Want to remove a blog from your Google search results? Update: Google announces major algorithm change

posted at 9:30 am on February 26, 2011 by Patrick Ishmael

I do my best to avoid giving Huffington Post traffic, even when it’s linked here at Hot Air. There are a few reasons, a lot of it having to do with not wanting to underwrite Arianna Huffington’s politics. But one thing I really, really disagree with is HuffPo’s business model, which is to serve as an SEO — “search engine optimized” — pass-through to original content elsewhere on the Internet. Ed wrote a great post explaining the HuffPo/content/traffic tension after AOL acquired the site, and if you’re unfamiliar with how SEO works, check this out. In short, some of the most asinine HTML tricks can make an unremarkable website a top tier Google Search result, which means traffic and ad dollars. That’s what HuffPo specializes in.

Make Google see you, and the world sees you.

But as Farhad Manjoo correctly noted at the time of the acquisition, the “content farm” model for Internet businesses won’t last for long.

Making a living off the news is hard, and if they’ve figured out a way to fool search engines into pushing visitors their way, I salute them. But there’s a long-term problem with their strategy: They won’t be able to fool the computers forever.

Not all SEO is bad, and not all HuffPo articles employ shady SEO, but some of the tricks that HuffPo uses to gin up search traffic are pretty sketchy. These tricks include: stuffing articles with strings of meaningless keywords (HuffPo does this on every piece), repeating potential search queries at the top of a story, and carefully engineering articles in response to rising search terms. These tactics exploit obvious weaknesses in Google and other search engines. If Google’s mission is to provide search results that you—a human being—find useful, then HuffPo’s keyword-glutted pieces don’t belong, because no human being considers a list of synonyms an interesting way to start an article.

Indeed. Which is where removing HuffPo from Google results comes in.

Last week, Google rolled out a tool that will probably end HuffPo’s word games. If you’re a Google Chrome user, you can now remove all of the spammiest sites from your search results as you do your searches, with just a click.

So to get rid of the Huffington Post from my search results, I Googled “Huffington Post.” HuffingtonPost.com (obviously) returned as the top result. With one click of the “Block” button that now appears next to search results, now I don’t have to see the site in searches again. No more accidentally-clicking inferior HuffPo content sitting in at “search result 1″ when “search result 2″ was what I was after. And if I ever want to click a Hot Air link to HuffPo? Can still do that. Site’s not blocked from being accessible. Just blocked from interfering.

A couple quick notes: Google “blacklist” additions are immediately reflected as you remove sites. The extension then notifies Google of which sites you’re spamming out, which I suspect is to improve search results for others. (If you’ve never really liked the idea of Google tracking your searches, you may find this extension handy, too.)

Genuine content creators should be the beneficiaries of high Google rankings and deserve top-result traffic. Hopefully this extension is a first step toward sound-proofing the Internet from the low quality content echoes out there. Make your clicks heard.

——-

On Twitter? Me too.

——-

Update: I’m not sure the extent of HuffPo’s Net spam could be clearer than by comparing Google results of the “remove Huffington Post” search query, forty-five minutes after this blog post went up.

Before HuffPo results removed:

After:

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Update (Ed): Dodd at OTB notes that Google has finally addressed SEO exploitation:

The major tweak aims to move better quality content to the top of Google’s search rankings. The changes will affect 12% Google’s results, the company said in a blog post late Thursday….

Typically, Google’s algorithm changes are so subtle that few people notice them. But these most recent changes could be seen immediately….

The changes appear to be affecting so-called “content farms” the most, which are websites that amass content based on the most-searched terms of the day. Demand Media, AOL, Mahalo and the Huffington Post have all been accused of such tactics, including a notable “story” from HuffPo about the Super Bowl that Slate.com media critic Jack Shafer called “the greatest example of SEO whoring of all time.”

I wonder if AOL may be regretting its HuffPo purchase now?

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I wish Yahoo would find a way to block wiki and ehow sites. I don’t ever want to use google, but if I can search for things without all the BS thrown in, I might.

bopbottle on February 26, 2011 at 9:36 AM

I have avoided using G for any searches for almost 2 years now.
I use ixquick all the time. No tracking.

OkieDoc on February 26, 2011 at 9:39 AM

I “wrote” for Suite101.com and Examiner.com and they both force you to through every possible SEO trick in order to get views. Their “editors” could have cared less if you could string together a good sentence, but were adamant about SEO correcting errors and omissions.

My Sports editor was actually a good guy and helped me get credentials to any fight I wanted to see, but many of the other editors were simply unbearable.

pugwriter on February 26, 2011 at 9:43 AM

I use Yippy.

honsy on February 26, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Thanks, Patrick! Huffington Post’s SEO tactics are not what we want to be successful. We want to the search results to go to the content producers not the parasites, like HuffPo. I just hadn’t thought to actually remove any results from a Google search until I read your article.

There has been some discussion about the evils of Google. There are some evils to be sure. The Google evil that most bothers me hasn’t been mentioned. Honest discussion of Islam is labeled hate speech and demoted in Google search results and news. Yet, the only serious alternative is Microsoft, either via Yahoo or Bing. Microsoft is much more problematic to me, because its business model requires a notion of intellectual property that stifles economic growth. There is no reason for “intellectual property” unless it promotes economic growth. We should no to patents on software. Furthermore, Microsoft has also been in bed with Democrats and strongly supported amnesty for illegals and flooding this country with immigrants. I also have a personal reason for choosing Google. I use Linux and Google provides much better search results for Linux issues than does Bing. I think Google search results tend to better on many other subjects, but I haven’t done the comparisons to see as I have with Linux.

thuja on February 26, 2011 at 9:46 AM

bing.

ted c on February 26, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Scroogle.org

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 26, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Google wouldn’t assist the United States with Homeland Securiyty and the Patriot Act, but helped Communist China censor the internet. I won’t use them or get an Android based phone.

DAT60A3 on February 26, 2011 at 9:57 AM

I’m not getting a “block” option.

Hening on February 26, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Excellent!

Bob's Kid on February 26, 2011 at 10:00 AM

I’m not getting a “block” option.

Hening on February 26, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Got it….

Hening on February 26, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Oh Great. Just Great! The Digg blog model goes internet wide.

See also, SideWiki.

Skandia Recluse on February 26, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Thanks. And thanks Hot Air for promoting the post from the Green Room.

keebs on February 26, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Let’s see, you can either remove the HuffPo from your top search listings, or you can use the browser produced by the company that is the most obsessive collector of personal information in the world’s history, let alone being one of the biggest corporate backers of the current political power structure in the White House, and a firm that would never, ever, ever, possibly have anything hidden on their Chrome program that might also transmit your web-surfing data to them, to better tarrget their advertising and other information toward you.

A Hobson’s choice if ever there was one.

jon1979 on February 26, 2011 at 10:08 AM

We should [say] no to patents on software.

thuja on February 26, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Spend a fortune at great risk defining and developing something innovative and then say that.

elfman on February 26, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Patrick, I don’t have Chrome, but if I ever do eventually, I’ll remember this.

By the way, did you ever post the results of the survey you did awhile ago? I seem to have missed them if you did.

Vatican Watcher on February 26, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Google itself is now acting to remove SEOs. Many SEO sites are nothing more than ad purveyors who aggregate content from their betters. SEO in Google circles is called AIR — Adversarial Information Retrieval.

The button you’ve just advocated pushing is the latest Google gadget to combat AIR. Google, dislikes people, regardless of politics, who discover and then “game” their search ranking methods (Google has the same politics as Huffington). Once upon a time, a site’s Google popularity was determined solely by who linked to it. That led to sites which would purchase many additional domain names just so they could make links to themselves, thus driving up their ranking. Google responded by using the links to build weighted networks; those networks which were isolated (a few sites all linking each other) were given low search ranking. Thus began what huffpost does — an attempt to drive up search rankings by linking their small local net more securely into the larger network. That task is made easier by site software at the targeted sites which link back, thus apparently integrating the huffpost content into a larger universe than it might otherwise occupy. We know that HotAir also does this activity — the “Trackbacks/Pings” area is designed to do this; the difference is that “Trackbacks/Pings” is not automated.

Ariana Huffington wrote a book on how to build successful sites like Huffington Post — her ideas (including how she does SEO) are sitting on the bookshelf at Barnes and Noble right now. I wouldn’t buy the book but, on your next trip to B&N, go over to the computer books area associated to the Internet and browse her volume. It will be illuminating. Many of the ideas expressed in her book are excellent ones from a technical standpoint, but you can see that the emphasis is constantly on driving traffic to the site. It paid off for Huffington — the sale of her site to AOL has generated for her a profit of between $3M and $11M, depending on which journal you read, not to mention a salaried position which will pay several million dollars per year.

unclesmrgol on February 26, 2011 at 10:36 AM

a firm that would never, ever, ever, possibly have anything hidden on their Chrome program that might also transmit your web-surfing data to them, to better tarrget their advertising and other information toward you.

A Hobson’s choice if ever there was one.

jon1979 on February 26, 2011 at 10:08 AM

If you’re uncomfortable with Google products, you can use Iron. The extension may work with it as well. It’s sort of an un-branded Chrome.

ddrintn on February 26, 2011 at 10:38 AM

I haven’t used Google ever since they hindered W’s War On Terror, & subsequently started going out of their way to help the Chinese censor searches.

itsnotaboutme on February 26, 2011 at 10:38 AM

It’s a pity you can only do this with Chrome, which doesn’t really cut it for me as a Browser (and I wouldn’t use a Google browser anyway). Chrome doesn’t even have smooth scrolling ffs.

Sharke on February 26, 2011 at 10:46 AM

I don’t use Chrome.

moochy on February 26, 2011 at 10:47 AM

AOL is going to get hurt badly for their foolishness. It has become a metaphor for greed and incompetence. But I don’t see how Google can favor their own browser only with this new blocking feature for long, before cries for a level playing field arise. I don’t see the feature here in Opera.

paul1149 on February 26, 2011 at 10:49 AM

All this Google bashing. They give me a FREE Blogger page with NO ads (Granny Jan and Jihad Kitty). They give me a FREE You Tube channel (RobtKraft) mostly with no ads. My videos are some of the most antiObama content on You Tube yet they pretty much leave me alone. I’ve never clicked on their ads. So who is taking advantage of whom?

No Niks on February 26, 2011 at 10:54 AM

It’s a pity you can only do this with Chrome, which doesn’t really cut it for me as a Browser (and I wouldn’t use a Google browser anyway). Chrome doesn’t even have smooth scrolling ffs.

Sharke on February 26, 2011 at 10:46 AM

The extension does work with SRWare Iron, which I mentioned above.

ddrintn on February 26, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Very useful to know. Thanks, Patrick.

petefrt on February 26, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Can I be a conservative and use Chrome and have an Android phone and use Google as my search engine of choice? I didn’t know about this litmus test. I’m going to have to reconsider my entire political philosophy now. Damn.

Immolate on February 26, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Google definitely needs some competition, because right now they have the power to make or break businesses based on their manipulation of search results and oftentimes they break a business for no discernible reason. There’s no comeback either, you cannot contact or reason with them.

I was for 3 years in the top three local business listing results for my business, based on the most popular search query. Naturally it brought me a stack of business. Then, around 2 months ago, Google decided that my local business listing did not meet their guidelines, and they suspended it. I’ve been through all of their guidelines with a fine tooth comb and I don’t violate any of them. There is nothing spammy or fraudulent about it, all the info is 100% accurate, I don’t stuff keywords – nothing is wrong. I cannot contact them to ask them why, they do not respond to queries. I have no way of knowing how to go about fixing the problem.

Now I’m not in the local business listings (which comes above the organic listings) and it’s affected my business to the point where it’s inevitable that jobs are going to have to be lost in the near future. Researching the problem online it seems that Google have done this to thousands of businesses, many of which have gone under as a result.

You just cannot speak to anyone at Google, they have no customer service. They can, on a whim, decide that they don’t want you in their search results, and the decision is very often unwarranted and unjust. Given that they dominate searches, they can quite literally decide which businesses survive and which don’t.

In the past I’ve paid for Adwords and found that they’ve made my ad appear for keywords that I haven’t specified, meaning that I’ve paid for useless clicks that I didn’t want (the clicker was looking for something else). No matter how much I complained I could not get a refund for those clicks, many of which I paid as much as $1.50 each for. When I stopped my account, they continued to charge my card and it took almost a year to get the money back.

Google are a horrible, horrible company to deal with and the sooner someone takes away their market dominance, the better. I’ve also never been impressed with their software, it’s badly designed and buggy. Over the years I’ve come to realize they’re not the swish young whiz kids I once thought them to be.

Sharke on February 26, 2011 at 11:31 AM

I try to avoid Google. When I think of Google, I think of the Obama administration gathering data on its “enemies”.

Here’s another privacy issue, photos taken with GPS enabled cell phones.

Fallon on February 26, 2011 at 12:14 PM

The extension then notifies Google of which sites you’re spamming out, which I suspect is to improve search results for others.

Hopefully this only changes how the site shows in your own searches and not in Google’s actual search engine results. If it does effect search engine rankings, I it will probably help lefty bloggers more than hurt them — these are the same people who came up with “Google Bombing,” and there’s every reason to think they would be all over this Chrome feature if it has any real chance of keeping conservative blogs from being found.

sockpuppetpolitic on February 26, 2011 at 12:17 PM

I use bing all the time, and where I work they changed the company preferred search engine to bing.

theotherone on February 26, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Can this be done using firefox?

Conservative Samizdat on February 26, 2011 at 12:37 PM

One other thing. Last I checked, G was using redirects to record which search links were being clicked on. And I’ve never seen them speak of doing that.

paul1149 on February 26, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I do my best to avoid giving Huffington Post traffic

Odd, that’s the first website that came to my mind!

disa on February 26, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Can this be done using firefox?

Conservative Samizdat on February 26, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I’ve searched Firefox add-ons for the same or similar tool after I heard of this Chrome tool the other day. I couldn’t find an exact same match but there are a-lot of ‘similar’ tools. I just don’t know which one is the right one because all of them seem to be the incorrect one. They all seem to do too much with a whole host of settings and tweaks instead of just providing a simple one-click block from within Google search results.

I’m guessing that the simple Google Chrome tool just hasn’t been ported for use in Firefox yet.

FlatFoot on February 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM

I was reared on Yahoo!, so I still use it.

SouthernGent on February 26, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Did you know that every time you link to Huff (or anywhere), you literally donate some of HotAir’s rank over to the destination? For example, a lot of your rank is bleeding away to “The Blog Studio” because you link to them on every page…

Professor_Chaos on February 26, 2011 at 2:29 PM

i know nothing of the dark art of SEO, but some time ago I looked at HuffPo on Alexa….and under “high impact search queries”…the highest is “sex”…well, no wonder they get so much traffic.

and sure enough if you go to Bing and search for “sex” one of the first returns is HuffPo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/sex

r keller on February 26, 2011 at 2:31 PM

By the way, did you ever post the results of the survey you did awhile ago? I seem to have missed them if you did.

Vatican Watcher on February 26, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Yup yup.

Patrick Ishmael on February 26, 2011 at 2:42 PM

I’ve tried the Google boycott thing. But I came back because Google’s stuff is just better. The search engine blows Bing out of the water. Google maps is also much better than anything else. And besides for all of you Bing proponents, take a look at where Bill Gates is giving his money: hint, it’s not conservative causes.

angryed on February 26, 2011 at 2:47 PM

where’s the ‘block’ option on google chrome, it does not appear next to the search result as Ishmael indicated in his post….

jimver on February 26, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Hmmm.

Just use Firefox and a free addon called “BlockSite”.

You list the URLs that you wish to block and any website that has that URL, in *any* webpage including Google, will have that link removed so you cannot click on it. It may show up, but the mechanism for you to click on it is eliminated.

memomachine on February 26, 2011 at 2:55 PM

So does this now mean that if you do a search for something like HUMONGOUS KNOCKERS!, the very first result that will pop up will be for FoundryCraft Decorative Door Knockers in WallaWalla, Washington?

pilamaye on February 26, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Just use Firefox and a free addon called “BlockSite”.

You list the URLs that you wish to block and any website that has that URL, in *any* webpage including Google, will have that link removed so you cannot click on it. It may show up, but the mechanism for you to click on it is eliminated.

memomachine on February 26, 2011 at 2:55 PM

I think the idea here is to hurt the HuffPo/AOL business by getting Google to not display HuffPo’s sites as much. This is not us being hateful right-winger trying to defund legitimate opposition. HuffPo is manipulating Google and Bing to a way that does not benefit the search engine consumer. So we are helping to eliminate HuffPo’s parasitism.

thuja on February 26, 2011 at 3:54 PM

I’m glad to read this post! When doing google searches, I noticed huffpo’s articles/links appeared a lot; I thought they were really growing poplular, now I know we were being tricked.

As for using google, I just saw a re-tweet by Michelle Malkin (last week), stating something like ‘if we avoid using google, it leaves it to the liberals/left to control’, good point. I tried to find her RT, but couldn’t..

TN Mom on February 26, 2011 at 4:35 PM

So, taking steps to make sure people find your site is exploitation, lol? What should Huff and others do, create their content, and then hope it gets found by magic? Yeah, that’s a solid strategy. Not.

And….ummm, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but….HotAir is a pass-through site to original content found elsewhere too.

xblade on February 26, 2011 at 4:35 PM

So to get rid of the Huffington Post from my search results, I Googled “Huffington Post.” HuffingtonPost.com (obviously) returned as the top result. With one click of the “Block” button that now appears next to search results, now I don’t have to see the site in searches again

Believe me, I’m no fan of HuffPo’s SEO tricks to game better search engine results. But your recommendation is no better than the HuffPo racket. If people use the Chrome extension to target sites that are disliked for any reason other than onet related to a specific, spammy search result, then you’ve reduced Google’s efforts to a flame war between each site and it’s lovers – haters.

bayam on February 26, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Yep, it’s changed alright. Type in “murder” and the Wikipedia entry for abortion no longer appears at the top.

Darn those algorithms!

manwithblackhat on February 26, 2011 at 7:02 PM

I’ve tried the Google boycott thing. But I came back because Google’s stuff is just better. The search engine blows Bing out of the water. Google maps is also much better than anything else. And besides for all of you Bing proponents, take a look at where Bill Gates is giving his money: hint, it’s not conservative causes.

angryed on February 26, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Good points but I have to disagree on Google Maps. I think it sucks. It redirects me all over the place and it isn’t very intuitive at times. One wrong click and you’re in 3-D or street view and can’t get out without closing the browser (at least I can’t. My point about not intuitive). I use Mapquest still and like it a lot. But other than that, yeah, Google seems to be the best choice of search. And I’m a Windows user even though Gates is a huge lefty supporter. Hell, try looking at Apple; lefties all. If you try to only use conservative tech services, you’ll be using tin cans with string attached.

Big John on February 26, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Bing.

Because it’s not google.

csdeven on February 26, 2011 at 10:25 PM

You just cannot speak to anyone at Google, they have no customer service. They can, on a whim, decide that they don’t want you in their search results, and the decision is very often unwarranted and unjust. Given that they dominate searches, they can quite literally decide which businesses survive and which don’t.

Sharke on February 26, 2011 at 11:31 AM

You do realize that it’s entirely automated right? You were at the top because of an algorithm and were removed from the top because of the same (perhaps improved) algorithm. It’s not as if someone at Google had thought you were swell and put you at top but then got mad at you and tried to punish your business.

One other thing. Last I checked, G was using redirects to record which search links were being clicked on. And I’ve never seen them speak of doing that.

paul1149 on February 26, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Google and most other popular sites record what link you click on. It’s especially critical for a search engine as they need to know if what it thinks is the most relevant is what’s really getting attention. Google also not only records what was clicked (and for what keywords), but the other results that weren’t clicked and all the positions of the results. These are also made available to webmasters, so you can see the click through rate for a particular search term in all the various positions (20% at #1, 10% at #2, etc).

Believe me, I’m no fan of HuffPo’s SEO tricks to game better search engine results. But your recommendation is no better than the HuffPo racket. If people use the Chrome extension to target sites that are disliked for any reason other than onet related to a specific, spammy search result, then you’ve reduced Google’s efforts to a flame war between each site and it’s lovers – haters.

bayam on February 26, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Block away. They would never have made it work like it does if people could harm the general search results by blocking sites they don’t like. There are literally hundreds of factors to the search result rankings and when this is factored in it will likely depend on many other metrics to also line up.

jonknee on February 27, 2011 at 12:04 AM

For folks who don’t use Google Chrome, I’ve been using a Safari extension called Ghostery to block unwanted tracking/advertising scripts. One of the great things about it is that you can block scripts individually, which means you can, for example, allow the script which lets you support bloggers by clicking through to Amazon. I also use the Ad Block extension which I love for leaving nice white spaces where a lot of advertising used to be. Ghostery is free. Ad Black is supported by optional (much deserved!) contributions.

[On sites which present you with a full page ad before allowing you to view the page you want, you may need to refresh the page, to get there, but I think it's worth it.]

[And no, I'm not affiliated with either outfit! I'm just a happy camper.]

JM Hanes on February 27, 2011 at 1:00 AM

I’ve tried the Google boycott thing. But I came back because Google’s stuff is just better. The search engine blows Bing out of the water. Google maps is also much better than anything else.

Maps is the only part of Bing I use. Its Bird’s Eye view is very useful. It’s a lot easier to identify buildings when you can see their sides, as opposed to the traditional “satellite” view which only shows you roofs.

But Google Maps has Street View, so they are really complimentary mapping services.

yelnats on February 27, 2011 at 3:06 AM

I’ve had a major spat with Google over my old blog, the Palin Express under Blogspot. But they won’t give it back to me either, even if I follow all their instructions to a T.

Now I am at WordPress but it’s a platform that is quite limited for me, and I don’t wanna get my .com for now. Blogs need to be up and up with the news, and it’s harder every day. First is my health and my kids’ health before any of all this.

The other key element, is writing, and with inspiration, wits and mad skillz. I can do that in both languages, I did take seminars on it and I have the executive expertise to do so; been out of that loop for years. I do have to be even more sarcastic in writing; I have to project that sarcasm and take it to the blog.

Anyhoo I know my limits, I know what I can give but Google has not made it easier to blog. Therefore, I consider myself a Google fleebagger. *channeling Mark Levin* THERE, I SAID IT!

ProudPalinFan on February 27, 2011 at 7:53 AM

Glad to see Google disenfranchise the SEO’s.

I’m really tired of the thousands of phony web sites which are little more than the modern implementation of FFA’s (the infamous “Free For All” directories), and just as devoid of ‘real’ content and usefulness.

I’m also weary of having to answer hundreds of phone calls from idiots who claim to be able to increase our web site’s search engine ranking for a fee. My standard response is “your offer shows you lack an understanding of the purpose and the operation of the web” …and then I threaten them with legal action if they submit our site anywhere without our written permission.

The truth is that “search engine ranking” is not what makes a web site work: revenue is!!! Qualified buyers, clients, or contributors are the only traffic we need. No web site needs 100,000 additional “looky-loos” who will never buy or contribute…and that kind of traffic is all the “search engine ranking” firms offer.

Here is how the web actually works:
1. Useful Content is king.
2. Actual buyers, clients, or contributors define what “useful” is.
3. Search engines are hungry for Useful Content. They must make it easier for everyone to find Useful Content.

“Gaming search engines” never was an alternative to the hard work of providing useful content. While there are quite a few counterexamples, none of these have ever lasted very long. They’re kind of like prostitutes who get too old…

landlines on February 27, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Bing.

Because it’s not google.

csdeven on February 26, 2011 at 10:25 PM

I reject bing, because it’s worse than google, and it’s no better than google.

That is, its effectiveness is worse than google, and its politics is no better than google.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 27, 2011 at 3:26 PM