Comments on: Wikipedia Scrubs Negatives From Obama Entry, Bans Users http://www.onebigdog.net/wikipedia-scrubs-negatives-from-obama-entry-bans-users/ "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" Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:27:03 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Big Dog http://www.onebigdog.net/wikipedia-scrubs-negatives-from-obama-entry-bans-users/comment-page-1/#comment-128136 Big Dog Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:23:36 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=5809#comment-128136 My reality. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093/" rel="nofollow">Go here and vote</a>, then tell me about reality. And this is PMSNBC My reality.

Go here and vote, then tell me about reality.

And this is PMSNBC

]]> By: Big Dog http://www.onebigdog.net/wikipedia-scrubs-negatives-from-obama-entry-bans-users/comment-page-1/#comment-128123 Big Dog Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:36:43 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=5809#comment-128123 No, I substituted what was fact in 1/09. There is no doubt that Google helped the guy financially and otherwise. That is all well and good though I think it should have been looked at as a campaign contribution. The MSM and the libs are looking out for the guy because he has no experience and it shows. I have more leadership experience than he and could do a better job. No, I substituted what was fact in 1/09.

There is no doubt that Google helped the guy financially and otherwise. That is all well and good though I think it should have been looked at as a campaign contribution.

The MSM and the libs are looking out for the guy because he has no experience and it shows. I have more leadership experience than he and could do a better job.

]]> By: Adam http://www.onebigdog.net/wikipedia-scrubs-negatives-from-obama-entry-bans-users/comment-page-1/#comment-128122 Adam Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:34:34 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=5809#comment-128122 Once again you reject reality and substitute your own... Once again you reject reality and substitute your own…

]]> By: Big Dog http://www.onebigdog.net/wikipedia-scrubs-negatives-from-obama-entry-bans-users/comment-page-1/#comment-128120 Big Dog Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:52:40 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=5809#comment-128120 The reality is, it took them years to decide they were bad and then redirect them (usually to stories about what they are). Google backed the guy and reportedly helped <a href="http://www.onebigdog.net/obama-website-cover-up-is-google-helping/" rel="nofollow">scrub cached pages</a> that were unflattering. Why do you suppose Google waited years to decide to stop them? Why did it happen during the time Obama was busy running for president? However, if they fixed it why does <a href="http://searchengineland.com/yahoo-obama-is-a-miserable-failure-16286" rel="nofollow">this article</a> from 1/09 discussing the GB that directs to Obama and why can you click the Yahoo link on miserable failure and get Obama and Bush. I mean, if they fixed it then it should not be there. Seems that it was still there 2 months ago which means though they are quick to help bam bam out, they were not that quick to help George. The reality is, it took them years to decide they were bad and then redirect them (usually to stories about what they are).

Google backed the guy and reportedly helped scrub cached pages that were unflattering.

Why do you suppose Google waited years to decide to stop them? Why did it happen during the time Obama was busy running for president?

However, if they fixed it why does this article from 1/09 discussing the GB that directs to Obama and why can you click the Yahoo link on miserable failure and get Obama and Bush.

I mean, if they fixed it then it should not be there.

Seems that it was still there 2 months ago which means though they are quick to help bam bam out, they were not that quick to help George.

]]> By: Adam http://www.onebigdog.net/wikipedia-scrubs-negatives-from-obama-entry-bans-users/comment-page-1/#comment-128118 Adam Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:25:56 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=5809#comment-128118 Four years is not true either way. It took Google 2 years for to decide Google bombs were a bad thing and developed and algorithm to limit them. Now any Google bomb will quickly get removed regardless of what the nature of the phrase is. You're drawing conclusions that are simply based on your personal perception, not in reality. Four years is not true either way. It took Google 2 years for to decide Google bombs were a bad thing and developed and algorithm to limit them. Now any Google bomb will quickly get removed regardless of what the nature of the phrase is. You’re drawing conclusions that are simply based on your personal perception, not in reality.

]]> By: Big Dog http://www.onebigdog.net/wikipedia-scrubs-negatives-from-obama-entry-bans-users/comment-page-1/#comment-128117 Big Dog Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:47:59 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=5809#comment-128117 Sorry I could not reply here. I figured the question was a bit of sarcasm but wanted to provide the source... Sorry I could not reply here. I figured the question was a bit of sarcasm but wanted to provide the source…

]]> By: Big Dog http://www.onebigdog.net/wikipedia-scrubs-negatives-from-obama-entry-bans-users/comment-page-1/#comment-128115 Big Dog Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:44:00 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=5809#comment-128115 It took 4 years for Google to get rid of the Bush GB and a few days for the Obama one... It took 4 years for Google to get rid of the Bush GB and a few days for the Obama one…

]]> By: Adam http://www.onebigdog.net/wikipedia-scrubs-negatives-from-obama-entry-bans-users/comment-page-1/#comment-128114 Adam Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:30:51 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=5809#comment-128114 Google took <a href="http://searchengineland.com/google-kills-bushs-miserable-failure-search-other-google-bombs-10363" rel="nofollow">care of all google bombs a few years ago</a> so removing this one had very little to do with it being about Obama. This is exactly why Wikipedia will never have credibility. You simply don't have the same kind of peer review that other research sources do. Biases make it through all the time both in the content that they allow and the content they remove. Google took care of all google bombs a few years ago so removing this one had very little to do with it being about Obama.

This is exactly why Wikipedia will never have credibility. You simply don’t have the same kind of peer review that other research sources do. Biases make it through all the time both in the content that they allow and the content they remove.

]]> By: Kris http://www.onebigdog.net/wikipedia-scrubs-negatives-from-obama-entry-bans-users/comment-page-1/#comment-128110 Kris Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:18:58 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=5809#comment-128110 I'm not surprised by anything anymore. Obama must be left up on the pedestal even as the country is beginning to see the error of its ways in electing him. He'll be treated with kid gloves for his entire time in office. We'd better just get used to it. I’m not surprised by anything anymore. Obama must be left up on the pedestal even as the country is beginning to see the error of its ways in electing him. He’ll be treated with kid gloves for his entire time in office. We’d better just get used to it.

]]> By: Victoria http://www.onebigdog.net/wikipedia-scrubs-negatives-from-obama-entry-bans-users/comment-page-1/#comment-128107 Victoria Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:06:31 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=5809#comment-128107 I know what you meant by that Big Dog. I just meant that I know what a liar and phony Obama is and that he is absolutely in no way pro-life, pro-American, pro-troops, or pro-anything but pro-spending-this-country-into-oblivion. I know what you meant by that Big Dog. I just meant that I know what a liar and phony Obama is and that he is absolutely in no way pro-life, pro-American, pro-troops, or pro-anything but pro-spending-this-country-into-oblivion.

]]>