Talk:Google bombing

Performing a search for the term 'Fail' will give a link to the Irish political party Fianna Fáil, who are currently in government. It is likely this 'bomb' is a result of their name.

[1] —193.120.137.237 (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Search "Search Find Chuck Norris" but hit "I'm Feeling Lucky" (takes you to first result) I think this is a Google Bomb. —Xor24 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

lol. it could just be something funny that Google put in. 75.105.128.57 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

it's fake. it's just an imitation of google. --24.103.212.138 (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Archive of google bomb list Archives of old talk sections

The page claims that it itself is currently the number three return on Google for the words "talentless hack" - this is untrue. The page is, as of right now, the number TWO return. The irony does not cease to amuse me.--64.24.25.45 05:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• On 13-Nov-2008, "talentless hack" matched Wikipedia "Google bomb" as first, then Urban Dictionary. Those are not Google bomb examples, just that Google favors those websites for valid search results. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:43, 14 Nov 2008

The article French military victories (practical joke) now redirects to Google bomb. Please merge any material if deemed relevant. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:41Z

•   Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French military victories (practical joke) (2nd nomination)

==I removed "It's very funny, as it is actually true. The french have never won a battle". This is not true. The French have a in reality won battles in the past. Reference any Napoleonic history.

This is no longer a working google bomb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.177.9 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've removed material similar to this a couple of times now. While it's probably verifiable that Google's algorithm has changed, and that they may claim this will slow or stop Google bombing, any speculation as to its effects (or "I saw it myself" anecdotal stories) are original research. Let's wait until reliable sources report on the actual effect rather than speculating on it. Seraphimblade 19:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• How about the Search Engine Land article? Good enough? -- Seth Finkelstein 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's tons out about it now, thanks for pointing it out. Looks like we're in need of a different update here, too: [2]. I'll get their take on that put in as well. Seraphimblade 07:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/01/quick-word-about-googlebombs.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070126-8714.html —71.103.88.223 (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

Already been done! See [3] Seraphimblade 20:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/01/earlier_today_m.html —24.22.22.101 (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

Maybe the expression "dumb motherf***er" in the History section of the article should be censored?... ;) -- JBatista 12:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(moved to bottom) Actually, Wikipedia is not censored. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.++aviper2k7++ 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Surely one critical aspect is missing from the main article. The term Google Bomb is used when the search term used does not appear in the page that ranks as number one. For example, with the "miserable failure" example linking to the whitehouse site, I'm fairly sure the phrase "miserable failure" doesn't appear in the content of the whitehouse page that (used to be) returned as the #1 Google result. In other words, it's only if the high-ranking site is unexpected in some way that you consider this a Google Bomb.

If the text DOES occur in the page, then the result isn't surprising, and you don't call it a google bomb.

For example, searching for "Google" will, (surprise surprise), return various Google sites as the top results. Since the text "Google" occurs on these pages, making the result unsurprising, then surely this doesn't count as a Google Bomb?

In which case, the important distinction needs to be made in the article that "Google Bomb" only applies to results where the page itself has no significant mention of the text used. -- Howard Wright

Not really. I mean, this is sometimes the case, but, e.g. "French military victories" does appear in the text of [4] - the point is more in the methodology (distributed effort to link to the target page with the search term in the link text) and the _disproportionate_ rank, than simply binary presence/absence of the search terms. --Random832(tc) 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think we're actually in fairly close agreement here - I think "significant mention of the text" and "disproprortionate" are the key ideas. I agree that a simple check to see if the text appears at all on the page is not quite discerning enough (should have worded my first para more carefully). But, the point is the article currently says "A Google bomb is created if a large number of sites link to the page in this manner" (in this manner = using consistent anchor text). By this definition, search results for "Google", "Microsoft", "BBC", "The Whitehouse" etc etc would all be classed as Google Bombs! Appropriate wording needs to be added to make the point that ONLY when the anchor text used in the many links is deliberately chosen to be an unfair/imbalanced summary of the page contents is the effect deemed to be a link bomb or Google bomb. No? -- Howard Wright

Crazy cult. Guess who? --Jnelson09 23:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

i dont know where to include this on the page, if at all, but the search 'officially' returns a top page on 'what tolken officially said about elf sex'. is there a list of googlebombs on a different page? if not does someone want to make one?

There has to be a news articel on that "bomb" before it could be added anywhere. 68.39.174.238 07:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

News reference:

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80269,4477719.html —71.145.136.90 (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

14-Nov-2008: I have updated the top section to reflect changes from 2 years ago (+source footnotes): that "Before 2007" Google bombs worked on repeated anchor text, and "Google changed the ranking by January 2007 to list pages instead about the repeated linking of that text". Of course, to lower the rank of anchor-text repetitions, Google also ranked pages higher for other properties, but I won't mention the details of Google's later SEO algorithms, which are proprietary secrets intended to thwart linkspam when searching for real matches. Note that Google highly favors Wikipedia articles as search results in many cases, so wiki-pages could be pushed out of view if new secrets were revealed for moving ad-pages to the top of Google searches. In the past, over 300 similar linkspam pages have pushed real-content pages below the 31st page of Google results, so that's why I stated "pushed out of view" as a danger. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

14-Nov-2008: I have listed the known subpages (the archive files) in a wikitable (see Help:Table) beside the Table of Contents. I also shortened several auto-signature comments. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:43, 14 Nov 2008

I have removed the bad word from it's position by replacing it with stars.

Take a sneaky peak:

In September 2000 the first Google bomb with a verifiable creator was created by Hugedisk Men's Magazine, a now-defunct online humor magazine, when it linked the text "dumb motherf***er" to a site selling George W. Bush-related merchandise.

-Yahya Al-Shiddazi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.26.12.34 (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED Copysan (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Mr. Copysan Hohnsan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.113.11 (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article explains everything from the history of Google bombing to competitors. However it doesn't provide the simple explanation and the most basic question of the lay person: How does Google bombing work? What is the process involved in making a Google bomb?--Josh Is Dead (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Try Anthony Cox's War on the web article and see if that explains it better for you. Pawyilee (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Somebody needs to mention xkcd for their ability to consistently googlebomb. I remember the good old days when they were #3 for "hardcore pornography" and #1 for "Roomba dueling harness"

Is there a reason why the Scientology Googlebomb isn't up here? It's a good example of Googlebombing to communicate a political message by a group. Searching "Dangerous Cult" on Google had the Scientology main page as it's first result for quite a while. DarthHamsy (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I searched miserable failure on Ask.com, and the Bush page comes up first! 71.7.85.97 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the article seems strong, but can we get any more up to date info onto it. The last story seems to be from 2007. Best, Darigan 86.152.160.255 (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it is a reasonably strong article, but the changes at Google largely make the practice moot. That is, SEO still matters, but the explicit practice (and the term) seem to have been limited to a particular time. - Halavais (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

A few days ago, a redditor noticed that the search "is it possible to be happy" (the top search at the time) yielded a page from Scientology as its top result. Disgruntled, the redditor created a thread requesting links from others, and another redditor created an alternative site, which soon reached #2 on the results page. As I write this, this is still the case. I was involved in the bomb. Is this notable? -- Luser at 99.69.244.33 (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

When you Google, "StalkerNet" the first hit is the MTU Online Directory. The two have no correlation, and Michigan Tech does not refer to the directory as StalkerNet.

Cookie Defender (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply