Google has always been Politically biased and have always “fixed” search results to slam Bush. There have been emails flying around for years showing that if you type in the word “IDIOT”, the first result was George Bush. I bet “The Left Coast” base Google was tickled over that viral effect. We all know Bush was horrible, but it shows that even Google isn’t pure when it comes to it’s search business.

Control of the Press is the central feature of tyrannical government.

The Internet is a new medium, and as yet only partly controlled.

An Internet search engine uses statistical methods to evaluate the most “popular” pages. It is quite possible that the public of the world are dissatisfied with Bush, on balance. Then it would look as if there had been manual tampering by Google.

Obama is as yet untested. The world lives in hope. One would expect an atmosphere of euphoria until – and if – the public become disappointed.

There are two examples of “statistics” on the Microsoft site. One is the “popularity” of “updates”. That is the default setting for this search. However, it is fatally flawed. For example, Vista is delivered broken. “Updates” are used to try to repair it – an impossible task. As the frustrated users get more and more desperate, so the statistics rise with every download. So the “updates” are rated by “popularity”, although this really means “desperation”.

Secondly, the “updates” are rated over time. The older, and least effective ones have had more time to gather “brownie points” for being “popular”. Newer “updates” have to start from scratch.

So one needs to look very closely at the algorithm for “popularity” rating. It may seem superficially to be sensible, but may not be.

Another point is that Vista is a LIAR. One example is that my own, and commercial software, when calling Vista via Function 66, Subfunction 2 got a reply for file-size on a 4.43 megabyte bitmap of -1,285,230,262 bytes. What a whopping lie. Yes, NEGATIVE BYTES.

It seems as if there is a “man in the box” who is lying. In reality, it is a mechanism.

“The engine knows I want it to do this. I say ‘the engine knows’, it is tempting to say this but misleading”….. Charles Babbage.

Charles Douglas Wehner

Scott, that’s not Google politics.
Geez you guys on the right are so eager to be martyrs.

See here:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/defuse-googlebomb/

The internet in general has a bias toward Obama over Bush. What else would you expect? Bush left office in disgrace. Obama is beloved the world over.

I have found that to overcome google bias all you need do is spend a few grand on their adwords each month. The same goes for a website they refuse to list at all in their index, just throw some google adsense on it and you will see a big change. Google loves money more than they hate certain political opinions.

I have two examples of google bias. I posted a press release at prlog title was barack obama elected president by googlebot technology. This release had more hits than any other press release to date. It was listed on google for three days then removed.

On another website i own, I published a page on barack obama, it was listed for two days and then removed. I am an seo and all of my sites make page one two and three of all search engines for all major keywords on a topic, no exceptions. On this particular site every single page is listed, all except my obama page.

The page has heavy traffic, tons of incoming links, full of unique content, no code errors, no spam, several pr 4 and 5 inlinks, on and on. Don’t tell me they are not bias.

On one occasion I had a site removed by google, I figured out a way to actually contact Google, I contacted them and in short told their corp attorneys that if the site was not put back in the index and the natural search positions restored, beginning at such and such time I would begin to charge them $1,000.00 per minute until it was restored. I did not receive a reply, but within a few hours the site was restored.

Bush was around for 8 Years, Obama just came on the scene. Well maybe the anti Bush crowed which has grown a lot in 8 years just does not know how to spell, so they have a lot more misspellings and Google picks that up. Age of a website does help in the search results. Obama was not even on the American lips until 2 Years Ago.

Well unlike most idiots I do not root for the President to do bad, unlike what happened 8 years ago.

For those who can’t understand how complex the last 8 years were because they are so stuck with their heads in the sand, I forgive your ignorance toward our former President.

President Bush accomplished a very difficult task, to keep our country safe and liberate 2 countries that had been oppressed by ruthless dictatorships. He was not a beauty queen looking to be popular as shown by his polls. Obama may be popular but the test will be whether his actions will prevent a terrorist act in the next 4 years.

His first steps to eliminate Guantanamo without a plan should raise red flags. Or maybe we should send those terrorists in Guantanamo to a prison in Washington DC. How will the President feel having terrorists in his backyard.

In addition his actions to make everything public is very dangerous. In times of war against terrorists, loose lips will sink our ship. Obama is an amateur from the city that doesn’t understand the reality of war. I hope he is not waiting for a terrorist act on his watch to finally open his eyes.

Your test included a common misspelling between the 43rd presidents name and a rather gross beer that people were obviously drinking when adding content to the web.

I’m sure Google could do this if they chose to. The question is are they doing it? Who knows, and if they are, how could anyone prove it?

Yahoo does the same thing, and we all know their Republican haters. Why would mainstream internet be any different than all other forms of media out there that are heavily biased and liberal-leaning?

Go get yourself a copy of Ayn Rand’s “Anthem”–its a short and quick read—then you tell me how close you think we are to Rand’s vision of the future. Me thinks we’ve already arrived at the point. Pretty soon people will want to “filter” content for us so that we are ignorant to what is going on around us. Oh wait, that was in the book—but that’s what Google and Yahoo! do already!

Sucks to be a thinking person in a sea full of lemmings.