Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Google-Bomb
Séamus Byrne
School of Media and Communications, UNSW
Google. That the noun has rapidly become a verb speaks volumes
for the influence of this search engine. Powered by PageRank, the
accuracy of its results has done more than make Google the premiere
search application - it has moved web search into the realm of 'killer
app' alongside e-mail. When über.nu columnist Adam Mathes tested
his theory of the 'Google Bomb', he may have realised the potential
of his actions, but he perhaps underestimated the power of the pure
idea itself. The fashion in which Google could be manipulated highlighted
many questions about the nature of the web and its network of linkages.
Deleuze and Guattari would see such activity as not only exemplifying
the web as rhizome, but that it also demonstrates their conception
of the refrain. Google Bombs demonstrate how web link ecologies,
particularly those of blog linkages, influence PageRank - Google's
ranking algorithm that effectively implements the idea of the refrain
to invoke a hierarchical list of all pages on the web.
On April 6, 2001, Mathes suggested that those reading his column
should include a link on their own websites, using a specific piece
of text as the link, to one Andy 'talentless hack' Pressman, in
order to make his friend look stupid. Many of Mathes' readers are
'bloggers' - people who maintain online diary-style websites, or
'blogs' (short for web logs) - so the call for readers to add links
to websites could lead to a very large number of linkages. While
his example was fairly innocuous, the theory behind the action was
groundbreaking. He wanted to generate a distributed set of linkages
to a specific page in order to raise that page's ranking for a particular
search term. Dubbed 'Google Bombing', Mathes intended to exploit
the following fact:
Google is unique among search engines in that while it almost
always shows you pages that have the exact keywords you are looking
for, occasionally it will show you pages that don't have those
keywords, but other pages linked to that page with those
words. (Mathes, 2001)
In fact, this is exactly what Google does. According to the founders
of Google, Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page, Google 'employs a number
of techniques to improve search quality, including page rank, anchor
text, and proximity information' (1998: 12). Google's ability to
return high quality search results is primarily thanks to the PageRank
algorithm. This algorithm, as its name implies, 'is a global ranking
of all web pages, regardless of their content, based solely on their
location in the Web's graph structure' (Page, et al., 1). The ranking
algorithm is recursive, with ranks being generated not only by the
number of links leading into a page but also the PageRank of the
pages that link to the page. The higher the rank of a linking page,
the more valuable that link becomes to the page receiving the link.
This ranking is then complemented by exactly what Mathes described
above; an analysis of not only the text on each web page, but the
anchor text used to point to each page is also assigned to that
page's text analysis as well. This was far from a guarded secret,
but no one had so openly attempted to manipulate it before.
While it is hard to say how long the 'bomb' took to 'go off', within
days a Google search for the words 'talentless hack' delivered Pressman's
website ranked #1. This ranking remained for at least eleven months,
such was the power of this first ever Google Bombing. In Mathes'
own words:
In a bizarre surreal bow to the power of perception on the web,
what you say about a page becomes just as important as the actual
content of the page. The page must be what other people say it
is. That Google adheres to this rule and is by far the most effective
search engine raises many interesting issues… (Mathes, 2001)
Indeed it does … not the least of which is that more than
three years later, a Google search for 'talentless hack' now gives
the #1 ranking to Mathes' original article! It seems that over time,
as the concept itself has gained coverage, the original search term
has folded back onto the article that called for it to be pointed
elsewhere. Meanwhile, Pressman's site is now nowhere to be seen
in the ten pages of search results. With connection, multiplicity
and temporality all seemingly part of the way the Google Bomb works,
this stunt has inadvertently, and thus ever more appropriately,
generated a perfect example of Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome and
the territorial markings that form a refrain (1987).
We must remember that through Google's status as the most precise
search engine available on the web, any success in manipulating
it must somewhat grant insight into the nature of the World Wide
Web itself. As the Google Bomb only works through a highly distributed
set of web links ('simply having tons of the same links with the
same phrase on a single page will do nothing' Mathes notes (2001))
we are shown the distributed, non-hierarchical nature of the web.
Of course, with 'no points or positions in a rhizome… only
lines' (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987: 8) we have the same basic nature
of the rhizome reflected in the web. This has been well covered
elsewhere, notably in Kathleen Burnett's essay on hypertext as rhizome
more than ten years ago (1993).
By moving deeper into the idea of repeated, distributed linkages
- Google Bombs or not - we find the web, particularly when analysed
by a system such as PageRank, is full of what Deleuze and Guattari
have called 'refrains' (1987). The refrain is described as 'any
aggregate of matters of expression that draws a territory' (323).
Importantly, the territorialising marks cause 'a reorganisation
of functions and a regrouping of forces' (320). To apply these ideas
to the web, the links that flow from one site to another form territories
for the pages that are linked to. The aggregation of the various
links that lead into any particular page or site form a set of territorial
markings, and it is these markings that Google has harnessed to
achieve its superior search results. In turn, these markings generate
a grouping of forces, passing on value to the linked page and enhancing
the page's PageRank.
Through a search on Google, a territory is invoked relating to
the search term at hand. This territory is delivered as a ranked
list of links, ranked according to a mix of PageRank's raw analysis
of page importance as well as the relevance to the search terms.
In essence, Google analyses the refrain of each relevant page and
delivers a list of sites ranked according to the relevance and magnitude
of the page's refrain. The relevance relates to the text of the
page and most notably the anchor text used to lead to the page.
The magnitude relates to the total influence of incoming links and,
as mentioned earlier, the influence is adjusted according to the
PageRank of the pages from which the links are received.
The fact that the result of such activity changes over time further
proves the rhizomatic nature of the web and how PageRank is an efficient,
temporal indicator of each page's refrain on the web. Links move
from front pages to archives, in turn reducing the value of such
links as they move from pages of higher rank to pages of lower rank.
The link may not change but its value to the refrain is reduced
as it is no longer on a page with as many incoming links of its
own, therefore it possesses less value to pass onto pages it links
to. Further, new articles and pages link to different targets with
regard to the same phrases, adding further competition to any refrain
related to relevant search terms. As the linkages change, so too
do the refrains. For these invoked lists of pages to become unchanging
would be a sign of stagnation, a sign that the web was no longer
dynamic. The chaos of web linkages is what the web - and Google
- thrives on.
Since the Google Bomb has become a 'known exploit' of PageRank,
there are a few examples of its use to perform protest action. By
building a page with protest information about a certain organisation
or activity, and then coordinating a Google Bomb to attach that
page to the name of the organisation itself, the page of anti- information
will often appear very close to the organisation's own page in a
Google search. Notable search terms targeted include 'Verisign'
and 'Bill Gates'. Of course, this will certainly become more difficult
the larger an organisation is. To rank a page alongside 'Microsoft',
you would need a massively widespread set of linkages, or a smaller
number of linkages from some very highly ranked pages. This is further
evidence of the nature of the refrain. The larger an organisation,
the more important it would appear to PageRank. It would be very
likely to have a lot of attention and therefore many incoming links
from many other pages, some of which would themselves be important
pages - and nearly all of which would be likely to use anchor text
related to the company name. Thus their territorial markings, or
refrain, would be well established. To challenge their refrain would
require a similarly influential set of linkages to grant the page
the territory it needs to gain a notable PageRank. The humble site
owner or blogger, are less likely to gain attention from important
pages, but they can use the blogging community to try to garner
support and generate a widely distributed set of incoming linkages
to build them a refrain. This new territory on the doorstep of the
large company's own territory hopes to spread an alternative message
to anyone searching for the relevant term.
Many commercial enterprises have attempted to influence Google
in a similar fashion to the Google Bomb (Sullivan, 2002). Organisations
have set up 'link farms', in which many servers running many different
domains all contain links to try and raise the ranking of target
websites relating to certain search terms. But this attempt artificially
to extend a site's territory has been highly ineffective at influencing
PageRank. Indeed the PageRank algorithm is known now to account
for certain kinds of manipulative link instances, rendering them
ineffective.
Is it the case that Google Bombs - and blog-centred link swapping
activities in general - are also artificial and should be treated
like link farms? There is an important difference. In the former
instance, one single entity is attempting to improve/expand a particular
refrain across the web. In the latter, we have a distributed group
of individuals who, each on their own terms, decide to support a
particular refrain. If a Google Bomb attempt does not convince a
distributed group of individuals to participate then it simply will
not work. Google 'knows' the difference between the organised yet
genuinely distributed creation of a real territory and an attempt
artificially to construct one.
There has been some misuse of the term 'Google Bomb' - in one case,
relating to the 'Cannot find Weapons of Mass Destruction' satire
web page (Cox, 2003a). An amusing alteration of the Microsoft Internet
Explorer error page, the page recently spread quickly around the
Internet through email and blog links. When people realised it had
become the number one search term in Google for 'Weapons of Mass
Destruction' the joke was extended further. Rather than directly
linking the page, people instead suggested searching Google for
that term and use the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button (which takes you
directly to the first page found). This Google relationship got
some writers referring to the page as a Google Bomb (Cox, 2003b).
But in this case there was no organised, intentional distribution
of links - using a specific piece of link text - to give it such
a ranking. This was simply a case of a popular page being linked
by many people independently - an entirely organic refrain was generated
without any intent to capture a particular set of territorial markings.
As touched on above there are some who believe that what the Google
Bomb represents is a problem that Google needs to address. Andrew
Orlowski, a writer for technology news website The Register,
is one such source of concern over the ability of bloggers to influence
Google search results. In April 2003 Orlowski wrote about the manipulation
(or 'Googlewashing', as he called it) of the term 'Second Superpower'
(2003). Originating in a New York Times article by Patrick
Tyler (2003) as a concept referring to 'world public opinion', Orlowski
claimed that in just 42 days the term had been Googlewashed so that
a Google search for 'Second Superpower' referred almost exclusively
to an article that used the term with reference to Internet users.
To Orlowski this was a clear example of a disturbing ability of
bloggers to shift meaning on the web - that links from a few '"A-list"
tech bloggers' (2003) can quickly lead to such shifts in Google
search results. If we return to a Deleuze and Guattari centred reading
of such linkages, however, this ability is not so disturbing at
all.
Just as a rhizome 'ceaselessly establishes connections between
semiotic chains' (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987: 7), so too does the
web. Blog linkages are often quite volatile as the automated nature
of such publishing means links move from positions of importance
on the front page of a blog into the sites archives. As touched
on earlier, a page in an archive will have fewer links leading into
it resulting in a lower PageRank which in turn results in links
leading from that page offering a reduced weight of territorial
influence. This volatility changes these influences in Google's
system very quickly (Hiler, 2002a). While Orlowski complains about
a small group of bloggers causing this shift, Tom Coates soon noted
that 'all it takes is one Register article (picked up on by other
bloggers) for this problem to correct' (2003). Within days of Orlowski's
The Register article, competing information (most notably
his article, which quickly became the second highest ranked 'Second
Superpower' item) was now available in the first page of search
results. As it turns out, the term 'Second Superpower' was never
used in the original New York Times article. So even though
Orlowski's claim was based on an inaccurate reading of the original
story, it was still able to assist in correcting what he saw as
an online injustice.
Part of this negativity toward seemingly inaccurate or manipulated
results may stem from a desire for Google to be something different
to what it is. While Google is an index of the web - and the territories
and linkages that exist in that space only - many seem to treat
Google as a tool that will search for results not only based on
those web territories but within the context of the real world too.
But Google is not an index of prevailing conditions in the real
world - even if it wanted to be. It can only index what exists on
the Internet! That the content of the web reflects what is happening
in the real world means it is still only a reflection - with all
the subtle distortions and differences that go along with that.
In the 'Second Superpower' case above, the term may have been used
in high-profile offline spaces a number of times with its original
meaning. But it had few online instances to generate a refrain that
would create a sufficiently large territory. When the term was used
in a new 'online' context it quickly gained attention and a territory
was shaped around it - a greater online territory than the original.
It cannot be ignored here that the Patrick Tyler's original New
York Times article has no presence in Google. It had, in fact,
just disappeared around the time Orlowski wrote his article for
The Register. Google cannot include pay content in its archives
and therefore cannot include such content in its indexing for search
terms - and pay-content systems are what many traditional news provider's
archives are moving to. This exacerbates the difficulty, mentioned
above, of reflecting the real world - without authoritative archives
of news information from traditionally offline sources Google can
only refer to information that is available only in purely online
sources. In the words of one pundit 'the "googlewashing"
Orlowski talks about was done by the New York Times, not by Google,
and not by bloggers' (Searl, 2003). If the information is not in
Google, then it cannot be indexed.
Conversely, the open nature of Google's indexing efforts grant
the ability to participate in the 'free market' of ideas and linkages
and this also means search terms are always open to territorial
'dispute'. If enough people want to participate in the territory
that is invoked by a particular search term then they can attempt
to do so. No single concept will ever own a territory on the web
- as long as multiple search results are returned to the user this
will mean many pages can compete for attention within particular
invoked spaces. Even on the first page of a set of search results
you will often see different concepts, particularly where new or
generic terms are the territory in dispute. While they are ranked
in an order of relevance, or the strength of their refrain, they
exist within the same emergent territory.
Google has come under fire not only for their reluctance to redress
the influence of blog linkages on search results; they have also
been attacked for their outright refusal to remove highly undesirable
pages from their search results. One recent case related to the
search term 'Jew' and the high ranking achieved by an anti-Semitic
site. As undesirable as such sites may be, Google stand firmly by
their policy and do not want to become a de facto censor for the
web. Recall their definition for PageRank included the statement
'a global ranking of all web pages, regardless of their content'
(Page, et al., 15) as well as another statement that PageRank rates
pages 'objectively and mechanically, effectively measuring the human
interest and attention devoted to them' (1). Perhaps in some instances
this later definition is debatable, but as Google argued in the
above situation, the search terms used are possibly the major source
of creating such results.
If you use Google to search for 'Judaism', 'Jewish' or 'Jewish
people', the results are informative and relevant. So why is a
search for 'Jew' different? One reason is that the word 'Jew'
is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations
are more likely to use the word 'Jewish' when talking about members
of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically…
In fact, prior to this incident, the word 'Jew' only appeared
about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it's likely
that the great majority of searches on Google for 'Jew' are by
people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results
for themselves. (Google, 2004)
Which is the path to true objectivity? A measure of all pages on
the web, regardless of content? Or a measure of human interest and
attention devoted to them? Are they entirely compatible? Clearly
the more influence Google's search holds on people's use of the
web, the more likely it will face increasing pressure to fulfil
a role online that should not be the domain of a corporation. As
it stands, Google delivers results from the open market of ideas
and competing territories that are found on the web and ranked according
to PageRank. Perhaps Google's search engine could be considered
the objective arbiter in a no holds barred battle of refrains, ranking
the raw power of each page's territorial markings on the web - and
all are welcome to add linkages wherever they choose.
Returning to the idea that 'a rhizome ceaselessly establishes connections
between semiotic chains, organisations of power, and circumstances
relative to the arts, sciences, and social struggles' (Deleuze and
Guattari, 1987: 7) Google Bombs - and blog-centric linkages in general
- ensure the potential for dynamism and tension across the World
Wide Web. The ability to add new linkages where there were previously
none is essential to both the rhizome and the refrain. Google Bombed
results can rupture territories or mark out new ones, and they have
the potential to raise debate and promote discussion across the
web that can only further promote the dynamic, temporal and decentred
nature of the web. The Google Bomb supports and promotes the powerful
potential of the rhizome and the manner in which ideas compete for
territory online through their refrains.
It's time to stop worrying about bloggers and their influence over
Google. By learning to love what they, and their Google Bombs, can
do opens us all to the widely accessible power that still exists
on the web for those who care to engage with it.
Author's Biography
Séamus Byrne is Deputy Editor of the Internet culture and
lifestyle magazine internet.au, as well as a monthly contributor
to Australian MacWorld. When not busy being a tech journalist, he
fits in working on a Ph.D. at the UNSW School of Media and Communications.
Research interests include online communities, sound design, advertising,
activism, and the construction of cool. [shay@milgram.net]
References
Brin, Sergey and Page, Lawrence. 'The Anatomy of a Large-Scale
Hypertextual Web Search Engine', (1998), http://www7.scu.edu.au/programme/fullpapers/1921/com1921.htm
Burnett, Kathleen. 'Toward a Theory of Hypertextual Design', Postmodern
Culture 3.2 (1993): http://www.infomotions.com/serials/pmc/pmc-v3n2-burnett-toward.txt
Coates, Tom. 'plasticbag.org | weblog | Oh self-correcting Blogosphere…',
(2003),
http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2003/04/oh_selfcorrecting_blogosphere.shtml
Cox, Anthony. 'Cannot find Weapons of Mass Destruction', (2003a),
http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
_____. 'The war on the web', (2003b), http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,994676,00.html
Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Felix. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism
and Schizophrenia, trans. Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1987).
Google, 'Google Technology', (2004), http://www.google.com/technology/index.html
Google, 'Google: An explanation of our search results', (2004),
http://www.google.com/explanation.html
'Google Answers: Google Inc., and the Google Bomb', (2003),
http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=179922
Hiler, John. 'Google Loves Blogs', (2002a), http://www.microcontentnews.com/articles/googleblogs.htm
_____. 'Google Time Bomb', (2002b), http://www.microcontentnews.com/articles/googlebombs.htm
Marks, Kevin. 'Googlewash? Hogwash', (2003), http://epeus.blogspot.com/2003_04_01_epeus_archive.html#200094183
Mathes, Adam. 'Filler Friday: Google Bombing', (2001), http://uber.nu/2001/04/06/
Mottram, Jack. 'Submit Response: Googlewash The Second Superpower',
(2003),
http://www.submitresponse.co.uk/archives/googlewash_the_second_superpower.php
Orlowski, Andrew. 'Anti-war slogan coined, repurposed and Googlewashed…
in 42 days' in The Register (2003): http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30087.html
Page, Lawrence, et al. 'The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing
Order to the Web', (1998), http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/1999-66
Searl, Doc. 'The Doc Searl Weblog: Friday, May 16, 2003', (2003),
http://doc.weblogs.com/2003/05/18
Sullivan, Danny. 'Google Bombs Aren't So Scary', (2002), http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/02/03-bomb.html
Tyler, Patrick. 'A new power in the streets', New York Times
(2003), http://www.submitresponse.co.uk/archives/superpower.html
(Mirror of original)
Walker, Jill. 'Links and Power: The Political Economy of Linking
on the Web', (2002), http://huminf.uib.no/~jill/linksandpower.html
TOP
|
