Good Bye Google

Before they incoporated, Google was beyond any shadow of a doubt the best search engine on the net. Apparently too good. There was a thread just recently here on ATS talking about google image search censoring out Abu Gharib pictures, which by tiself was pretty depressing given Google's long standing record of leading the technology, but sadly another example has come to my attention...

www.breakfornews.com...
Google Censors
VoteFraud Stories

When they hit the stock market, they apparently ceased to exsist in the sense that they were a super-search engine, now they are becomming a tool and the google we all knew and loved has come to an end. I'm saying goodbye to google, and asking other members of ATS to pay your respects as well, it was a good thing while it lasted...



It would be interesting to find out who bought the major shares in google, as clearly they now answer to someone with a vested interest in censoring information, and in light of their recent decease, I wonder if it is possible to design your own search engine, maybe a money maker for ATS eh? An above top secret search engine, but I want ten percent!

Has anybody ever gone to www.googlee.com... ? I am not sure what the difference is between that ans google.com. I think all the results that come up will be in english only?

hmmm..... an english only google? interesting.

Why do you think google is dead?

Hell, a week ago they doubled there page amount from 4 billion to 8 billion, more pages means more info, i think thats a good thing.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by Murcielago]

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Has anybody ever gone to www.googlee.com... ? I am not sure what the difference is between that ans google.com. I think all the results that come up will be in english only?

It resolves as Google Inc.

Same thing.

Don' t know why the address thing.
Same results with both searches.

Misfit

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Has anybody ever gone to www.googlee.com... ? I am not sure what the difference is between that ans google.com. I think all the results that come up will be in english only?

It resolves as Google Inc.

Same thing.

Don' t know why the address thing.
Same results with both searches.

Misfit

Nope it resolves as Google with English under the word Google unlike when you type in google.com.

I don't think this really merrits a boycott of Google.com or it's sponsors. Your link said that there were still a great deal of links that would come up in a search for the US voter fraud. Just because Google doesn't put a new story on their Google News doesn't mean there is a conspiracy about. There could be a multitude of reasons for their alleged actions. One example being they disapprove of the civil unrest that is occuring in many cities due to the US voter fraud topic.

ATS is in the search of truth, entertainment and community. In order to find the truth, we must use every tool possible. Google is an invaluable tool as it has been for quite some time. We cannot abondon it now, we need it just as much now as we did when it first hit the Internet. ATS vs Google would be a battle lost, we need it more than it needs us.

Originally posted by Murcielago
Why do you think google is dead?

Well, to answer your question I will quote my prior...

Originally posted by twitchy
clearly they now answer to someone with a vested interest in censoring information,

Anyone messing with my Google will have to answer to my puppy.




BTW, found him with a Google image search.

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Nope it resolves as Google with English under the word Google unlike when you type in google.com.

Resolving from an IP trace, they are one in the same.


[resolving] googlee.com (216.239.57.99)

216.239.32.0 - 216.239.63.255
Google Inc.
2400 E. Bayshore Parkway
Mountain View, CA
US

Misfit

[edit on 14-11-2004 by Misfit]

Originally posted by SkyFox2
One example being they disapprove of the civil unrest that is occuring in many cities due to the US voter fraud topic.

Where as before they incoporated, they would have simply provided information, ALL information. Try the image search for Abu Gharib torture pics, my point is that the spirit of google is passed on now. I'm not calling for a boycott of google, you might as well try to stamp out macaroni noodles, I'm calling for funeral services for what used to be a completely uncesnored, unbiased, wonderful search engine. Now it is a coporate interest, answering to stockholders who apparently arent going to allow google to be what it was. That is a Demise of the google principle that made it once great.

I've noticed the quality of searches drop since the summer. Now when I search with a number of keywords, You first get all the paid submissions, Ok they paid, but the rest of the results seem to have little relevance and sort by importance seems weak also.

The new MS-Beta seams to be a little better, but it's hard to trust them on anything politicly sensative.

Just the mere thought of google censoring stuff has me itchy.

And considering what it is they censored, according yo your post, it smells rotten of NWO foul play. That's aight, the NWO is falling apart up there, the heat is on, the pressure is becoming unbearable, and well, I'll use Yahoo and try the new MS search engine. No problem, none. Besides, I have noticed lately anyway that I am tired of searching through 1 million search results every time I type in a request on google, and have found yahoo to be more to the point. We'll see what MS brings with theirs.

Try a Google "Image" search for "abu gharib" or any of the soldier's names involved in the scandal. You won't find one picture of an Iraqi on a leash.
They censor those images. Why? I don't know.

EDIT: Someone on ATS posted this earlier, but I can't find the thread.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by curme]

Yahoo Search, Image page for "abu gharib"

Six pages (I only hit 1 & 6, both of which all were relevant)

Yahoo Search

Misfit

curme
Try a Google "Image" search for "abu gharib" or any of the soldier's names involved in the scandal. You won't find one picture of an Iraqi on a leash.

Because they dont want other people site to be full of be-headings anf people lying in the streets. Our news is only cencored to the point of what we dont care to see, if they say "10 soldiers died today when there hummer was shot by an rpg" do you want them to then show footage of a hummer that has took a beaten or would you prefer to see bloody bodies lying in the street, and then you would have to deal with the soldiers family members, which would be very upset over the whole thing.

www.breakfornews.com...

This site has all the earmarks of legitimate journalism.

Is there anyone here who can come up with a legitimate discussion?

Regard the following:

�[T]he Democratic Party, the Kerry campaign, the secretary of state and political experts say that while there were hiccups and glitches on Election Day, there's no chance the election was stolen, or that the results will be overturned.

"Grow up! That's what I'd tell them. Grow up. Because I frankly think this is childish," said Ryan Barilleaux, a Hanover Township resident and chairman of the political science department of Miami University of Ohio.

Barilleaux credited groundswell to Ohio's pivotal role in the election -- if Kerry backers can yet swing Ohio, they'll have Kerry in the White House -- to avenge for the 2000 election, and to the nation's "culture of litigation."

"For the last half century, any time anyone has not liked something, they've litigated it," he said. "Why should elections be any different?"

Dan Trevas, a spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party, said many voters are driven to espousing conspiracies because they just can't believe that after such a fierce campaign, after they turned out so many votes, they actually lost.

"They're still a little shocked that Republicans turned out that many more voters considering they weren't doing the registration at the levels (Democrats) were. There's kind of this awe out there," he said.

Terry McAuliffe, the national DNC chairman, was forced to issue a statement Wednesday noting the election outcome is "undisputed." [emphasis mine]

www.chillicothegazette.com...

[edit on 04/11/14 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by curme
Try a Google "Image" search for "abu gharib" or any of the soldier's names involved in the scandal. You won't find one picture of an Iraqi on a leash.
They censor those images. Why? I don't know.

Google image search does not search by subject, but by the name of the image file name. I'm surprised no one ever noticed that before or are we just too eager to find conspiracies where none exist.

Google recently altered their search responses when certain key words yielded sites that were anti-semitic, I believe. That was the first and only time that Google has ever altered search results. They apolgized to the public for having to do so.

If you are looking for a conspiracy, there is a process that requires that many people participate in using certain key words on their sites or some such to alter search results for some humorous or political statement. Now, that is a conspiracy.

Regard the following:

Claim: One of the top search results in Google for the word "jew" points to an anti-Semitic site.

Status: True.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004]

Upon reading in the Jewish Press that an anti-Semitic website is the first result one gets when typing in the word "Jew" on Google, the Internet's number one search engine, I contacted Google and basically got a run-around. I was told that in order for Google to rectify the problem, I would need some sort of petition with at least 50,000 names. I've taken Google at its word and have set up an online petition for people to sign � at: www.removejewwatch.com � and express their concern and disapproval. I hope you readers will help us come closer to realizing our goal.
Steven M. Weinstock

Origins: Their ability to comb the Internet places the power of fast and easy acquisition of information into our hands, but search engines also have the potential of herding information-seekers towards a few specific web pages via their ranking systems. Sites that appear high in those rankings � on the first page of search results, say, or within the top three to five entries � garner far more traffic than do similar web destinations that appear lower in the standings. For this reason, those first few spots in the rankings are considered key and are heavily prized.

Unfortunately, in the case of the word "jew," that prize is currently going to an unsavory entity.

[...]

www.snopes.com...

[edit on 04/11/14 by GradyPhilpott]

Murcielago, you and grady just proved my point. They are filtering out Iraqi war photos and filtering out sites they deem to be anti-semetic amung other things. In other words they are censoring your search queries, thank you for illustrating the point of this post.
On a side note, grady keep the political rubbish on political threads for crying out loud.

Originally posted by twitchy
On a side note, grady keep the political rubbish on political threads for crying out loud.

Excuse me, twitchy? I believe the political content came directly from the site you posted. The whole Google uproar is over the election, or do you just assume that no one follows the link?

www.breakfornews.com...

I have no problems with Google