results were changed blah blah.

They are in the tank for Obama and that is fine but they should just say it and move on.

]]> By: Adam http://www.onebigdog.net/google-explanation-lacks-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-143969 Adam Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:03:58 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8401#comment-143969 Feel free to ignore my comments. They aren't directed at you anyway but rather the authors of this site. Since it's getting tiresome it must be time for your nap. Feel free to ignore my comments. They aren’t directed at you anyway but rather the authors of this site. Since it’s getting tiresome it must be time for your nap.

]]> By: victoria http://www.onebigdog.net/google-explanation-lacks-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-143967 victoria Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:42:19 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8401#comment-143967 I believe Big Dog already answered your question in his article, however, you cannot accept the point. So could you please spare us the, "Am I missing something here?" It really does get tiresome. I believe Big Dog already answered your question in his article, however, you cannot accept the point. So could you please spare us the, “Am I missing something here?” It really does get tiresome.

]]>