Is Google Showing Political Bias with Search Results?

Favoring Positive Obama Results and Negative Bush Ones?

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:

[ Life]

There are people who think Google is incorporating political bias into search results. As examples they use misspellings of George Bush and Barack Obama. Are the results of misspelled queries really something Google would take the time to specifically alter to inject their political beliefs though?

Search for Barack Aboma in Google and you will get a "Did you mean: barack obama" suggestion, and the top 2 results for Barack Obama:

Barack Aboma search results

Search for George Busch and you won’t get any suggestions:

George Busch search results

You will just get stuff like Bush getting a shoe thrown at him and "George Busch is a Fascist" t-shirts.

This has led some to speculate that Google is showing its political bias. Top executives with the company were very open about supporting Barack Obama during his presidential campaign. Eric Schmidt even appeared in Obama’s 30 minute infomercial. This surely only adds to the speculation.

"So what is this all about?" asks someone under the handle Discovery on Search Engine Watch’s Forum. "Obama who Google endorses has all negative pictures, negative sites and negative videos completely removed and his self promoting website put in their place while at the same time George Busch has every single nasty photo, nasty attack site and video presented with NO alterations by Google’s editors to direct searchers to what they deem a more relevant site?"

Is this what is really going on though? You may get the suggestion of a correct spelling with "Aboma," but there are still negative results in the "Aboma" listings. Stuff like "Will Barack Aboma Try To Destroy America?" Further more, if I search for George Bushl, I get a suggestion for "George Bush" and his top 2 results, which are links to his Wikipedia page and to the White House. And the George Bushl results aren’t that bad either.

George Bushl search results

Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Roundtable, who  makes it clear he doesn’t think Google is doing any biasing, thinks it is more a bias of the American people and the results are simply a reflection of that. "But is there more going on?" he asks.

Perhaps Google just doesn’t have its algorithm fine-tuned to eliminate political bias for every possible misspelling of every possible search. And frankly, they’ve probably got more important issues to worry about than providing the best results for erroneous searches. I personally would rather see them continue to improve search for correctly spelled queries.

Is Google Showing Political Bias with Search Results?
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • Scott

    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.

  • http://www.obama-mamas.com/blog Guest

    That’s the question. And why is Wiki always in the top 5, along with the biggest corporations. Why do my Google rankings go up when I put more money into google ad key phrases. I could care less about their political views as long as they aren’t burying news stories. I do care about them pushing the little guy out of the search results.

  • http://wehner.org Charles Douglas Wehner

    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

  • santa

    Oh, Please. Can we find something more productive to do with our time?

    I just did your experiment and got the same results. I can think of three reasons why this happens.

    1. There are only 1500 pages with ‘Barack Aboma’ versus 325,000 pages with ‘George Busch’. If I was a computer algorithm, I might conclude that the second search was a legitimate term and not feel the need for an alternate.

    2. Couple that with the obvious popularity coefficient that ‘Barack Obama’ was probably the highest-Googled subject for the last six to eight months, and again the computer might assume a mis-spelling.

    3. Plus, ‘Obama’ contains all the letters in the mis-spelled ‘Aboma’, where “Bush” does not contain a ‘c’, and the term “busch” is a legitimate search term in its own right.

    • Guest

      Agreed. Find something more productive to do with your time.

    • Herb

      It’s obvious that Republicans are horrible at SEO, that’s all 😉

  • mrs. santa

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

    See here:

  • http://www.snerdey.com Snerdey

    Maybe this could just be fuzzy logic. Could it be that Google’s machine is taking over the web kinda like Lawnmower Man :)


    Well, newspapers do this all the time. The editor tends to be on one side of the fence and the paper reflects that by how large the article is on whoever is in the news.

    I do believe that search results should not be altered and suggestive “did you means” surely are hand coded for the most part otherwise you would get all kinds of bad suggestions. But lets face it typo’s are all over the web and this is Google’s way of teaching people how to spell or at least pay attention.

    Either way it’s Google’s toy and if they want to lean to the left or right it’s up to them. It’s up to us to use Google or not.. so far it’s 92% of our traffic to our website comes from them so I’m good with it.

  • Guest

    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.

  • Jennifer

    Google did sponsor a fantastic event at its DC headquarters last night (Wednesday) with Rebuild the Party and Patrick Ruffini. Bias may have been present but wasn’t evident.

  • http://hubpages.com/hub/greatdepression Robert

    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.

    • Whipnet

      You can get page 1 for any topic on all search engines, no exceptions? Really?

      You can muscle Google and their lawyers around? Really?

      And Google owed you that for what reason?

      I call BS.


      • http://hubpages.com/hub/greatdepression Robert

        I am honestly. And no not all page 1, some only make it to 2 or 3. Believe me lazy people can not understand how I do It. I doubt if many people work 17 hour days 7 days a week. I know with all the crap on the Internet you can’t believe anything you read, but all that matters to me is I know that my hard labor and study pays off. And another thing, I am not like your common American who just lays down and lets others walk all over them. I will fight anyone that’s wrong. I may lose a lot of battles, but once in awhile I do win. Maybe people are so used to losing that they can not believe it when someone actually wins against the machine.

    • Guest

      I wouldn’t doubt at all that Google is biased since Schmidt, the CEO, is an Obama supporter.

  • http://www.ezprintsolutions.com Lawnmower Man

    Greetings humans in our cyber realms. Our records show that the words ‘Lawnmower Man’ were used. Please refrain from taunting our super cyber defense system..also, we’d like to know how you know about the virtual Lawnmower Man Internet take over? :)

  • http://www.firmalatter.dk Ejvind

    If there is anything that we can all be absolutely certain about, it is the fact tha NOone is being “objective” it simply isn’t possible. Not even for a search engine. As always “You find what you look for”

  • bj

    Come on, this is ridiculous! George Bush was without a doubt the worst President ever, there were thousands upon thousands of websites that slammed him, quoted his Bushisms, and otherwise made fun. If anything, I think Google did pretty well overcoming some of the bias if there was as much as a single “real” webpage, ie from an official source or the mainstream press, that came up in the first page of results for Bush.

    As to the spelling, I think most people can spell Bush right by now, so that is a totally specious theory.

    • James

      Actually I think most people could spell Bush before he was president. Hell it is a real simple English word.

      Well I hope most people could spell bush, if not they are really stupid.

  • James

    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.

  • http://urksoutpost.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    That’s just ludicrous. Clearly whoever made this accusation would rather chew on sour grapes than learn how Google works. It’s no surprise to anyone who understands the concept of organic backlinks that Dubyas search results are so poor.

  • Sam

    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.

    • Tim

      Your sycophantic praise of Bush is irrelevant to this conversation. It’s not about whose better, it’s about whether Google skews results.

      Please don’t use this as a Forum for your political views.

      Frankly, if you know how Google really works you will understand the comments above that describe how Google reports on WHAT PEOPLE POST AND LOOK FOR.

  • mahcheese

    If you believe Google is showing political bias on search engine results, then you need to “delete your internet” and break the AOL CD that came with your DELL because you are officially too stupid to be on the Internet.

    The reason you don’t get a “did you mean….” for George Busch is because Busch is a common word (i.e. beer, amusement park, people) so Google just didn’t think you mispelled it; And it is exactly why you DO get a “did you mean….” for George Buch, or any actual mis-spellings.

    As for more negative results for George Bush than Barack Obama is because Bush has been around for 8 years being a complete clown, so that gave people a lot of time to put up a lot of pages about him – positive or negative.

    Barack Obama is a relatively “new” to the Internet – (ask yourself at what point did his name start getting a high volume of searches…. compared to Bush), so obviously as time approaches infinity, there will be more results, positive or negative, about him. Granted, Obama’s team has done well with keeping a positive image on the Internet, as they seem to be more savvy with computers than any Republican I have ever met and have a large number of supporters on this here Interweb.

    So, If he (Obama) screws up for the next 4 years, then you can bet that there will be more negative results about him at that time… not just the stupid ignorant garbage posted by Republicans about how Obama is a terrorist or a Muslim radical or whatever they come up with to fool mindless white middle America.

    WAKE UP WHITE PEOPLE, stop being so ignorant.

  • http://www.netnettech.com Steve D

    Yes Google is biased and has made it clear enough. However, I don’t know if this results in the outcome of search results. I do know the corporate line is Democratic. They backed Obama and were not timid about announcing that. As far as I concerned, companies should be like entertainers. “SHUT UP AND SING!”

  • http://howrank.com mkoenig

    Are there any positive G Bush results?

    I mean really.

  • Denaia

    If you think Google is not politically biased – then you are living in a cave with no means of contact with reality.
    If you think Google cannot filter content displayed when conducting a search – you are not staying current with Google’s ventures.
    Think China – think censorship of content for citizens of China – think of Google and their courtship of China. This is just one teeny example.
    So – rather than blindly following your electronic search engine god Google – do some data collection, analyze it without bias and try to think for yourself.

  • http://www.realstudio.ro/ web design timisoara

    i do not think that google adopted such a strategy, since there was no need for this. and the misspelled names where chosen here by chance, the possibilities are infinite. but the issue is still open to debate, since it becomes very clear that mass manipulation is soooooo easy!

  • Silent Dogood

    I’m certain that for certain keywords/phrases that Google does fix search results that will benefit them (their products, services, etc.). This I know for a fact. I won’t say that they are doing it with regards to political bias, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

  • Adam Lefever

    The general consensus on the Internet is this: People hate George W Bush.

    Therefore, naturally the negative stuff is going to be the most relevant aside from anything “official”. Do you really expect that GOOD things to pop up for GB Jr.? Seriously. This is common sense in Search. Learn how Google works.

    Obama is the Messiah Supreme right now. With all of liberal media and half the freaking Internet behind him, of course it all looks good.

    There is no evidence or even reasonable cause to blame Google staff’s political beliefs for what appears for these people.

    Wait until the $800 billion deficit spending package flops over the next few years and we realize that our children are being forced to pay for it…then look at the Google results.

  • http://www.web1.co.nz Peter

    What does google do?
    It produces search engine results that people want (otherwise it would not have the market share it does).
    How does it do it? One small thing, is that it takes into account what people search for by volume.
    The idiot example given by Scott above is because the phrase was manipulated by “bombing” the word by people (its not hard – just takes a whole lot of people to make it happen) – not google

  • http://www.linkage.nl/ Erick S.

    I was wondering…In the mentioned examples with Obama and Bush…Isn’t the fact that the word ‘Obama’ or ‘Aboma’ (or whatever missspellings you can think of) just doesn’t mean anything?

    When searching for ‘Bush’ there could also be other things between the search results that are called/known as ‘Bush’, besides the horrible man we all came to dislike.

    So when asked ‘Did you mean…’ they should actually ask ‘Did you mean the old president, or maybe Kate or a bush you can hide behind?’.

    With ‘Obama’ misspellings it is more logical to expect a ‘Did you mean…’question.

    So I think Google isn’t biased in this example. But you never know of course..

    • Guest

      The Bush bashing “besides the horrible man we all came to dislike” has become tedious sophomoric blather. Let’s stick to the question at hand. Yes, there does seem to be some level of politicization (is this a word?) going on but, if you know what you are looking for, you will just do the search again (maybe on another engine-Google watch out).

  • Mike

    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.

  • http://www.astuterecorder.com Judy

    You mean people are actually saying positive things about Bush?

  • Guest

    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?

  • Guest

    I personally think this is something that no one can do anything about if they are.


  • Objectivist_Barcoded ###-##-####

    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.

    • Peter

      Maybe it’s just that liberal people on average are more internet savvy than conservatives. So their thoughts are more around on the internet.

      George Bush wasn’t know for his presidency, he was know for the funny stuff. Just like Clinton, who is mostly remembered for ….. you know what.

      The state of the network in the White House when Obama entered was so bad, it was like going back to 2001. How ridiculous is that? Just proves that the internet is still something new to the republicans.

      • Guest

        “Maybe its just that liberal people on average are more internet savvy”?

        That’s about as asinine of a statement I have every heard–do you have statistics to back that claim up with? Come on now.

        Maybe its because liberal people are more likely to just accept everything for face value because they are so damn squishy-minded and gullible! Hah!

        The Internet is nothing new to a whole lot of people, but that doesn’t mean they have to use it or like to use it. Does that make them any less intelligent? There are a lot of college professors who refuse to use the internet for their research or allow their students to use the internet for research.

        And the White House, just like any other public entity, runs on a BUDGET. Perhaps they decided to spend money elsewhere rather than try to overload the population with information and daily blog entries about what the President did this morning. Obama on the other hand is a media rock-star and he uses that to his advantage because he’s a pretty face and people listen to pretty faces. Where as Bush’s image was less likable and the White House decided the less people see of him, the better. It’s all about IMAGE and PERCEPTION–and that is what the Internet does to people. It controls their minds through imagery and well-crafted prose that will sway them one direction or another–in small increments–so you don’t realize you have been sucked in until its too late. Wake up–you’re in the Matrix.

      • Guest

        I’m going to press charges against you for a hate crime.

    • Joanne

      Which catagory do you fall in?

      Arrogance sucks.

  • Peter IMC

    Crap, these kind of articles keep showing up,.. nothing but seeking another hype about nothing. It’s these kind of articles that make me rethink if I should stay subscribed to the newsletter.

    • Peter IMC

      This Google behavior is NORMAL.

      Look at this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gearge+bush&btnG=Search

      This of course PROVES that Google is extremely in favor of the republican party.

      get real.

  • Guest

    I’m writing a book on this subject…………YOU BETTER BET they are doing it. I could show you a thousand examples just to start. They are as guilty as Wikipedia. Why don’t you do a similar search for both presidents in Wikipedia. What do you come away with after reading both bios? It’s very predictable.

    The commenter who said Yahoo does the same thing is exactly right. Look at the selection of news used on Yahoo News or Google News. Look at archives of both from during the election. If you want to see bias and examples of unquestionable bias, you will find it. You can find the same thing by looking in any AARP newsletter or quarterly magazine, large blogs like Boing, Boing or any national news organziations web site. The bias is everywhere and it taints everything that people believe to be true.

  • http://www.euphoric-graphicdesign.info/ Donald

    Goggle is a corporation, hence a business, and is run by humans and this means that there will be a bias one way or the other.

    Businesses and Corporations all look at what is best to benefit them and what the bottom line is, especially in a time of recession. They conceder taxes and profits to lead them which direction to go business wise.

    The human factor, all humans are bias to a point, it is the nature of people. Some are more bias and some are less bias but no matter what we would like to think there is no person without. Conceder this, if a house was burning and your mother, father and other two other family members were trapped and you only had time to save one or two at the most, leaving two of to a certain death, which two would you save? You would be bias to the two that you save.

    Now, humans programs search engines so there will always be a bias, maybe not intended to be there but there will be one just the same. And the Goggle is a corporation and will go what is best for the business.
    It is just the way of human nature and business so yes there is a bias.

  • http://www.euphoric-graphicdesign.info/ Donald

    Goggle is a corporation, hence a business, and is run by humans and this means that there will be a bias one way or the other.

    Businesses and Corporations all look at what is best to benefit them and what the bottom line is, especially in a time of recession. They conceder taxes and profits to lead them which direction to go business wise.

    The human factor, all humans are bias to a point, it is the nature of people. Some are more bias and some are less bias but no matter what we would like to think there is no person without. Conceder this, if a house was burning and your mother, father and other two other family members were trapped and you only had time to save one or two at the most, leaving two of to a certain death, which two would you save? You would be bias to the two that you save.

    Now, humans programs search engines so there will always be a bias, maybe not intended to be there but there will be one just the same. And the Goggle is a corporation and will go what is best for the business.

    It is just the way of human nature and business so yes there is a bias. Or just ask yourself, if I you ran a business would I go the way that would lessen your bottem line?

  • Guest

    If you spell Barack Aboma and get a suggestion than try to spell George Bash and you get the same thing. Don’t read stupid stuff into everything.

    • Guest

      It wouldn’t surprise me in the least that any media type is biased against conservatives. I have not researched Google in this instance, but liberalism has penetrated every aspect of our lives. If you are not aware of this, you have not been paying any attention. Take Sarah Palin as a prime example of what a media outlet will do to a person. It is getting ridiculous. I have stripped TV out of my life for this reason (liberal or conservative) because I am tired of being told what to think. If other outlets start to do this to, I will have to find more appropriate things to do with my time.

  • http://www.searchen.com John Colascione

    Seems sort of rediculous that this would even be considered as done intentionally….

  • Jimi

    You all need to read that post above:

    “delete your internet

    If you believe Google is showing political bias on search engine results, then you need to “delete your internet” and break the AOL CD that came with your DELL because you are officially too stupid to be on the Internet……..”

    READ IT.

    This sounds like some angry rightwingers are trying to ‘troll’ by even bringing this up!

    Jesus- people act like children when they dont get their way!
    For MONTHS- you could google Obama and get ‘muslim’, ‘terrorist’, etc.

    Its PEOPLE that drive this!


    GROW UP!

    • JessWonderin

      You mean us people reading ALL those articles about the Bush FAILED Administration CAUSED the “relevancy and importance” to actually SCORE HIGHER RESULTS??? Maybe we should just ignore those facts about the corruption and illegal acts and NOT read them so the Google won’t make them ride the tubes higher up on the internets looks . . . .

  • Guest

    I wouldn’t doubt that political bias exists but don’t think that suggesting that something is misspelled is indicative of it. Google constantly suggests alternate spellings for me for things that aren’t political.

  • Speedinbullet

    The political left just can’t help themselves. Their left leaning bias is inescapable and they don’t even realize it. This is because they are so convinced that their euro-centric-enviro-marxist apologist agenda is the correct course for human society, ANY disagreement is considered unacceptable. They are incapable of comprehending an alternative viewpoint no matter what the subject. This myopic view of the world simple clouds their judgement to the point they can justify any means to quash opposition. Get in, sit down, shut up and hang on, we’re in for a bumpy ride.

    • Guest

      Sounds like what just happened with the Republican Disaster for the last eight! Now what? Who’s cleaning that up? The republican leadership sure has proven they can

      • Guest

        Next time don’t extort too much money from Freddy Mack and Fanny Mae. And don’t give houses for free and don’t make the banks to make loans to those who cant’ pay back.

    • Guest

      You are completely right!!! WTF is a typical left moron. George Bush spent about $40 million on his second inauguration and the media blasted him while Obama spent many times more with only praise for the amount spent. The republicans shared control of the committees in congress from ’04-’06 which gave dems equal power and they used it to block investigations of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Then they took control of congress in ’06 to now, but these pseudo intellectual morons on the left still blame everything on George Bush and the republicans. The truth hurts and they can’t handle it, so they try to change history and bury the truth. It’s good to see some conservatives that speak up instead of letting these idiots rant without a response.

  • http://ripsychotherapy.com Mike Adamowicz

    I find it difficult to believe that Google would expend the resources required something this trivial. The cost to their reputation would be great (do no evil goes down the drain). How much impact would these search results have in swaying a person’s vote? Can’t think that it’d be that much. So the potential negatives outcomes are great and the potential positives are minimal. Don’t need an algorithm for that.

  • http://www.google.nl Emanuel

    Well, I guess this is just American bias..
    ’cause if I try “George Busch” with the Dutch version of Google, it does suggest George Bush..

  • http://www.amazing-tarot.com/ Hilda

    I don’t think Google is bias, but I would hope they will be, as it’s partly up to them to help the economy in the US… If Google were republican they would of kill themselves by now with greed. The same way as the Banks and the oil companies did kill the whole world’s stability. To make money is good, but to be blindly greedy doesn’t work.

    • Guest

      You poor naive sap. There are so many examples of liberal corruption if you would only open your eyes. But the larger point here is that Google does discriminate and they are very partisan. When Google loses their ability to be objective and skew search results, then they have lost their soul and in the end will be punished in the marketplace.

  • http://www.cbrich.com Mojo Juju

    Of course there’s going to be tons of negative stuff about George Bush. He was president for 8 years – That’s a lot of time for people to create content that portrays him in a negative way.

    Obama just entered into office and as of about a year ago, most people have never even heard of Obama. Give it some time, there will be plenty of negative Obama stuff in the Google serps.

  • kyle correia

    it does that with every popular search if u search for afcebook.com or fecebook.com it gives u a spelling correction based on popular searches wtf people i thought u people suppose to be web savvy this article was garbage. Stop trying to create controversy to get more people to ur stuff. Or at least say something relevant like how about if u have a blog and u take off google adsense and put on yahoo ads ur viewer and your site drops dramatically talk about something liek that wtf

    • Chris Crum

      I’m guessing you didn’t actually read the entire article.

  • http://www.pinklatexblog.com rusty

    It is aimed in the right direction!

    • Guest

      when it’s YOUR guy who benefits and the folks doing it are ‘right’ in your mind.

      What a scary little nazi you are. People ‘thinking’ like you are exactly what helped bring Hitler into power.

  • http://bootlead.blogspot.com/ Bootlead

    This is bad, very bad, the political will be the end of Google.

  • http://www.myspace.com/serinajk Jennifer Korol

    To think that search engines start to play the role, somewhat of a boughrocrat leader may be possible, which may have a global effect on search engine users everywhere. Since Google Corp. is based in the United States, I take it they are not very mindful of the world around them and how the effect of search results can leave a black mark on the billion dollar G. Not only that, most US citizens are taking it upon themselves to leave the highly political Corporate American arena for something that promises better… self employment and opening up honest businesses. Maybe Google should start concentrating more on that, especially if they are, in fact, supporters of Barack Obama and the Grassroots Movement.

    Thanks for reading,

    Jennifer Korol

  • http://www.aricash.com AriCash Austin Research

    If you think like a sheep then you don’t know what’s going on in the US.

    Obama is CFR member or supported and backed by CFR executives like CNN CEO, Fox CEO and Google CEOs.

    Google is CFR corporate member.

    The reason they choose Obama, it’s because he is the most behave puppet leader to be used as political experiment for the New World Order.

    CFR try to experiment if using their power, media and money they can install a President with half-breed African-American and name sound like a Muslim.

    They will use the result of their experiments to install half-breed Christian-Muslim in Iran so they can conquer Iran’s Oil and Central Bank.

    Obama’s Ultimate Mission is to War Iran!

    Now don’t think like a sheep but instead wake up to reality and improve your CONSCIOUSNESS.

    • Guest

      Your ignorance of “politics” is exceeded by your racism . . . good luck.

  • http://dofollow001.com/ AndyW

    What a ridiculous article – why is there positive coverage or Barack Obama in the Google rankings and negative stories about George Bush?

    Is it slow news day or something?!

    Hellloooo… could it be something to do with the fact that George Bush is the most unpopular president in American history… or even maybe something to do with the fact that Barack Obama has just won the popular vote in a presidential election… hmm… it really is just a mystery…

    • Chris Crum

      The point of the article is that some people think Google is doing this (which I don’t), not that they are doing it.

      • JessWonderin

        “Some people” think Jesus walked with dinosaurs . . . low information “some people” should not drive the content of THIS site of I assume “intelligent people”

        • Chris Crum

          I know. How dare I acknowledge other opinions besides my own right?

    • john

      Most unpopular president in American History?
      Obviously you’ve been learning from text books that espouse the recent left wing rewriting of American history. The Republican President Abe Lincoln was regarded as the worst president and most unpopular in history during his time.
      Turned out history had a different opinion with time. In my lifetime? (I’m 57 years old), Jimmy Carter is by far the worst presidant. An absolute disaster in every aspect. Definitely the least popular by the time he left office.
      I would rate George Bush the second least popular upon leaving office, but with no terrorist attacks on American soil from 9/11/2001 till he left office and taking some very bold moves to change the face of the Middle East. It will take some time to determine if he will be the second worst president during my lifetime.
      Time determines how policies and deeds shape history, not present biases and warped thinking. Just as Obama will be judged in the future even though many have annointed him the Messiah even before he took office. Small minds have small (and very short), memories.

  • Whirlybird

    I’ll fess up like a true American…I am a Republican (got converted years back) and I don’t like what Democrats stand for. That being said, our new President has only the up direction to take things (I hope we don’t go lower)!. That being said, George gets the blame for everything that went “wrong” in the country and the world. Most of it was set in motion years before he even was Governor.

    Additionally the “mutt” is not the first black president! He is half black and half white. If people (just like hackers) purposely post mis-spelled links to take mis-spellers to their sites, they should find out some better use of their time while waiting for the welfare or unemployment check to arrive!

    Lastly, Google, whether bias or not, has to search based on the majority of users that come here looking for results. Remember, if you are of above average intelligence….at least 51% of the country is dumber than you are!


    I found the article quite interesting and EDUCATIONAL.

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter