?

Log in

No account? Create an account
log f-list backlog .nfo weev.net back back forward forward
look what gets pagerank of specific articles set to 0 - Andrew Auernheimer
Oðinnsson. Market abuser. Internationally notorious computer criminal.
weev
weev
look what gets pagerank of specific articles set to 0
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=megan+meier+site%3Aencyclopediadramatica.com
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=rob+levin+site%3Aencyclopediadramatica.com

I would just like to point out that "not evil" has turned into "not funny"

The pagerank stoning of the Megan Meier and Rob Levin articles is proof that all the Google founders' talk about not altering the pagerank of specific results is a load of garbage. Google is becoming a gigantic PC censorship authority.

It does appear hilarious that ED is considered worse than a virulent anti-semite conspiracy theorist by Google.

Web 2.0 culture generates a lot of talk about the urgency of net neutrality, that forcing people to pay based upon application layer content is unjust and violates the spirit of the Internet. They sure don't back it up with their actions. With the major search competitors it increasingly seems like you are only allowed to publish if your content is approved by committee. Verizon has never monitored nor cared about the content of my phonecalls. The USPS has never looked inside my mail. But Google plays with pagerank, all the while screaming about how not evil they are because they don't directly alter pagerank. Why should we give companies a blank check for bandwidth when they're guiltier of the same crime they accuse the telecommunications companies of?

So if you want to make jokes on the Internet don't make light of a man who collected tens of thousands of dollars for "open source development" and spent it on his own interests, never contributing a single line of code to any open source project. Nor can you talk about dead kids. The Google machine does not approve!
25 comments / leave comment
Comments
From: (Anonymous) Date: December 8th, 2007 12:48 am (UTC) (link)
ED should be stonewalled from google completely- it is a garbage site that promotes racism and anti-semitism, among other things. It is a hate crime, and I'm happy that Google did this. The children in charge of ED imagine that they are very funny, but they're hateful, useless little shits who don't contribute anything except stupidity and hate speech to the internet.
(Deleted comment)
weev From: weev Date: December 8th, 2007 01:38 am (UTC) (link)
66.90.73.56
girlvinyl From: girlvinyl Date: December 8th, 2007 01:57 am (UTC) (link)
Google is a collection of indexes from the internet. Nothing should be banned from it. It's an algorithm based on linking, dynamic content and other very objective mathematical facts. Google presents their search results as coming from this algorithm and being unbiased. This proves they're lying.

ED isn't an important or impacting site on a global scale, so imagine what else they're filtering that they don't want you to see.
thirty_three From: thirty_three Date: December 8th, 2007 02:15 am (UTC) (link)
Nonsense. Dramacrats fully endorse love and kittens along with Darwinism.
adameros From: adameros Date: December 8th, 2007 03:22 am (UTC) (link)
ED is funny. Sort of like your ignorant spiel.
amandathegreat From: amandathegreat Date: December 8th, 2007 03:37 am (UTC) (link)
For it to be a hate crime there has to be an actual crime involved.
From: (Anonymous) Date: December 8th, 2007 04:20 pm (UTC) (link)
It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. ... There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called. ~ 1984
From: (Anonymous) Date: December 8th, 2007 02:17 am (UTC) (link)
It's too bad that the company that used to be known by "Don't be evil" has changed.
weev From: weev Date: December 8th, 2007 02:43 am (UTC) (link)
they never changed, you were just fooled
snatchbeast From: snatchbeast Date: December 8th, 2007 12:35 pm (UTC) (link)
That is bullcrap.

But I'm enjoying the comments here and at Digg
From: (Anonymous) Date: December 8th, 2007 04:36 pm (UTC) (link)

Don't you know

Pagerank doesn't affect search engine ranking? It is a number that doesn't have any meaning!

to see if a site is removed from search engine, use this command

site:www.whaterver.com and you will see list of page that is indexed in google
weev From: weev Date: December 8th, 2007 05:05 pm (UTC) (link)

Re: Don't you know

No, pagerank 0 is reserved for spammers, sorry. Pagerank does affect search ranking. And the Megan Meier article was a top search result.
From: luper Date: December 8th, 2007 06:35 pm (UTC) (link)
get off your high horse and get over it
fuck
like who even cares? it was a stupid site anyways.
lafinjack From: lafinjack Date: December 9th, 2007 12:23 am (UTC) (link)
At first they came for ED; but I did not speak, for I was not ED...
From: luper Date: December 9th, 2007 12:30 am (UTC) (link)
well, weev is honestly a horrible person. He raped my girlfriend, forced drugs into my cat, has stolen over 1,000 from me, hurassed my family, caused physical harm to me, and a bunch of other things.
Why should anyone support this attention whore who demoralizes our community and is a criminal? He does this for attention, it gives him pleasure. And ED is clearly a source of attention for him.
this is why ED NEEDS to be SHUT DOWN
tres_faux From: tres_faux Date: December 9th, 2007 03:00 am (UTC) (link)
weev ate my sister's hymen. ;_;;;
From: luper Date: December 9th, 2007 07:04 am (UTC) (link)
he does this from time to time ;______;
nannygoatstrut From: nannygoatstrut Date: December 8th, 2007 07:17 pm (UTC) (link)

doing it for the lulz

ED is crassly misogynistic, racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, etc, etc. But you know what? I think it's an absolutely hilarious read. People who can't laugh at themselves or take a joke or can't dish it right back in someone else's face, they're lazy and brain-addled and need therapy. And I'm saying this as an unapologetic gay guy, who loves the drama.
tres_faux From: tres_faux Date: December 9th, 2007 03:01 am (UTC) (link)

Re: doing it for the lulz

I am one of ED's many gay/lesbian ops. LOLDONGS INDEED.
From: luper Date: December 10th, 2007 02:11 am (UTC) (link)

Re: doing it for the lulz

secret be told, ED is runned by girls, jews, and faggots.
datavortex From: datavortex Date: December 9th, 2007 04:46 pm (UTC) (link)
Not only is the Megan Meier ED article the top result for your the search "megan meier site:encyclopediadramatica.com", but the article is on the third page of results for the search "megan meier". So it appears you either didn't get your facts straight or spoke too soon.

If you want to know why the pagerank was really spoiled (as opposed to your wild, factless speculation), ask Matt Cutts.
From: blu_aardvark Date: December 9th, 2007 07:41 pm (UTC) (link)
This was not the case merely 24 hours ago.

So Google fixed the problem with the Megan Meier article. Oops, they seem to have left other
stuff behind.
datavortex From: datavortex Date: December 9th, 2007 07:59 pm (UTC) (link)
That may in fact be true, but I'm still interested in hearing a reply from Cutts or others involved with Google's search indexing, rather than just speculation about what seems like arbitray deindexing, especially after a PageRank update that reportedly affected a lot of people (1, 2, 3). ED has a ton of content that could offend just about anyone, much of which is trafficked from searches on relevant pop news items, and it's not all equally affected. I've not seen any evidence that this is due to anything but the ongoing tweaking of algorithms (or perhaps even a third party activity such as links rolling off blogs), and I think to absolutely assert otherwise assumes bad faith.
weev From: weev Date: December 9th, 2007 08:19 pm (UTC) (link)
"assumes bad faith"

what is this, freenode? we judge objectively by ends here.

you're a fucking douchebag
From: blu_aardvark Date: December 9th, 2007 08:59 pm (UTC) (link)
Considering that search results for the Rob Levin article have been behaving in the same manner for an extended period of time (seriously, I first observed that two or three months ago), I doubt highly that the "pagerank update" of which you speak had anything at all to do with it.

I'll grant that it is indeed possible that third-party activity - linkspam or googlebombs by people unaffiliated with google - is a definite possibility. But even if this is the case, wouldn't this also demonstrate broken behavior with the Google search engine?

Don't be evil.
25 comments / leave comment