Talk:Google bomb/Archive 2

Error in Google Algorithm History

The history segment states that one Adam Mathes "discovered" that Google's technique relies heavily on hyperlinks in April 2001. Now, I don't rememeber any exact dates, but in May 2001 I was graduating high school, and by the time I started my senior year, at the latest, Google had their "search ranking by link counts" use posted on their website, not on the front page, but within a click or two of it. Now, maybe this isn't totally erroneous, maybe this guy really did sit down and figure out how Google operates all by himself, but the implication that this was the first anyone had heard of it is incorrect. It was public knowledge, stated by the Google team themselves, at least as early as late-1999.

Google search for bastards

Searching on google for bastards returns a link to SCO. I believe this was caused by slashdot-crowd. I think this should be added...

We already have the entry for "litigious bastards" linking to SCO. Was there a separate attempt to link the single word "bastards"? Or was this just an incidental byproduct of the Googlebombing of the phrase "litigious bastards"? JamesMLane 12:29, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was a seperate instance or due to Google's algorithm, but it's not really that important anyway.

It might be important (or at least worth mentioning) if the SCO Googlebomb was so powerful that it was able to get to the top listing not just for the specific phrase "litigious bastards," but for the much more common unmodified "bastards." I, for one, was very surprised when I did that Google search (in response to the comment here) and found SCO at the top. JamesMLane 23:10, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Redirect war

No more redirect war. "Googlebomb" wins the Google Test, so it's the true article, and "google bombing" now redirects here. Please leave it that way. Thank you.

Sorry about that. It was kind of confusing, as I couldn't tell what was supposed to lead where, or if there was a real article at all. I didn't mean to redirect war--just confusion. I apologize. The article on Googlebomb looks nice, BTW--thanks for your contribution, and clarification. Meelar 05:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dates on google bombs?

Umm, as Google is a dynamic entity, should we include dates with these google bombs? Now when I google for 'failure' i get Michael Moore. Bush is third or something. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:49, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

I think that'd be a good idea. "Waffles" don't work any more for example -- you now get a list with waffle recipes. "failure" yields Bush's bio right now. Along with a date, we could even archive the results using screenshots. I'm sure that a few years from now kerrywaffles.com might be gone ... --CPK 18:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Transient google bombs?

Whereever the comment should be please note that Wikipedia "Jew" displacing "Jew Watch" was rather short lived, seems to be reversed and is too topical to go in this sort of encyclopedia in my humble opinion BozMo

I think it is noteworthy that the campaign succeeded, for however short. And we can always hope that it succeeds in the future. The world needs balanced views to be promoted in favor of bigotry anywhere possible. --ssd 15:28, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well if that campaign was noteworthy what about the others that made the national headlines? The first googlebomb I am aware of was "more evil than Satan" for microsoft at the end of 1999. On your criterion that should go in? BozMo

If more evil than Satan truely was the first, then it needs to go in for that reason alone. I just checked, and the first hit is a CNN article on the googlebomb, so it's at least partially successful still. --ssd 20:08, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note: researched and added. --ssd 20:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, although I struggle with your suggestion that this might have happened "by mistake". The name googlebomb may date from the noughties but the practice was definitely nineties BozMo

Hey, feel free to adjust my wording. I think it was discovered by mistake, not happened by mistake. Obviously, it happened on purpose, because people liked linking to microsoft that way. I guess I'm sort of implying that they didn't do it with the intent of affecting google, although perhaps they did. It's a causality thing--discover bomb then announce it, or announce bomb and make it happen. that's why I put the "may have" in the wording. --ssd 05:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Santorum

Santorum was not a "slander campaign". You can say it was "not very nice" or even "malicious" to name the stuff after this man, and I'd agree (I hate the homophobic rat, but the man has kids) but it wasn't actual slander. Mike Church 21:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ambition

On the Googlebombing related to Ambition (card game) I said "around April" since I could find no evidence of any Googlebombing activity dated March.

I removed the Ambition reference. It is not a significant Googlebomb (e.g. it is reported nowhere). This is a conflict interest between you as a WP contributor and you as the inventor of ambition. (sorry!) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jew

I had re-inserted the mention of Google's "Offensive Search Results" meta-result because, immediately before I made the edit, that item was heading the result list. I just ran the search again with the same result. Perhaps .derf overlooked it because the highlighting that I mentioned is a light blue background that makes the notice blend in with the bar above it that gives the number of hits. At any rate, Ams80 and I both saw it, so it's accurate to see that Google "is...returning" this notice (although maybe not always, for whatever reason). JamesMLane 01:52, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't see it because it got eaten by Proxomitron. Next time, I'll be more thorough. Sorry. --.derf 04:21, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

As of this writing, jew shows the "offensive" banner, has wikipedia in the first slot, and jewatch in slot four!  :) I'd edit the article to reflect the reality, but it gets tedious changing it back over and over. --ssd 04:20, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I swear it was gone when I checked. Maybe it's flaky because it's in the "sponsored links" section? In any case, I've added back the wording to try to be accurate regardless of whether or not it's "currently" there. anthony (see warning) 11:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why would anybody even need to search for "Jew" on Google? One-word searches seem to be useless (to me, at least). Seriously, am I just naive? Armslurp 05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Competition entrants

I am going to replace the links to the websites which are taking part in these googlebombing competitions with links to sites about the competitions. These external links are being repeatedly changed by different people taking part in contests, none being any more worthy of the precious link from Wikipedia than any other as far as I can see. Also I think linking to pages about the competitions will be more informative which I guess is the overall aim of external links. -- Ams80 19:06, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Yahoo bomb

This item has been added to and then deleted from the list of "Accomplished Googlebombs":

• [1] is returned under a search for "douchebag" on Yahoo!.

When I search for "douchebag" on Yahoo!, KPMG does indeed hold the top spot. On Google, though, it's not in the top 120 (all I cared to skim). If there was a deliberate attempt to do a Yahoobomb, exploiting some feature that differs from Google's, it would be worth mentioning in this article, at least until Yahoobombing advances to the point of meriting its own article. Does anyone know anything more about this? (Absent more information, I agree with deleting this entry from the Googlebomb list.) JamesMLane 15:24, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BtnI

I changed the links to add "&BtnI" a while back without asking, this creates the effect of having clicked the "I'm feeling lucky" button - on reflection, I realized it's possible that this could create the appearance that wikipedia is linking directly to whatever site happens to be on top at google any given week. Should these be removed?

[Comment above posted by Random832. To sign your posts, click the "signature" icon in the toolbar above the textbox (second icon from the right), or type ~~~~ which will insert your user name and the date/time.] Personally, I think it would be a good idea to change them back so that it shows the search results so people can clearly see that it's number one or two or whatever (if it's dropped). The way it is now, there's no indication that it's showing you the result from I'm feeling lucky or that it's even showing something from Google at all for that matter. --Chessphoon 19:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reason i made the change originally is i was a bit annoyed that there wasn't any clear indication what the url of the googlebombed page was supposed to be... maybe it would make more sense to add these --Random|832 21:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Berlusconi

I have noticed that the HTML meta tag preventing Google from indexing Italian president Berlusconi's biography has been removed, and that the "miserable fallimento" Googlebomb works again. Should this section therefore be removed or edited to take account of this? --Andrew 13:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've added the well-known "Miserabile fallimento" bomb. I also edited "Buffone" saying it bombs to a unofficial biography. Should we put the "Miserable failure" and "Miserabile fallimento" bombs near? After all, "Miserabile fallimento" is the italian version of that bomb.

// CioDu 14:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Quixtar Corporation is removing criticism

The Quixtar Corporation is "vandalizing" this Wikipedia artice (Google Bomb) by removing all references to its coordinated Google Bomb campaign. On March 4, at 14:07, 14:09 and 16:42, all references to Quixtar were deleted from the article by IP 167.23.0.90 which resolves to Alticor, Quixtar's parent company. A review of the edits made by that IP address show a history of similar deletions on the Quixtar and Amway articles.

Why is a billion dollar corporation vandalizing Wiki? Perhaps they're hiding something?

Yes, could an admin please block this IP. It's still vandalizing the page. Wynler 13:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Quixtar

Hi,

I've flagged this as needing POV attention. I am not associated with Quixtar :-) However, I was reading this article and it reads in a very biased POV way. I think it needs some cleanup.

Agreed. If Quixtar is to be singled out for the googlebomb campaign, the personal and professional opinions on the company show no relevance to the topic. I also have no association with Quixtar--Pbmax 06:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The section also links multiple times to two opinion sites that are run by Quixtar critics, which I believe violates WP:RS. I suspect these folk are engaging in a little google bombing themselves! (for the record, yes I am a Quixtar supporter). I'm going to delete the section, if someone wants to reword it in a neutral way I have no problem with it.

I've removed those citations and cited about.com instead, they are not noted for being a "Quixtar critic".-Seraphimblade 08:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the about.com link? Still links to the critics blogs, have they been changed back again? Is this not a violation of WP:RS? WP:RS exists for a reason, and this is a classic example. The initial blog article cited is titled "Quixtar admits google bombing" which when you read the article is completely false. An independent Quixtar rep. (IBO), not the company, talking to his organisation, says "we" are doing this - the blog author just "assumes" it is the IBO Association doing it. Except even then, the IBO association is a group representative of the IBOs, much like a union - it is not Quixtar. So we have wikipedia quoting a blog, quoting someone talking about an indeterminate "we" that is assumed to be a group that is not the company that is accused in the article and on wikipedia. Furthermore there is also the claim the company "web initiative" included "character assassination" blogs, when the only known blog that even comes remotely close to that description was disavowed by the company and leading representatives and was the work of one anonymous person. The whole section is a blatant hatchet job and self-promotion by those critics sites and quite obviously a violation of WP:RS. --Insider201283 18:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, tracking the orginal article back, it was posted by User:Dhollings on March 3 2005. In his bio this user admits to being in the employ of Eric Scheibeler, a former Quixtar IBO who is involved in a number of lawsuits with Quixtar and promoting a book and website about his disagreements. The sole source for this section of the article is a blog, which is a clear violation of WP:RS. Any reinstatement needs to have acceptable sources and some sort of explanation of why singling out one company for criticism is relevant in the article. --Insider201283 18:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source for you. This is not a blog, it is from USC: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050601glaser/ Seraphimblade 10:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

that articles source is the blog article, and when you read the blog article it is blatantly false - it is based on the hearsay report of what a Quixtar IBO said, and what the IBO said *DOES NOT* say Quixtar was behind any google bombing. It's all hearsay and speculation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Insider201283 (talk • contribs) .

I believe that research from a respected and accredited university does indeed meet the guidelines of WP:RS. However, rather then engaging in a revert war, I would be willing to have a neutral mediator examine the issue. Would this be acceptable to you?Seraphimblade 23:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Research? If only journalism today was based on authentic research. :-/ No offence to Mark Glaser, but in this instance he met Eric Janssen at a seminar and then wrote up what Eric told him, and subsequently had it confirmed by the google entry made by Hollings, who is involved in lawsuits with Quixtar and Quixtar leaders. In all cases they completely confuse "quixtar" the company with "quixtar leaders", the independet business owners. This is a classic example of the Internet Echo Chamber. Entirely apart from this, what on earth makes this particular episode worthy of wikipedia attention? In any case, sure, bring on mediation. --Insider201283 00:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've placed a request for informal mediation. Hopefully we can work this out to our mutual satisfaction, as I believe the Quixtar bomb is important to the subject at hand. Seraphimblade 16:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could always explaining to me, or indeed in the article, why it's important! Particularly given that the information given in the original webraw blog article has patently false information, or at the very least is based entirely on unsupported assumptions, some of which have been flat out denied by the relevant parties - for example the existence of so-called "character assassination" blogs. This is why WP:RS frowns on blogs as sources - it's often unverified opinion. This is one such case. --Insider201283 08:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the importance: Quixtar is a major corporate entity, and any attempt that it may have made at Google bombing would be very important to understanding the use of a Google bomb as a corporate strategy. It's nothing against Quixtar, if Sony or Microsoft took a stab at Google bombing, that would be similarly important. Major corporations almost by definition meet the definition of notable entities. I did think your objections to the use of a blog as a source were valid ones (though I continue to disagree with your blanking the entire section without discussion, I think stating your concerns here and looking for consensus would have been better, and placing a POV flag on the article if you felt it seriously flawed, would have been better), and so I found a source from a major university. That is not a "blog", so the use of blog as source is irrelevant. You may assert that the -university- used a blog as a source as well, which may be true, but they may well have done additional research as well. Finally, I believe an assertion by what amounts to a franchisee -is- a reasonably verifiable source, just as a McDonald's franchise owner likely knows quite a bit about the policies and practices of McDonald's.

I would also like to assert that the university article does meet the criteria of WP:RS. Firstly, it is a secondary source, even if it uses the blog as its only source. Secondly, while this may not be a scholarly, peer-reviewed publication, it is published in the context of a university and published on the university's official website. This means that the article will have undergone vetting for libel and slander, at the very minimum (and if it implicates a major corporation, they look carefully). It is also not original research, of course, though I imagine that is not in dispute. Finally, as stated by WP:RS: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Therefore, your personal dispute as to the facts of the situation, even if you have some evidence for that position, is not sufficient reason to bar inclusion. For these reasons, I assert that the section on Quixtar's Google bomb should be included. Of course, if you feel the wording was inappropriate or misleading, we should refine that to provide an accurate summation of the situation. Seraphimblade 21:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so the threshold is verifiability? Do we have that? No - none at all. As you admit, the sole source for the Glaser article is Quixtar-critic Eric Janssen's QuixtarBlog - http://www.webraw.com/quixtar/archives/2004/10/the_quixtar_web_initiative.php http://www.webraw.com/quixtar/archives/2004/11/quixtar_admits_google_bombing.php In the first article Janssen descrives the whole "Quixtar Web Initiative" but gives not a single source, and in that article he makes statements that have been later challenged as false by Quixtar leaders. In the second, Janssen quotes an "anonymous source" - a report he supposedly received from a Quixtar IBO, not a Quixtar employee, reporting on a speech by Greg Duncan, a Quixtar IBO, at a IBO-run seminar - ie not a seminar run by Quixtar Inc. So far we have not a single person from Quixtar Inc involved. Greg Duncan reportedly says, again this is hearsay, "we now have hired our own geekoids who are spending their time Google bombing (yes, he said "Google Bombing") positive info about Quixtar so that the negative sites will be buried way down at the bottom of the Google list when a prospect types in 'Quixtar.' Nobody will even be able to find the negative sites anymore." So, we have a now thirdhand report that Greg Duncan admits that he and others have "google bombed". At no stage has Quixtar been implicated. Indeed, in Janssen's article he says "he didn't specify "we," but now we know he had a part, I would assume that "we" is the IBOAI board" - so we now have an additional assumption - that the "we" is the IBOAI board. Except again, this is a group of IBOS - it is not Quixtar. So we still have zero implication that Quixtar is involved and all we have his Janssen's original article plus an anonymous confirmation - also reported by Janssen. Furthermore, if we look at his original article, he makes various claims and provides no evidence to back them up. Indeed, one of his claims, that of "character assasination blogs" doesn't stack up at all. I've researched this and can only come up with one that remotely fits this description, and it's the one Janssen links to, by someone calling themselves QRush. One. Not "blogs". Furthermore, the IBOAI, which he claims to be behind it, has explictly denied any part in that blog and stated their displeasure with it. Any verifiability to the claim that Quixtar is behind this? No - indeed not even Janssen himself, despite his blog article titles, even claims it! He claims Quixtar IBOs are behind it, furthermore, the IBOs he accuses have explictly denied some of his claims - ie the single character assassination blog. So, we have zero evidence, or even claims, that Quixtar was behind any "google bombing" attempt and little to no evidence there was any such attempt at all - There is only a blog owners hearsay claims that Quixtar IBOs were behind some attempt - but nothing is provided to verify this, and some of it, entirely apart from it confusing Quixtar Inc with Quixtar IBOs, has been shown to be wrong. Then we can look at the history of the Quixtar section in this article - the original insertion was done by somebody who openly admits in his wikipedia bio to being in the employ of a person involved in lawsuits against Quixtar (Eric Scheibeler)! Finally, look at the definition of "google bombing" in the very wiki article itself - "often with humorous or political intentions", "usually for noncommercial purposes". So in conclusion - 1. there is only one, non-verifiable original source for the information 2. that original source accuses Quixtar IBOs, not Quixtar, of doing the bombing 3. the original author of the article on Wikipedia is self-admittedly in the employ of someone involved in legal disputes with Quixtar 4. even if all the above was not the case, the original claim barely matches the accepted definition of "google bombing", it would simply be a company doing what all companies attempt to do - maximise their search engine rankings. Indeed, Janssen claims google "punished" Quixtar when he advised them of this, but he also admits they were back to normal very quickly - wasn't it the next day? The great majority of the IBO sites Janssen accuses of being part of this "bomb" still exist, so why were they reinstated so quickly? The very reinstatement indicates that google themselves dispute the claim. You might instead want to look at an admitted Quixtar-related google bomb attempt, one that apparently still exists - http://googlebombproject.blogspot.com/2005/12/google-bomb-amwayquixtar.html --Insider201283 23:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that perhaps you misinterpreted some of my positions. Firstly, I fully agree with your concerns on using the blog directly as a source for the WP page. However, this is an obsolete argument-what we are discussing here is the use of a university article as a source. Secondly, I only stated that even if this article used the blog as its sole source, it meets WP:RS while the blog itself does not. I never stated or agreed that this is actually the case as I do not know. However, even if so, the higher level of editorial vetting and control and the non-anonymous nature of its author qualifies the university article as reliable under WP:RS. Of course, if disputes to that claim can be sourced, the fact that the claim is disputed should be included in that section as well. However, the fact that it is disputed (especially that it is disputed by the accused party) does not automatically disqualify inclusion when a reliable source does report that the event occurred. Also, as to the truth of the matter, there is really not a whole lot of separation between the action of a franchisee and the action of the franchisor if the parent corporation does not take steps against the franchisee to, for example, remove their franchise license as a result of the action. Of course, if a source can be found stating that Quixtar disavowed and condemned the actions of the franchisee(s) in this case, we should then state that the Quixtar parent denies involvement and claims that a rogue franchisee was responsible. However, regardless, the very fact you stated (that this is not your usual googlebomb for grins or for politics), is the exact reason why it is notable. I don't imagine that "all companies" go to these lengths to maintain their engine results (though if you can find sources to the contrary, that most companies do, we may need to include that in a broader sense or perhaps rethink the definition itself). However, it does meet the main points of the definition-a deliberate attempt to manipulate search engine results through the creation of a large number of web pages and links. The fact that something doesn't meet a part of a definition prefaced with "usually" does not indicate that it does not fulfill the definition. For example, if we define a "building" as "a man-made structure usually made of a combination of woody plant matter, metal, and/or concrete", that does not imply that an igloo is not a building because it is made of ice and meets none of the "usual" parts-it is simply an unusual building. Seraphimblade 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It would better fit "spamdexing" than google bombing. In any case, to summarise, your argument seems to come down to "a blog for journalists that is supported by a university quoted the original blog, so therefore we have an acceptable source", is that correct? --Insider201283 02:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my position is that the university review site wrote a full piece including (but not limited to) quotes from the blog, including speaking directly to a Quixtar associate (IBO, whatever they call 'em), who attended a meeting and reports directly hearing of official Google bombing attempts. They also quote directly (and non-anonymously!) the person who wrote the blog, in addition to other information. While the university piece quotes the blog, it is not based solely on the blog. And even if it were, it would count as a more reliable source than the blog itself, however, they evidently spoke to many people involved and wrote the piece given the information received, in accordance with journalistic principles. They also attempted to speak to Margaret Ross, one of those implicated in the practice, who declined to make a statement. The article includes not only statements from those involved with the blog in question but also from a Quixtar PR representative explaining their position. Therefore, I stand by my assertion that the university article is an acceptable and reliable source as per WP:RS. And no, not because it quotes the blog, but because it includes statements from all sides and is written in accordance with accepted journalistic practice. Also, spamdexing can be a form of Google bombing, while it may fit there as well the two are not mutually exclusive. Seraphimblade 02:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop referring to it is a "university article" - it is not. The article was written by a journalist and published on a website for online journalists. The website having the support of a university does not somehow miraculous increase the credibility of an individual articles anonymous sources. The anonymous IBO is quite obviously the same anonymous IBO Janssen referred to, and it's like it was "supplied" to glaser by Janssen. In any case - he repeats the same thing - it wasn't even Quixtar claiming to do these things, it was some IBOs. Your claim that because Quixtar hasn't gone out of its way to somehow chastise them for this means they were also behind it is just ludicrous. What remains is Janssen's blog and an anonymous IBO, neither of whom provide any evidence at all regarding Quixtar's involvement in any alleged "google bombing". --Insider201283 03:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I continue to disagree, but I don't think either of us has anything to say now that we've not before. Hopefully the mediation will be able to get us to an acceptable solution. Seraphimblade 05:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I saw this dispute on WP:3O. In the future, please refrain from referring to WP:3O as mediation. For mediation, go to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. WP:3O is for a third opinion. In cases in which a reliable source relies on a blog for their information, the content in that source is still creditable. WP:RS prohibits citing blogs directly because they are considered an unreliable primary source. However, if another, reliable source reports the same information, then the information is valid. The assertion that all info mentioned on a blog is unreliable because it's mentioned on a blog is obviously false. If that were true then one could assert that because Blog "A" said Bush is an American, he's definitely not. As this is an ongoing content dispute, please keep in mind WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR. KazakhPol 00:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

KazakhPol, thanks for your opinion. Sorry for being unclear there, this was referred to mediation as well, as you suggested, however I also put in for a third opinion as the mediator who took the case seems to have lost interest. I see where the confusion resulted though, I should have clarified that and will make sure to do so in the future.

I have been trying to keep in mind WP:CIVIL, and there have been no violations whatsoever to my knowledge of WP:3RR to date. However, if you believe I didn't conduct myself civilly at some point during this debate, please let me know here or on my talk page. I would welcome such suggestions. As your opinion agrees that the secondary source meets WP:RS, I am going to restore the text for now. Insider201283, it would be appreciated if you refrain from deleting such text pending the conclusion and outcome of mediation. If the conclusion there is that it should go I'm still entirely willing to abide by that. Seraphimblade 03:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this hasn't been resolved. One blog made a claim, with no evidence. Another blog repeated it. And that's enough to make it valid? I don't think so. This is information that is effectively slander of a company, it should not be in Wikipedia without some proof. KazakhPol - are you saying that if one blog repeats the claims of another blog, that makes the claims reliable?

I think we should leave in the bit about the anti-Quixtar google bombing, that is sourced as well and seems quite relevant. However, I fail to see the source for the rest of the claims, they seem more to be speculation on your part. As stated earlier, the USC Annenberg site -is- a reliable secondary source, and that's been agreed upon by a neutral third party. I did ensure to include that Quixtar denies the claim and why (though they really don't deny the claim itself so much as assert they did nothing exceptional or wrong, which is what I put), as stated in the Annenberg article, however I don't think the evident attempt to "slam" the publication or methods (without sourcing such criticisms anyway, if those criticisms can be sourced fire away!) meets WP:NPOV. Perhaps we should split this into two sections-the Quixtar bomb section and a new one regarding Quixtar's response? Seraphimblade 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? There is no speculation at all in my version. It was 100% factual. Janssen made a claim. He provided no evidence but his report of an anonymous IBO. His own quotes say that it was a Quixtar IBO talking about Quixtar IBOs doing the "google bombing" - Janssen "assumes" this includes Quixtar itself but provides no evidence at all. The USC site has not been agreed upon as a reliable secondary source. The third party said news sources could be considered as such - the USC site is NOT a news source - you claimed it was and the third party obviously believed you. Read Glaser's profile - he is a "columnist" for that site, not a reporter. Furthermore *anyone* can submit articles to that site - it is a blog by any other name. What you completely and utterly have failed to address is that even Janssen's own article provides zero evidence that Quixtar was behind any "google bombing" attempt. The quote he gave is explicitly from an IBO. Furthermore, if this was a legitimate violation of Googles policies, as Janssen claims, why was Quixtar immediately reinstated without any change to the sites Janssen accuses them of? Finally, even if it was all true, what makes Quixtar deserving of special attention in this article? The Quixtar section was added by a person in the employ of Eric Scheibeler, a disgruntled former Quixtar IBO who is involved in lawsuits with the company. --Insider201283 19:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

To add to my comments earlier...you've specifically stated that blogs are unreliable, but you cited a blogspot page as the source for the anti-Quixtar bombs? I'm afraid this seems a bit inconsistent? I personally think that's fine, at least until a secondary source can be found, but I'm curious why with your stance that blogs are inherently unreliable sources you referenced one? Seraphimblade 16:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you seriously claiming that an actual page by a quixtar critic encouraging people to google bomb and giving instructions on how to do so is not a reliable "source" for a claim that quixtar critics are encouraging people to google bomb? It's not some secondary "source" - it's the actual goddamn site doing it! It would be the equivalent of linking to a Quixtar hosted website with instructions on how to google bomb - as opposed to what you want us to accept now - an article by a friend of Eric Janssen quoting Eric Janssen quoting an anonymous IBO quoting another IBO saying something that doesn't even support the claim being made! What happened to your claimed submission for mediation? --Insider201283 19:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming so at all, in fact I stated that I support the inclusion, and in my last edit (which you reverted and called "vandalism") included the information you added! You may find the request for mediation here, the mediator has taken the case but has taken no action thus far. I would ask that you refrain from swearing and referring to other people's edits as "vandalism". Seraphimblade 20:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not refer to anyone elses edits as "vandalism", that is false. As for swearing, if you consider "goddamn" swearing, well my apologies, it's not that serious a term for australians. Mediation cases are supposed to be agreed by both parties in the mediation request and it has a particular format which you have not followed. I will do a correct one and direct you to it. --Insider201283 20:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Google_bomb - please add "Agree" and sign in the relevant section and add anything else you consider should be mediated. --Insider201283 20:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

bah -- link in the RFM box on user talk and above doesn't appear to work, not sure why not. Link above to mediation request does work, please use that one. --Insider201283 20:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the page to the version based on the Annenberg article. I am going to insist that the version based on the article I cited remain the one used pending the outcome of mediation, as two users have agreed with me that the news article does constitute a reliable source. If the mediator decides otherwise, that's fine. For now, the numbers are on my side. I did leave the NPOV tag to reflect the dispute, but you're reverting to a change no one but you has agreed to. Seraphimblade 02:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why included at all?

Why is this particular example included in the article at all? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It was originally added by a DHollings (talk · contribs) who admits to being in the employ of Eric Scheibeler, a disgruntled former Quixtar IBO who is currently involved in lawsuits with the company. I see no reason why it should be included, however other Quixtar critics continue to add it. My last edit was an attempt to do a non-POV version incorporating their claims - however I still fail to see why it's included at all. --Insider201283 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I misinterpreted your edits on the main page, and you are correct on the vandalism part. Do apologize for that. As to mediation, I filed for informal mediation, which is not covered by the procedure you state. If you would prefer formal mediation though, we can certainly go that route instead. I'll go post agreement to it now. Seraphimblade 20:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Appears as though the formal mediation request was rejected, the link's already gone red. I can't get the template one to work either, if you have a working one could you please post it here? Seraphimblade 21:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Google_bomb - this one I gave above appears to work. --Insider201283 21:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That one works fine, thanks. Seraphimblade 21:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Insider201283, I would also like you to note that I'm not a "Quixtar critic", I really couldn't care less about Amway or their franchisees one way or the other. However, given the evidence that this did occur, it's quite notable-especially given the apparent bombing "war" between Quixtar's supporters and detractors. Quixtar is additionally a major corporation, and large corporations are almost by definition notable entities. For these reasons, I strongly am in favor of including this information as part of the history of Google bombing. Seraphimblade 02:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? WHAT evidence that this occurred? It essentially comes down to an anonymous quote from an IBO saying SOME of the around million Quixtar IBOs were trying to affect the rankings. There was no mention of QUIXTAR doing it at all. This is a fundamental misunderstanding you don't seem to have grasped. Janssen took that quote and the efforts of those IBOs, mixed it up with Quixtar doing some perfectly legitimate SEO type of stuff and deciding there was some grand conspiracy going on and Quixtar was behind it. I know - he accused me of being a part of it! Do you understand enough of how Quixtar works to understand that the anonymous quote at the heart of Janssen's claims in no way mentioned or even implicated Quixtar in google bombing? --Insider201283 02:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The article cited states that this statement was made at a Quixtar meeting. Presumably, Quixtar runs these meetings or at least regulates their content, and wouldn't take kindly to someone making a false and defamatory statement at one of them? If this is incorrect somehow, please show me where it says so.

Which just goes to show how misleading the article was. This was not a "Quixtar Meeting" it was a motivitional/educational meeting run by an entirely separate company, World Wide Dream Builders (WWDB), which has no connection to Quixtar except it's owners are also IBOs. Quixtar does not host these meetings, run them, advertise them, invite people, or regulate their content in any way shape or form. You are perfectly free to setup a company to offer training to Quixtar IBOs if you wish - some might call it a "Quixtar meeting" but Quixtar would have no control over it. Furthermore, nobody said anything about Quixtar at all in the quote in question. The speaker said "we are hiring ...". Nowhere did he mention Quixtar at all. That was an invention of Janssen's imagination. --Insider201283 12:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, it's hard to say that someone Quixtar has licensed to do business in their name is not part of Quixtar. It would be similar to saying that a McDonald's franchise restaurant is not part of McDonald's. If that franchisee takes a certain action, and McDonald's does not sanction the franchisee, demand they stop, and take steps to remove their license if they do not, it may reasonably be concluded that the action taken is acceptable to McDonald's.

You apparently do not understand the Network Marketing business model. Quixtar cannot even tell IBOs what price to sell at - they tried when they were Amway and the FTC spanked them and fined them. Franchisers have more control over franchisees than network marketing companies have over their independent reps. IBOs are **independent** business owners and can, within reason, pretty much do what they want. If a bunch of IBOs want to Google Bomb there is no way Quixtar could stop them. Given Googlebombing is not illegal and even Google doesn't stop it (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/googlebombing-failure.html) why would Quixtar? --Insider201283 12:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If Quixtar did do this, I can find no record of it. Also, it seems that Quixtar estimates the number of IBO's at around 340,000 from information I can find, I'm curious as to where the million figure is from? Also, your view of the situation or what happened to you would fall under WP:OR. Seraphimblade 02:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

When Quixtar reports numbers of IBOs it only reports IBOs that have been registered for at least a year. Around 70% of first year IBOs do not renew. Read http://www.thetruthaboutquixtar.com/index.php/content/view/1367/26/ for an accurate estimate of the number of IBOs. --Insider201283 12:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This has already grown into quite a lengthy debate, I'd like to propose we archive it and provide a link to it for those interested. Would this be acceptable to everyone involved? Seraphimblade 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

But isn't it still going on?--aviper2k7 04:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is, but I'd imagine some of the older stuff at least could go. That's why I'm asking first though. :)Seraphimblade 04:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not when it's under dispute and mediation, no. --Insider201283 12:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia online poker article

We're being googlebombed by bloggers... there's a slashdot article on it. Check the talk page of online poker for more info. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:14, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

google images bombed too?

When I looked up "trash", the first image is of Jessica Alba. Interesting . . .

Verifiable bombs?

Since Googlebombing is an intentional attempt to manipulate the results, isn't it possible that some of the example googlebombs in the main article are technically not googlebombs? For example, if a enough people coincidentally comment about the latest press release from the "Center for Science in Public Interest" and hyperlink to the same website using the phrase "food nazis", but if there is no intention whatsoever to influence or manipulate search engine results, it's not a googlebomb. The results are the same, but the intent is the deciding factor.

Is it possible to verify any ranking as a result googlebombing? Some might be easy to assume, but others could easily be the result of common opinions. Maybe if Google showed how many web pages linked to Bush's Bio by the sought keywords, it would be easier to conclude.

Forgot my signature. Sorry. I don't recall the exact date. --JJLatWiki 20:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess one way of telling is if someone advocates googlebombing. Andjam 12:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Very true. But how does one find that information? I know Google will show sites that link to a particular site, but wouldn't you first have to visit a large sampling of those sites to confirmed that the linked words are the googlebomb words? Then you have to find at least some number of sites greater than one of people promoting the googlebomb. If there are 100 sites linking "food nazis" to the same page, and only 1 of those sites says, "hey, let's googlebomb this", is that enough evidence that the result was intentional and therefore a googlebomb. I would say it's obvious if the keywords are made up, but wouldn't you agree that others could be purely accidental and therefore not a googlebomb? --JJLatWiki 15:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I agree and I think this article somewhat fails to properly considers these issues although I don't know how to improve it. For example, I personally believe that originally Bush's miserable failure ranking on Google was not the result of a bomb but the result of a large number of people mentioning Bush as a miserable failure. Of course, nowadays there is no doubt that there is a Google bombing element behind it. Similarly, I'm skeptical whether Microsoft's satan can really be considere linking bombing as I suspect no linking bombing was intended originally. Clearly none of this is verifable. Has no one ever discusses this POV before? If there is someone who has discussed it in an acceptable source, we could link to it Nil Einne 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Accomplised google bombs

The whole list of links do not come up with what they saw they should eg. ????? (I forgot).. peace will ask for ....violence.. that doesn't happen.

Marc Herold study

Several bloggers tried to directly or indirectly googlebomb an article criticising Marc Herold's study of Afghanistan civilian casualties. That might be a googlebomb of interest. Andjam 12:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Firefox Googlebomb?

This is too funny to be a coincidence, but while I was bored, I searched for "1" in Google. With or without quotes, it returns the Mozilla homepage and the main page of the Firefox browser as the first two results. Intrigued, I searched for "0". Internet Explorer was the second result. Maybe because 1 in binary means "on", and 0 means "off"? Anyway, it's not on the list here, but can anyone confirm this as a definite Google bomb, and not just a coincedence? (it would seem pretty unlikely to me to just be a coincedence, but just checking.) -- Daverocks 06:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Your results are no longer true but I believe your reason is incorrect. 1 is fairly high up for Mozilla in Google but the primary reason I suspect is because there are several popular pieces of Mozilla software include Firefox which are version 1.x. Similarly, IE is fairly highup for 0, probably because 6.0 is the latest version of IE, and 7.0 is the upcoming version. A search of 6 would also find IE BTW (although 7 doesn't yet) Nil Einne 07:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Accomplished Googlebombs

I note that User:Pigsonthewing tried to delete this section, under the guise splitting it into its own article. Of course, he nominated it for AFD thirteen minutes after creating the "split-off article", so I have doubts about his sincerity.

So despite his complete lack of previous history on this article (not one single edit before his unlateral deletion attempt, nor one single edit to this Talk Page, period, full stop), he has raised a couple of questions:

• Should this section be split off to an actual article? Speak up at the AFD if you have an opinion.
• Should this section be deleted/severely trimmed?

--Calton | Talk 00:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Pelican Shit?

Is this edit keep-worthy? I have reservations about its content, especially the assumption that the pelican shit vandal was doing it to "create an illusion of verifiability", which as far as I know he never has, only to Googlebomb the phrase, nor do I see how it creates any illusion of verifiability. 68.39.174.238 20:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Bombing

lelijk hoofd That's bombing

So is lul

Wikipedia as a Googlebomb?

Doesn't the way Wikipedia makes use of linking the same or similar word on many different pages within the site qualify by design as a googlebomb of some scale. It is not done across multiple sites, but Wikipedia must be large enough to make an impact on it's own search results prior to other sites starting to link to us independantly. Not acting as flame bait, as the linking of keywords is a big part of what makes wp what it is, but should we consider having rel="nofollow" ourselves? At the very least, should this not be addressed to some point in this article?

You may want to check out "Pelican Shit", and see above. However I suggest you be careful in how you phrase it. 68.39.174.238 07:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bombing How-To

Am changing url in example from someurl.com to example.com since someurl.com is a registered domain. Please comment here or on my talk page with reasoning if you revert.

markegli 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Failure"

Today I have found that "failure" no longer places Bush on top (or even on the first page of results). Can someone look into this? --TML1988 01:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I see Bush's bio at the top for both "failure" and "miserable failure". --AySz88^-^ 03:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What I see is Michael Moore at the top, with no link to Bush on the first page. --TML1988 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)\

I saw President Bush, President Carter, then Michael Moore.--Jnelson09 21:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see Carter but both BUsh and Michael Moor are on the very top of both. 74.137.230.39 22:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not 18

Under background, the article says

"However, the first Google bomb mentioned in the popular press may have occurred accidentally in 1999, when users discovered that the query "more evil than Satan" returned Microsoft's home page. Now, it returns links to several news articles on the discovery."

If accidental googlebombs are worth mentioning in this article, it is probably worth noting that the top result for "I Am Not 18" is go.disney.com, which I *believe* is due to high incidence of the "I Am Not 18" link (vs. "I am 18 or older" link to enter the site) present on some websites with adult material pointing jokingly to the Disney website, though it might be an intentional bomb. This bomb has been in place for a rather long time, possibly predating 1999.

The question is, was it discussed in the press. If not, then it's irrelevant Nil Einne 07:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

washer or wash?

Google bomb starts off with "A Google bomb or Google washer is a certain attempt to influence [..]". I'd like to change that start from "Google washer" to "Google wash" because: (1) I think "Google washer" sounds a bit clunky and (2) Google (search engine)#Google jargon says "Google bomb [..] Also known as Google wash." (By the way, "wash" was changed to "washer" by 210.214.184.84 on 2005 November 28, 15:05) --EarthFurst 02:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. -- Daverocks (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary too technical?

I was just trying to explain googlebombing to a non-technical friend of mine, and after I failed the first time, she took it upon herself to read about it here. She promptly returned to me, unable to decipher the summary, with all of its references to "pagerank".

I think that it might be more in Wikipedia's interest to have the inital summary be understandable to most anyone, and leave to technical "pagerank" information to later in the article.--Markster3000 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The "PageRank" in the text points to the wiki which explains it, as far as I can see, pretty well to a user who doesn't come in with an understanding of it. There's plenty of information linked to from the article regarding explanations of the technical details, I don't think rehashing them here will do anything but add unnecessary length. --Seraphimblade 08:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

is it easier to do a google bomb if the words for the anchor text are jibberish? like jsdfjd123121

google bombs dont work

i tried it using the method described in the article but when a google search was done the site containg the links, not the site the links are linked to, was returned.

Google bombs in other languages

Do we even need this section? This is the english wikipedia, why do we need a list of non-english google bombs? How are we supposed to verify these? I'm going to remove the entire section unless someone comes up with some good reasons to keep this. --Xyzzyplugh 05:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's easily seen that the 1st result is the offical (kremlin.ru) page for Putin with "Enemy of the people". I'm more concerned with that turning into WP:WOW with the list of every bomb (account). I suggest we limit it solely to those that have an external news articel that verifies them (This for the English ones as well). The foreign ones are useful to show that this isn't a solely English language phenomenon, which a huge list of English bombs with no foreign ones will seem to indicate. 68.39.174.238 22:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A New Type of Google Bombs?

Since a couple of weeks some bot appears to be subscribing daily 2-3 fake user accounts on the bulletin board we use for the organisation ESN I am involved in. Even though on registration the number on a picture has to be confirmed, the accounts appear to be made by a bot and not a person who is deliberately targeting our website. How I came to this assumption? I entered the username of the last SPAM account "Ninel2006az" in Google within 1 hour after creation on our bulletin board. There already appeared to be 64600 hits for this user in Google, all of them on bulletin boards (all the same popular PHPBB?) and the user accounts appeared to have been made in a timeframe of 5 days. When I checked 30 minutes later in Google, the number of hits was reduced to 44100, but still this is massive.

I guess someone found a hole in the popular bulletin board PHPBB, made a bot to scan Google for the sites that host the bulletin board and made a bot to create fake accounts with hyperlinks in their signature on all of the bulletin boards. 44100 hyperlinks linking to the same site, what a Google bomb this would be?

--Toon Macharis 21:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

{{cleanup}}

The current organization of this page is horrible. The sections definately need to be reordered and some subordinated to others; alot of the text seems rather "thrown together"; finally the "accomplished bombs" probably needs to be sourced more throughly. 68.39.174.238 22:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There also seem to be a massive number of links, most of them unnecessary, and the large quantity of inline ones is distracting. I'll be removing some and citing others as footnotes.-Seraphimblade 08:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

After sources are cited properly (many of which may be in the "news articles" as well), is that section not a bit redundant? I will at least be removing those articles also cited as sources, but is there any reason it should stay there at all?-Seraphimblade 10:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Next on the cleanup list: I think that the supposedly "successful" bombs which were not reported on and are not verifiably -deliberate- bombs should be removed. If no one objects I'll start on this after some time has passed for any "keepers" to be properly sourced, but that section looks more like a laundry list then a reasonable number of examples-even if correct, we don't need every successful google bomb known to man, just a good cross-section. I'm of the opinion that the most successful, the most obviously deliberate, and/or the ones which are the easiest to verify through external sources should be kept. Are there any objections? Seraphimblade 04:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Seraphimblade: I sorted the external links and deleted about 10 of them last month. I believe they are all now deliberate, working google bombs. I'm not quite sure what you mean though. Care to explain more what you will be doing? Making a section of google bombs that are successful instead of a list?--aviper2k7 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not so much so, guess that was a bit unclear. What I'm looking at is the looooooong lists under "English Google Bomb" and "Google Bombs in other languages". Some of them (such as the Windows "Horrid Operating System"), I can't find a thing on being deliberate, and certainly I know I'm not the only one to call Windows a horrid operating system because, well, it is! Same as with "ignorant bigots"-I've heard right-wingers called that more then once, it's not too hard to imagine a site who disagrees with them using "these ignorant bigots" or the like as link text, without any deliberate attempt to google bomb. Same with ready.gov and a plethora of the others, I can't find a thing on -most- of them being deliberate (though some obviously are, such as Bill Napoli, the "santorum" term, and so forth). Pretty much everything within the main body of the article is sourced and has evidence showing it is deliberate (the only thing under debate currently on that note is the Quixtar bomb, and it's currently in for mediation.) Also, I don't think it's specifically necessary, within that list, to have a link to a Google search for the term (in case someone doesn't know how to search Google...???) AND often a link to the website that supposedly is the link being moved up. It really adds a lot of linkspam to the section, I think it might be easier to read if we did something to the effect of:

"Moron" leads to the site of Ima Dumas (example.com), widely considered the stupidest person in the world. Initiated by the We Hate Morons Group (in|on) (date|year). (source cite) (If Ima's site is contained at her hypothetical wikilink, we probably shouldn't even include its address-anyone wanting to find it easily can in that case, even if the googlebomb quits working.)

Alternatively, we could simply remove most of that list outright and make sure the genuinely deliberate and notable ones are mentioned in the article itself under the appropriate sections. Hope that clarifies what I've got in mind a little, but ask away if anything isn't yet! :) Seraphimblade 16:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Click here

Click here is also commonly used to link pages, and shows very strange results when searched for on google. Should this too be considered a google bomb? Or shouldn't it atleast me mentioned? [http://www.google.com/search?q=click+here]

I think Googlebombs should be pretty deliberate. That's probably just the result of all those "Click here to get IE/NS/QT/WMP/etc/etc" things. 68.39.174.238 05:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above point about Google-bombs being deliberate. And when this page gets cleaned up, 'Anne Milton' should be removed as a Google-bomb, as it does not qualify. The Anne Milton weblog earned and continues to earn its top search results on its own merits. - NoNameNeeded 29 Aug 2006

List of popular google bombs

I deleted some of the "popular google bombs". Sorry if I sound controversial or whatever, but the list is long, and some of them don't really fit the purpose of a google bomb. A google bomb should be deliberate and most likely the first result. Tell me if I'm doing a crime here.--Aviper2k7 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

This article is long as it is, and a lot of these "bombs" look as though they may be incidental (such as "Awful Announcer", if enough people do dislike the guy it's easy to imagine them putting links in with that text.) I suggest going through and cleaning up any which can't be verified as intentional bombs, would anyone have a problem with this?-Seraphimblade 08:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please minimize the amount of search results

Please consider minimizing the list of bombs. Per our revised external links guidelines, we should not link to results in search engines. Also, there should be a better way of explaining this, as Google bombs tend to stop working after some time. -- ReyBrujo 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the last edit from an anonymous contributor. We are currently seeking consensus on whether the anti-Quixtar information is reliable or not. While I am firmly on the side that it is, let's leave it alone until we get some other opinions. Seraphimblade 01:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete the list of google bombs

I think that the list should be entierely deleted, or be put in a side article. Because if we count every google bombing contests organized every week, this article would extend to infinite.--81.249.220.188 14:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for that. The genuinely notable and verifiable ones can go in the article proper, the massive lists seem to me to add a lot of length and very little substance. Seraphimblade 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As there seem to be no objections, I'm going to remove the lists. I'll leave them in an archive on this talk page in case anyone finds use for them in the future. Seraphimblade 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I can make a case for including notable examples where the bomb earned attention in the mainstream media. This would provide needed credibility to the listing. Of course, the list would be MUCH shorter... Lord Rasputin 03:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the list, and it shouldn't be completely taken out. A list of 20 isn't that long and no one has to click each link. If there is no list, there HAS to be examples. I think the French Military Victories (albinoblacksheep.com) bomb is the best example, as well as the Arabian Gulf one.--aviper2k7 03:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support removal This should be an article about Google bombs, not a list of Google Bombs. As noted above, if particular bombs received non-trivial mention in reliable sources, then perhaps they could be mentioned within the article. (As it is, a bomb listed today may no longer be a bomb tomorrow...) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you people did a real disservice by deleting the list of Google bombs.

Microsoft no longer #1

Microsoft's homepage is no longer #1 in a search for "more evil than satan himself". That honor now belongs to a CNN article page, title "CNN - Search engines gang up on Microsoft - November 15, 1999". Just pointing out an error that crept into this page. Should that paragraph be removed or edited? -- Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  00:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My own thought on it would be to edit the paragraph to reflect that Microsoft was the #1 search result at the time for that query. Actually I think that would be a good plan for any section that mentions a specific ranking as they will certainly fluctuate over time, what's important is where the result was when it was reported on. Seraphimblade 21:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would, but I do not know when the information was retrieved from Google. Does anyone know who the original contributor was, the one who added the information? -- Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 04:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)