Google Takes Sides on the Climate Issue
Posted by greg2213 on March 19, 2011
I won’t call it a debate since their need to be at least two sides talking to each other for their to be a debate. The alarmist side has zero interest in any such discussion.
Google periodically tweaks its search algorithms to improve its results. They just did that recently with what is being called the Farmer Update (I believe the internal name was Panda.) The intent was to remove some of the “junk” cluttering up their index.
Since G is now paying 21 advocates of the alarmist message to communicate their arguments, well, it might be reasonable to conclude that G’s searches on the climate issue will be similarly tweaked. Pro CAGW stuff shows normally, skeptical stuff gets a penalty. I’m not saying that they’re doing it, just that it’s reasonable to assume that they might.
Recently, you have decided to take sides in a scientific debate. That in itself is very foolish. Why would Google want to take either side when there is a disagreement between scientists? I thought your motto was “Do No Evil.” For the 900-pound gorilla to take sides in any tempestuous politically charged scientific discussion is an extremely stupid thing to do…
…In other words, Google has put into place a public relations campaign for the CO2 hypothesis … and people in your organization actually consider this a good idea?
The rest: An Open Letter to Google
A commenter remarks that Google is biased because WUWT doesn’t show as #1 for the search “climate blog.” Well, while I’m sure that G does have it’s biases I think this is poor proof. Given what I know of SEO, not a lot, there is little reason why WUWT should rank for that term. Search on WattsUpWithThat and you’ll see a different story. Look at the words bolded in the search. Why should WUWT rank highly? Hech, it doesn’t even have “climate” in the title.
Now, if everyone links to your site with YourSiteName as the link then you will rank well for that term. If no one links to your site with some topic as the link then you will not easily rank for that term.
If nothing on your site says some topic then it will be hard to rank for that term.
If a bazillion people link to your site with the phrase some topic then you will rank well for that phrase, even if nothing on your page is related. Case in point, a few years ago the search term miserable failure would show George Bush’s bio as the #1 result, instead of the more logical definitions page. Why? Those bazillion links from a vast number of people who got in on the joke. It’s called a “google bomb” and while G has taken some steps to stop such things from happening it’s not 100%. G bases most, not all, of its search ranking for any given term on links. It’s probably impossible to eliminate google bombing.
Is google biased? Given that it leans solidly left (look at google news and similar results) and most of it’s people are staunch Dems, according to polls, I think it’s possible that results are biased appropriately.
How to fix the climate blog results? Get a bazillion people to link to WUWT with the term climate blog in the link.
Some people recommended Dogpile since it’s a meta search. Heh.Note the first three results, especially the third. By the way, WUWT is a two links below the last in this screen clip.