<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
    xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Pranks</title>
	<link>http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/10/21/google-pranks/</link>
	<description>a blog and podcast dedicated to discussing text arts forms</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 21:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	
	 <copyright>Writer Response Theory 2004-2005</copyright>
    <managingEditor>wrt@writerresponsetheory.org (Writer Response Theory)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>wrt@writerresponsetheory.org</webMaster>

    <category>Talk Radio</category>
   <itunes:category text="Arts &amp; Entertainment" ><itunes:category text="Entertainment" />
</itunes:category>
<itunes:category text="Education" ><itunes:category text="Higher Education" />
</itunes:category>
<itunes:category text="Technology" ><itunes:category text="Developers" />
</itunes:category>
	
    <itunes:subtitle>Comment-cast: Google Pranks</itunes:subtitle>
    <itunes:summary>Comment-cast: Google Pranks</itunes:summary>
    
    <itunes:author>Writer Response Theory</itunes:author>    
    <itunes:owner>
        <itunes:name>Writer Response Theory</itunes:name>
        <itunes:email>wrt@writerresponsetheory.org</itunes:email>
    </itunes:owner>
    
    <itunes:image href="http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/iTWRTl.JPG" />
    

	<item>
		<title>by: Jeremy Douglass</title>
		<link>http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/10/21/google-pranks/#comment-618</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:06:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/10/21/google-pranks/#comment-618</guid>
					<description>The &quot;Failure = Bush bio&quot; meme is the result of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb&quot;&gt;Google bomb&lt;/a&gt; - enough websites listing the link text to the page that it rises in the index. Google bombing is interesting example of the people saying the same phrase \ enough times to make it so, which coincidentally resonates with this administrations widely acknowledged focus on sticking to talking points and repeating them.

While Google bombs come from users, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?&amp;#38;q=word+%22easter+egg%22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Word easter eggs&lt;/a&gt; are all in-house pranks done by developers. I've never actually heard of a search-engine easter egg - it seems like something a search engine company would try to avoid, sort of like how Excel doesn't contain certain equations which give wrong answers, as that would compromise its core functionality.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170704649&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google won't manipulate the results by hand&lt;/a&gt; even block even notorious Google Bombs - which is wise, given the can of worms that would open up. When it comes to massive processing of digital text, live by algorithm, die by algorithm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The &#8220;Failure = Bush bio&#8221; meme is the result of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb">Google bomb</a> - enough websites listing the link text to the page that it rises in the index. Google bombing is interesting example of the people saying the same phrase \ enough times to make it so, which coincidentally resonates with this administrations widely acknowledged focus on sticking to talking points and repeating them.</p>
<p>While Google bombs come from users, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?&amp;q=word+%22easter+egg%22" rel="nofollow">Word easter eggs</a> are all in-house pranks done by developers. I&#8217;ve never actually heard of a search-engine easter egg - it seems like something a search engine company would try to avoid, sort of like how Excel doesn&#8217;t contain certain equations which give wrong answers, as that would compromise its core functionality.  <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170704649" rel="nofollow">Google won&#8217;t manipulate the results by hand</a> even block even notorious Google Bombs - which is wise, given the can of worms that would open up. When it comes to massive processing of digital text, live by algorithm, die by algorithm.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			                <itunes:author>Jeremy Douglass</itunes:author>
        <itunes:subtitle>The "Failure = Bush bio" meme is the result of a Google bomb - enough websites listing the link text ...</itunes:subtitle>
        <itunes:summary>The "Failure = Bush bio" meme is the result of a Google bomb - enough websites listing the link text ...</itunes:summary>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Mark Marino</title>
		<link>http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/10/21/google-pranks/#comment-574</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/10/21/google-pranks/#comment-574</guid>
					<description>So, I couldn't help but try some more random searches:

I've heard about that one.  I believe there's also a prank using Microsoft Word and thesaurus. Does anyone know that one.

Then I wondered what the best search engine was:
(Not using explicitly sponsored links I found the following.)

Searching &quot;the best search engine&quot; on Google turns up dogpile.

Searching &quot;the best search engine&quot; on Yahoo turns up google.

Searching &quot;the best search engine&quot; on MSN turns up Homerweb.

Hmm.  Is there a lack of self-esteem plaguing our search engines?

Though Google beats all in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&amp;word1=google&amp;word2=dogpile&quot;&gt;Google fight!&lt;/a&gt;

Oh, and here's another that in some ways redeems the web:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&amp;word1=Deep+Thought&amp;word2=Deep+Throat&quot;&gt;Deep Thought versus Deep Throat 
&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, I couldn&#8217;t help but try some more random searches:</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve heard about that one.  I believe there&#8217;s also a prank using Microsoft Word and thesaurus. Does anyone know that one.</p>
<p>Then I wondered what the best search engine was:<br />
(Not using explicitly sponsored links I found the following.)</p>
<p>Searching &#8220;the best search engine&#8221; on Google turns up dogpile.</p>
<p>Searching &#8220;the best search engine&#8221; on Yahoo turns up google.</p>
<p>Searching &#8220;the best search engine&#8221; on MSN turns up Homerweb.</p>
<p>Hmm.  Is there a lack of self-esteem plaguing our search engines?</p>
<p>Though Google beats all in <a href="http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&#038;word1=google&#038;word2=dogpile">Google fight!</a></p>
<p>Oh, and here&#8217;s another that in some ways redeems the web:  <a href="http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&#038;word1=Deep+Thought&#038;word2=Deep+Throat">Deep Thought versus Deep Throat<br />
</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			                <itunes:author>Mark Marino</itunes:author>
        <itunes:subtitle>So, I couldn't help but try some more random searches:

I've heard about that one.  I believe there's also a ...</itunes:subtitle>
        <itunes:summary>So, I couldn't help but try some more random searches:

I've heard about that one.  I believe there's also a ...</itunes:summary>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

