Talk:Google bombing

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Already been done! See  Seraphimblade 20:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/01/earlier_today_m.html —24.22.22.101 (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  time for an update 

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

message: 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  - 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)
thread_title:  text content 

message: Crazy cult. Guess who? --Jnelson09 23:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another example 

message: News reference:
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80269,4477719.html  —71.145.136.90 (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet Another Googlebomb 

message: 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. 
  —193.120.137.237 (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Example of accidental Google Bomb?

message: 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)
thread_title: [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=find+chuck+norris|Google Search Find Chuck Norris]

message: 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)
thread_title: Updated lede for 2-year defused bombs

message: 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)
replies: text: Please see WP:NOTCENSORED Copysan (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Mr. Copysan Hohnsan!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.113.11 (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of the curses

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How does Google Bombing work? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scientology Googlebomb 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Miserable Failure 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Updating

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scientology vs. Reddit 

message: http://www.google.com/search?q=vollkoffer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a
A search for the Austrian expression "Vollkoffer" (dumbass, idiot) links directly to the homepage of the head of the right wing extremist Freedom Party, HC Strache  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.22.166.240 (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vienna elections, october 2010 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: As an MTU alumni from back in the day, I can say that the directory has a long history of being referred to by that name extending into the pre-google era. No, I can't back it up :D, but it is what everyone on campus refers to the directory as even now... dunno. 141.114.213.9 (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Google Bomb 

message: I have checked the sources cited and many do not meet the standards of credible references for Wikipedia. They're personal blogs, personal opinions on Google answer, contents published on questionable pages such as commercial sites that aren't notable.  Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs credible references 

message: The page mentions two SEO contests as examples of google bombs, but although those contests may have used link-text techniques, they were not specifically attempts at google bombing. -- ~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.85.78.174 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEO contests are not google bombs 

message: Apparrently googling "Define an english person defines the wikipedia page for Cunt according to this article. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/london/google-8216glitch-returns-swearing-if-you-8216define-an-english-person/1631 124.170.55.254 (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not been identified as a Googlebomb yet, also please remember to post new messages at the bottom :) --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) MerryXmas! 01:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Google bomb about defining an english person

message: As of yet, this has not been identified as a googlebomb - so please do not add this case to the list. Thanks. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) MerryXmas! 00:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What defines an English person" 

message: the google bombs listed don't work since they are on this page Scientific Alan (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  google bombs 

message: I think the person who wrote this thought that a page with many links on it gets higher in search results, but that's actually a page with many links to it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AleksanderVatov (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia links appearing first in search because of references on bottom of pages 

message: Someone should write something about this. Seems important enough to warrant a mention here. --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitt Romney "Completely Wrong" bomb 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Google bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110122225401/http://www.collegenews.com:80/index.php?/article/corey_feldman_is_hurting_or_is_it_a_google_bomb_29603752352/ to http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/article/corey_feldman_is_hurting_or_is_it_a_google_bomb_29603752352/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100403071831/http://topgoogletrends.netcashdaily.net:80/google-bomb-corey-feldman-is-hurting to http://topgoogletrends.netcashdaily.net/google-bomb-corey-feldman-is-hurting
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5a9l2o/holy_shit_google_pathological_lying_right_now/ | MK17b |   (talk)  03:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Example: Clinton image for Pathological Lying - Add? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Google bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0%2C1282%2C41401%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?%2Farticle%2Fcorey_feldman_is_hurting_or_is_it_a_google_bomb_29603752352%2F
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116120608/http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050601glaser/ to http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050601glaser/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122225401/http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?%2Farticle%2Fcorey_feldman_is_hurting_or_is_it_a_google_bomb_29603752352%2F to http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?%2Farticle%2Fcorey_feldman_is_hurting_or_is_it_a_google_bomb_29603752352%2F
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Google bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070127123936/http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050516-184202 to http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050516-184202
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050715083840/http://uber.nu/2001/04/06/ to http://uber.nu/2001/04/06/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090513202317/http://www.yooter.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry050602-180255 to http://yooter.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry050602-180255
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100220095708/http://www.thepersiangulf.org/googlebomb.html to http://www.thepersiangulf.org/googlebomb.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201091551/http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/01/29/scientology-bomb-cruises-past-google to http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/01/29/scientology-bomb-cruises-past-google
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Google bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051229221256/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_189602.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_189602.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: When I googled "rhett and link webby awards 2015", a photoshopped picture of them kissing came up.  It links to an "article" that makes an erroneous and brazen claim that they are engaged...  I think this happened because of the heavy use of keywords on the page.  Either way, it's pretty strange and unusual that it's so high in the results.  I know it's not a googlebomb but what is it classified as?  I have not found a term describing this.  Thanks.  Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably an SEO strategy around keyword stuffing. Dietsociety (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to call this? 

message: According to google, git is terrible, but wget can do no wrong.  Search "wget is terrible" 72.74.131.76 (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New (geeky) googlebomb 

message: "Since no later than 21 June 2015, the first result in a Google search for "miserable failure" is this article."
Are we allowed to say that kind of thing? Wikipedia usually refers to itself in 3rd person, even in its own article Polishedrelish (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th wall break? 

message: Can someone consider the merit of an Amber Heard Google Bomb?
After the Depp Vs. Heard trial, if someone was to search the word "perjury", the first several images that appeared were of Amber Heard, this happened for several months after the trial results. MrScottBull (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amber Heard Google Bomb?