An interesting development.
My webstalker’s post (Chicago Indymedia) had disappeared into about the third-fourth page of a google search of my name. Recently I posted negative pieces about google. I noticed that the webstalker post trashing me suddenly popped back onto my first page.
Wondering why that was, I did a search with Scroogle, which is just google, scraped. You’d think the results would be the same. But the trash post was at about 35 in the list of results, rather than 3rd or 4th, as it was on google.
Imagination?
Several up and coming bloggers have told me that they’ve noticed google manipulation of their results. I won’t specify how the search results were manipulated, though both had a good idea. They didn’t openly voice their findings on their blogs, though.
I’ll be more forthcoming. Whenever I post a criticism of google or wikipedia, I tend to find the old trash post resurfacing to the front page. Criticism of certain elites also tends to produce the same result.
Shouldn’t I be more circumspect about criticizing Brin, Wales, and their merry men?
Probably. But circumspection has never been my strong point. Why start now…
It’s not your imagination. I’ve been seeing this in Google since 2003. A puny site that disses me without cause, http://www.google-watch-watch.org, has been in the top five in a search for my name for seven years.
I started http://www.wikipedia-watch.org in 2005, and it took over a year before Google started ranking it reasonably, as documented at http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/goohate.html
It took me three years of activism to get my bio on Wikipedia taken down, along with several articles about some websites I run. So now what is the top site in a search for my name? An Encyclopedia Dramatica bio on me, which is allegedly a parody but isn’t funny, and so far I cannot get it removed. Bing has the good taste to not even index that page, or similar tasteless and/or semi-pornographic Dramatica pages on other non-notable persons. Google, on the other hand, slaps them up at number one.
Eric Schmidt suggests that I should change my name. Perhaps I should change it to “Eric Schmidt.” Maybe we all should.
Hi Daniel Brandt –
I’m immensely flattered to have you pop by.
I consider your site one of the bravest and best offerings out there and I salute your work.
Well, since we’re all in truth-telling mode:
After I posted this piece and took down the last post about Google, I notice the trash post has disappeared again.
Re your problems with internet reputation, do you want to check out a company called Rexxfield? It fixes web reputations. The owner was stalked and trashed himself and he’s also politically very savvy (about Google), so maybe he’d know how to help.
I will certainly post your work, whenever possible.
Check out the article about Naked Short-Selling in wikipedia. It doesn’t even mention Patrick Byrne or Judd Bagley or Mark Mitchell or Deep Capture website – the outfit that did the hard lifting on that. Instead, it’s simply written up the accounts in the mainstream media, with special weight to the liberal shill journalist Matt Taibbi..
The Goldman page on wikipedia again conveniently leaves me out, as well as many others from an inconvenient part of the political spectrum and highlights the usual suspects in the liberal media..
My friends at the excellent Dissident Voice internet magazine have been trying for years to get their wikipedia entry up. It gets knocked down repeatedly..they are rarely cited, although some of the earliest and best work on public matters comes out of them.
It is a disgrace, and Eric, Sergei, Jimmy – what profits it a geek if he gains the whole blogosphere but loses his cybersoul?
Lila,
Mr. Brandt uncovered the identity of SlimVirgin on Wikipedia, which is connected to Gary Weiss’ wiki activity.
Ah – very, very interesting.
I read that something about it..
I didn’t know it was he.
Thanks for that.
Wikipedia activism is a whole rabbit hole unto itself and endlessly fascinating.
Wiki insurgents are desperately needed to battle the forces of wiki-dness
“Wiki insurgents are desperately needed to battle the forces of wiki-dness”
What’s the pay rate? Just kidding.
I’ve noticed an increase lately of what appears to be their “co-workers” entering blog discussions with two main themes: pushing support for a “neutral” fiat currency, and portraying cops as just like the libertarians, only they can’t help but make this one exception for killing for the State.
I could be mistaken, it just seems that way.
It’s tough enough dealing with one or two of those at a time on a small scale, I imagine the wiki-dness’ers are much more difficult to correct.
I’m guessing most of them are the “movement infiltrators” discussed below, because what the goberment says they want to do, is often what they are already doing:
“Furious that state involvement in major terror attacks is being exposed to a wider audience than ever before via the Internet, a UK think tank closely affiliated with the Downing Street has called for authorities to infiltrate conspiracy websites in an effort to “increase trust in the government”.”
http://www.infowars.com/government-think-tank-calls-for-infiltrating-conspiracy-websites/