Yes, but is it a deliberate effort by the pro-Obama giant to make Romney look bad?
Um…not so fast my conspiracy-minded friends. CNN:
A Google spokesman said the gallery of photos is the unintentional result of normal Google analytics, which produce images associated with popular phrases in news headlines and search terms, and not the result of any effort to skew the results.
In this case, Google’s algorithms picked up on news coverage of Romney saying last week he was “completely wrong” when he made controversial statements last spring that 47% of Americans were “victims” and dependent on government. Romney took some political heat for the original comments, which were captured by a hidden camera at a private fundraiser in May and made public last month.
The former Massachusetts governor, speaking last Thursday on Fox News, disavowed his earlier statements.
“Clearly in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you’re going to say something that doesn’t come out right,” Romney said, “In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong.”
The Google results page of Romney photos was noticed Wednesday by tech blog Mashable, a CNN.com content partner, and other news sites.
A Romney campaign spokeswoman declined to comment.
The episode recalls past examples of “Google bombs,” or intentionally skewed Internet search results, for politicians’ names. In perhaps the most famous case, pranksters in the mid-2000s created large numbers of links that caused Google to reference President George W. Bush (and later President Barack Obama) in response to searches for “miserable failure.” Google later tweaked its analytics to discourage the practice
Most website owners try to game the search engine algorithms using key words and other techniques that may or may not move a particular post up the rankings to the coveted first page of search results. There are companies out there who will, for a hefty fee, use their own proprietary methods in trying to game the search engines.
But their methods are constantly under duress from Google and other search engines who tweak their analytics to try and defeat the effort to skew search results. Hence, an arms race of sorts as the search engines try to stay one step ahead of the gamers.
Despite the explanation by Google, there is always the nagging feeling in the back of one’s mind that the super geeks at the pro-Obama corporation get a chuckle out of trying to put one over on us. It’s an easy trap to fall into, especially given Google’s image as a Death Star in the web firmament.
But it still isn’t likely.






It may not be so n this case, but in general I have few doubts about Google perfidy.
It is safer to expect the worst from Google, I think. It’s like Mos Eisley Spaceport in so many ways — right, Obi-wan?
Gaming the system at Google is easy. A few years back, if you searched for “Miserable Failure” you came up with hits on Busah 43. One reason I use Bing as my primary search engine.
In about a month a similar set of images will show up with the search string “President-elect”
I also don’t doubt that Google are jerks, but I doubt there is anything to do this. Search engines will produce all kinds of weird random outcomes that mean exactly nothing. I own several websites and people will often reach these sites by entering completely unrelated search times that won’t bring up my site if you try them a day later. I wouldn’t read anything into this at all.
Really, what’s the big deal? It is news that that a search engine returns partisan results during a presidential election year? Really?
I do not pretend to know anything about Google’s search algorithms beyond that they exist and are supposed to be powerful, but my guess is that during an a contentious election year, popular internet pundits and partisans are publishing partisan material that that becomes highly linked… hence Google’s partisan search results.
Two can plat at this game. Let’s turn the spot light on President Obama and see where he shows up in Google’s search results. Shall we?
“socialist” https://www.google.com/search?q=socialist&hl=en&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=lKt5UN3VC4Tk8gSr_4GACg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=677
“weakest president” (This one is a mix-ed bag, but Obama wins out. And supposedly Cheney was an American president.) https://www.google.com/search?q=liar&hl=en&prmd=imvnsb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=rat5UNm_FYW89gSXnoDYBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=677#hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=weakest++president&oq=weakest++president&gs_l=img.3..0i24j0i5i24l3.8629.9644.14.11469.8.8.0.0.0.1.136.527.5j2.7.0…0.0…1c.1.tiEHVXIuPfY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=2c791eb5425372f3&bpcl=35277026&biw=1024&bih=677
“pot-smoking president” (No contest. Barry wins hands down.) https://www.google.com/search?q=drug+abusing+president&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=IKx5UPiwPInY9ATnioDoBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=677#hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=pot+smoking+president&oq=pot+smoking+president&gs_l=img.3..0i24.4065.8293.0.8392.21.16.0.5.5.0.129.1151.15j1.16.0…0.0…1c.1.DoSjI0ZiqOA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=2c791eb5425372f3&bpcl=35277026&biw=1024&bih=677
“president no clothing” https://www.google.com/search?q=chicago+machine+president&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Q6x5UJHDBo3g8ASpuoDQBQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=677#hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=president+no+clothing&oq=president+no+clothing&gs_l=img.3…25011.30363.8.30495.25.20.2.3.4.0.124.1361.18j2.20.0…0.0…1c.1.doIXalccVAY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=2c791eb5425372f3&bpcl=35277026&biw=1024&bih=677
“arrogance” https://www.google.com/search?q=chicago+machine+president&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Q6x5UJHDBo3g8ASpuoDQBQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=677#hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=arrogance&oq=arrogance&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i10j0l7.7425.7704.17.7710.3.3.0.0.0.0.155.211.1j1.2.0…0.0…1c.1.xnWxuiNHmFg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=2c791eb5425372f3&bpcl=35277026&biw=1024&bih=677
“lobbyist president” https://www.google.com/search?q=chicago+machine+president&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Q6x5UJHDBo3g8ASpuoDQBQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=677#hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=arrogance&oq=arrogance&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i10j0l7.7425.7704.17.7710.3.3.0.0.0.0.155.211.1j1.2.0…0.0…1c.1.xnWxuiNHmFg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=2c791eb5425372f3&bpcl=35277026&biw=1024&bih=677
“weakest president ever” (beats out President Bush) https://www.google.com/search?q=weakest+president+ever&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=iax5UNLpJ5Ho8gSM6IGABA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=677
“most dishonest president ever” (beats out presidential candidate Romney) https://www.google.com/search?q=president+pussy&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Tax5UIC5Homm8gTGwoDoCA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=677#hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=most+dishonest+president+ever&oq=most+dishonest+president+ever&gs_l=img.3…7464.21266.2.21436.42.34.6.2.2.0.159.2060.33j1.34.0…0.0…1c.1.JOTWt1H4_iw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=2c791eb5425372f3&bpcl=35277026&biw=1024&bih=677
bitch president
“الكلبة الرئيس” (bitch president) https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=677&q=%D8%B6%D8%B9%D9%81+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3&oq=%D8%B6%D8%B9%D9%81+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3&gs_l=img.3…112726.112726.0.113178.1.1.0.0.0.0.45.45.1.1.0…0.0…1ac.1.yHDSM4q3fZc#hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3&oq=%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3&gs_l=img.3…8488.8488.31.8748.1.1.0.0.0.0.71.71.1.1.0…0.0…1c.1.mGMPr7X2CWg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=8b70d6bad2fd7152&bpcl=35277026&biw=1024&bih=677
“policy helps iran” (mixed results, but Obama is in good company – minus Bibi)
https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=677&q=Ahmadinejad's+bitch&oq=Ahmadinejad's+bitch&gs_l=img.3…3132.13357.0.13730.2.2.0.0.0.0.88.141.2.2.0…0.0…1ac.1.9U6IiK6T1Bs#hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=policy+helps+iran&oq=policy+helps+iran&gs_l=img.3…2734.5604.44.5691.17.17.0.0.0.0.156.1387.8j7.15.0…0.0…1c.1.3NPk0qg5igo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=2c791eb5425372f3&bpcl=35277026&biw=1024&bih=677
I ain’t buying Google’s BS. In 2004 we on the right skewed search results so that the word “waffle” linked to Kerry. This sort of mischief could easily be farmed out to hired operatives just as both campaigns do social media.
Shall we push SCOAMF a little harder?
Here’s the number 3 ranked result: http://youtu.be/PbzSi0LTu0s