Ron Paul on Google Trends, page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 13-8-2011 @ 04:24 PM by BohemianBrim
what do you make of this?
www.google.com...

first off, it bugs me that there is no label for the lateral on the graph.. 0-what? and what exactly is it measuring. id like to know what the numbers are for that peak back at the beginning of 2008.
Google is like this in everything though, reminds me how their maps never have a legend so you just have to guess what all the symbols mean.

second, ummm, did anyone else expect his popularity to be a lot higher than it was in 2008?
im forced to question whether or not i can trust this, look at this link of trends for today www.google.com...
ron is number 7!!!

so why no peak on his graph?

maybe i just dont know how any of this works, but Google sure isnt helping me figure it out.


reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 04:50 PM by xxsomexpersonxx
www.google.com...

Look at that.

No way, that Tim Pawlenty is getting hundreds of times more searches than Ron Paul.

Either we're missing something(like maybe it only looks at news articles), or there's foul play.

I'm still hesitant to call foul play.

~
Worked around it:
www.google.com...

Make more sense now?
edit on 13-8-2011 by xxsomexpersonxx because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-8-2011 by xxsomexpersonxx because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 04:53 PM by aaronez
reply to post by Skyfloating



Yes Sky I think you are correct. In 2008 he was the latest flavour of the month hence the spike. Now Paul gets too close to the truth, too often so the mainstream media simply silence him, by not reporting his comments over and over like they do the others. We can't have any of the truth being bandied about in public forums, especially in the so called democratic (what a joke) old US of A...


reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 05:36 PM by BohemianBrim
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Worked around it:
www.google.com...

Make more sense now?


actually it makes LESS sense now. shouldnt the "ron paul" searches include the "ron paul 2012" searches?

and still, there are no numbers for the lateral on the graph, so the peak could be 10 people or 10 million. so they are entirely useless for comparison to other candidates. im sure each graph is adjusted to fit, so one candidates peak could be 10, and the others 10 million.

thats pretty much graph making 101, to not include it seems intentionally misleading.

im starting to hate google more than apple.
edit on 13-8-2011 by BohemianBrim because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 07:17 PM by muzzleflash
reply to post by BohemianBrim



What are you talking about?

I did protest, however it was in more of a civilized manner than your suggestion.

How could you have known if I threw a fit or not? I am just informing you that you assumed incorrectly.

This was a well-known fact during the last election cycle, Paul wasn't even allowed on several states ballots.

I am not going to harm anyone over it though, I just refuse to vote as my solution. And try to inform others of the situation that is going down.

And no I don't drink fluoridated water...how would you know that anyways without doing a chemical analysis on either my water or me?

Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Ron Paul is NOT dropping out, the Mainstream Media is LYING.
  Posted 14 days ago with 111 member flags
Report: Romney Will Be Disqualified From Race Due To Fraud
  Posted 18 days ago with 105 member flags
Evidence of Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections
  Posted 6 days ago with 88 member flags
Fox News Analyst: First American to shoot down drone will be a hero
  Posted 13 days ago with 68 member flags
Mitt Romney scared Ron Paul is winning!!!
  Posted 6 days ago with 62 member flags
Let\'s just say it: Political Parties are the Problem
  Posted 11 days ago with 60 member flags