To Googlebomb or not to Googlebomb? That is the question

[thatcrazycajun]

Daily Kos blogger Chris Bowers has proposed an interesting idea to people reading the site which is gaining some traction on the left side of the blogosphere. He is fed up with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attempting to present himself as a moderate Republican and then pandering to the party's "theocons" to make himself more palatable to them by way of winning his party's nomination for President next year. He proposes to influence search results on Google to bring up an article from the Associated Press reporting McCain's support for more troops in Iraq (reprinted by CBS News.com here) as the first result whenever people search on keywords like "McCain 2008."

This practice, known as "Googlebombing," takes advantage of the search engine's algorithms and selection process to play a prank or, more often, to make a political point. (Bowers staged a similar stunt last fall with an eye toward influencing Republican Congressional candidates' perception by the electorate with his "Googlebomb the Elections" campaign.) It's being done so often now that major media outlets have reported on the practice, and Google itself has felt the need to post an explanatory page about it to answer users who accuse it of liberal bias in its results.

While I share Bowers' frustration with anyone in Congress, let alone one as influential as McCain, showing equivocation on the urgency of ending our military and diplomatic fiasco in Iraq and bringing the troops home now, I am not sure I agree with the means of promoting the desired end. Bowers points out that "we will do it using the truth" -- that is, that the links being used to Googlebomb McCain only point to factual articles reporting things he has actually said and done. But isn't Google supposed to be an impartial, non-partisan tool for people to find things? And isn't it wrong to hijack that impartiality and others' search processes for your own agenda, no matter how honorable your intentions or what party you belong to? Indeed, by this very post I may well be helping the Googlebomb succeed. And it may not even be necessary; Google's news results at the top of a results page for "McCain 2008" already include one or two articles on his support of the escalation. Opinions?

Comments

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Googlebombing is a foolish distraction from real action. The time wasted upon sucha transient exercise (especially given all the advanced warning) is better spent on things that will have more lasting impact. IMO.

[cellio]

The tactic makes me uneasy. Any particular campaign might have the best of intentions and take the greatest of care, but even so, legitimizing the practice in the eyes of the public opens the door for people who aren't so well-intentioned or competent. Down the road I want to be able to continue to find the content I'm looking for when I do a search; this puts that at risk. It's like going into the library and (I'm about to show my age) shuffling the card catalogue. Yes, it's all still there, but you've made it harder for me to find what I want, just to promote your agenda. Even if I agree with your agenda, I resent the intrusion.

I also suspect it doesn't work, so (1) they're damaging the Google database for nothing and (2) they're wasting time on that that they could have spent doing something productive. The second only hurts them, but the first hurts everyone -- only a tiny tiny bit at a time, but erosion happens a few grains of sand at a time, too.