marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)

I'm so glad to see this dude go, there are no words. Except for these words, in order of the sheer, stereoscopic brightness of my outrage:

Let's not stereotype the stereotyping, now

First paragraph: "and [I] don’t endorse using stereotypes." Last paragraph - actually a bullet point (emphasis mine): "Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

So he doesn't endorse using stereotypes though they are sooooooo accurate aren't they for real so why aren't we using them to train Google employees, already? but hey, he's gotta be politically correct, so he denies in the face of all his carefully hand-crafted evidence to the contrary that they should be used to train people, or something.

You have to consider how insidiousness the creepy-crawly, "I'm not really picking your pocket so stop yelling at me to give your wallet back"-ness of him is, and I'm only up to the first offending snippets.

He thinks stereotypes are bang-on, perfect representations of everyone he thinks fits into one, so much so that they should be used, in his opinion, to teach Google employees how to do their jobs, which to his mind, all involve ceaseless stereotyping in order to succeed. Then he claims he would never "endorse" or "advocate" the use of stereotypes, but hey wait, he just did.

Don't alienate the aliens, now

Some bullet point, way in: "Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require [SIC! Not proofreading your lousy manifesto is NOT a good example of "conscientiousness"!] for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company."

OK, where to start: Bart here has a lot to say about conservatives. He thinks they're more conscientious, a bullshit opinion which he's confused with "obedience to authoritarian dictatorships", which is "not hardly" the same thing, self-sic sic sic. The conscientiousness he so prizes is "self-reported" in most studies that have been done.

Conservatives also self-report being "less open", "less exploratory", and "less open to change"...they're crashing bores, in other words, who are literally (not just self-reported) afraid of everything.

Not the folks I'd want chatting me up at my next dinner party; maybe the ones I'd leave in the yard with "gun for grizzly" to calm dear old Betsy, cowering away inside.

Don't be evil? Heh...don't be "agreeable", now

Some paragraph, way in: "In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable [SIC!] than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women..."

One sentence at a time: "humans are generally biased towards protecting females". Obviously he's not kept up with history, be it ancient (Viking women) or current (female Israeli soldiers; women serving in the US military and fighting for combat spots even as we speak).

"this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men." Eh, Women are "generally more cooperative and areeable" because historically speaking, if we aren't, we can be hurt emotionally, physically and economically or even killed just over not being "nice enough". But even given all that, I take offense at the idea that I should be agreeable just because I have parts the author doesn't and vice versa. It isn't part of my "just being me" job description, kthanksbai.

"We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women"....OK, yeah, because? Because men have dominated every arena of public and private life since this country started, so having programs to "protect" us - like having programs to "protect" other vulnerable people - is necessary only because of the inborn privilege men have been inoculated with for hundreds of years to confer them with immunity from competition with us.

It goes on and on - for literally ten pages - but I think I've unloaded the worst of my wrath at this point. Knowing he was fired is the least it will take to smooth over the very real damage he's caused thousands of people with his tired, low-res, 100% recycled (tell me conservatives aren't going green!) claptrap. Don't miss the part where he co-opts our "safe spaces" by calling PC culture "psychologically unsafe" because conservatives are just big, soft, supermelty snowflakes, too!

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)

Updated 1-26-17 to make accessible for imageless proxies and to remove two instances of one search term.

Last week's post on this topic could start a new series: Lies, Inaccuracies and Fake News In Google's Search Results. It's important to bring misleading search results to light (and report them to Google, and signal-boost them to others) because for many people Google is the ultimate "decider" (thanks, W.) of what's true and what's not.

All examples in this post deal with "above-the-fold" results because Google and I would likely agree those are the results everyone sees, while most people, unless they're on a specific info hunt, might scroll no further.

Last week's post was inspired by a search I did on The Clinton Foundation, after it was reported by right-wing media that it was shutting down. The Clinton Global Initiative, an arm of the Clinton Foundation that raises some, but not all of the, money for the Clinton Foundation, is actually the only entity closing. This week's post includes basic variants on the original query [clinton foundation].

Last week's post placed special emphasis on how Google positions misleading and inaccurate results in the Top Stories section, but seeing unsourced and unverifiable stories, sometimes from websites known to be pure fan-fiction pushing a Trump agenda in regular, "organic" results is just as misleading - if not quite as flashy - so also needs to be called out.

My initial candidate from last week's post for Google Search "Fake News" of The Week was for the search term [clinton foundation]. When I posted the results looked like this:

Search term: clinton foundation

In the above picture the top three results pointed to three right-wing websites with the following articles:

  • National Review - The Clinton Initiative's Ignominious End
  • Fox News: - Clinton Global Initiative to Lay Off Employees, Shut Down Amid Dwindling...
  • NewsBusters - Silence From Networks As Clinton Global Initiative Shuts Down

Now, they look like this:

Search term: clinton foundation
  • Clinton Foundation -
  • Clinton Foundation (@ClintonFdn) · Twitter : -

So, that's better, right? That's also not even what it looks like anymore (which I noticed while editing this entry about a day and a half later).

The following searches show Google enabling right-wing websites to broadly distribute highly opinionated, often unsourced stories and outright fake news whenever a) an information vacuum exists, however briefly, on the left or amongst more authoritative sources, and/or b) when SEO tricks and other website "signals" are properly implemented by website owners, both of which seem to trigger Google's, "Hey, let's promote this piece!" algorithm, which bounces even the fakest news by the most scurrilous websites into the more highly coveted "above the fold" positions.

Search term: "clinton foundation closing down"

On 1-20-17...

Search term: clinton foundation closing down, 1-20-2017
  • The Political Insider - BREAKING NEWS: Clinton Foundation To Shut Down?!?!

On 1-22-17...

Search term: clinton foundation closing down, 1-22-2017
  • The Political Insider - BREAKING NEWS: Clinton Foundation To Shut Down?!?!
  • Silver Doctors - Reports: Clinton Foundation Is Closing Down!

Political Insider comes in at the second slot; Silver Doctors comes in at #3.

Media Bias/Fact Check reports Political Insider as having a strong conservative bias that's "unreliable for facts and sometimes publishes right wing conspiracy theories." MainSleaze, a spam reporting agency, says the site appears to be produced by a marketing firm in Alexandria, Virginia. Fake News Checker doesn't seem too happy, either.

Silver Doctors is a "Gold, Silver, & Finance News" website (in other words, a site that has nothing to do with politics or political reporting) that took their Google-promoted post - in possible violation of copyright laws - from "PM Fund Manager Dave Kranzler", who originally wrote it for the website Investment Research Dynamics.

Search term: "clinton foundation shutting down"

I didn't perform this search on 1-20, but on 1-22-17...

Search term: clinton foundation shutting down, 1-22-2017
  • Silver Doctors - Reports: Clinton Foundation Is Closing Down!

Silver Doctors comes rolling in again, this time at #3.

Search term: "clinton foundation shutting doors"

On 1-20-17...

Search term: clinton foundation shutting doors, 1-20-2017
  • Conservative Daily Post - Clinton Foundation Closing Unexpectedly, Hillary And Bill...

On 1-22-17...

Search term: clinton foundation shutting doors, 1-22-2017
  • USA Politics Today - Clinton Foundation Is Closing Its Doors For Good!
  • Conservative Daily Post - Clinton Foundation Closing Unexpectedly, Hillary And Bill...

USA Politics Today comes in at #1 on the second search; just days earlier it wasn't in above-the-fold results, but Conservative Daily Post shows at #4 for both searches.

And wooh-eee, does this get fun: USA Politics Today is run by someone in a high position of publicly recognized authority, which you can easily discern by their name: admin. There's almost no information on them except a page on Media Bias/Fact Check, which calls them a right-wing propaganda mill which advocates for "the destruction of all liberals". Niiiice!

Conservative Daily Post is a fan-fiction website that [ profile] mickeym first exposed in the things you find on Craigslist..., and I've written about it, as well. In CDP's first help-wanted ad, they sought conservative "fan-fiction writers". In a later ad broadcast by Wonkette, they ruled out anyone who doesn't "LOVE Trump".

Search term: "clinton foundation shuttered"

On 1-20-17...

Search term: clinton foundation shuttered, 1-20-2017
  • Drudge Retort - Clinton Foundation Shuttered

On 1-23-17...

Search term: clinton foundation shuttered, 1-23-2017
  • Drudge Retort - Clinton Foundation Shuttered

Aaaand the Drudge Report Retort (...the fuck?) slides in at #3. The most famous online right-wing media source besides Fox News claims the Clinton Foundation was "shuttered". To judge by TDR's high placement in results for "clinton foundation shuttered", it doesn't matter that even this outfit is flat-out lying.

Search term: "clinton foundation closing"

On 1-20-17...

Search term: clinton foundation closing, 1-20-2017
  • Investor's Business Daily - The Clinton Foundation Is Dead -- But The Case Against Hillary I...

Investor's Business Daily shot to #1 on my initial search.

Investor's Business Daily exists in name only as the mere digital shadow of a print-only publication that actually went defunct in March of 2016. No mention of becoming a right-wing political source was added to any public comments on the matter. The site skews heavily right-wing and has no About page.

on 1-22-17...

Search term: clinton foundation closing, 1-22-2017
  • Silver Doctors - Reports: Clinton Foundation Is Closing Down!

This is a prized search query to land in Top Stories for, which Investor's Business Daily actually did, in the box (what Google calls "the card") furthest left. Two days later Google shuffled the Top Stories cards on this query into a vertical stack, killed Investor's Business Daily, and pushed the possible copyright violator Silver Doctors into the #2 spot.

Search term: "clinton foundation going out of business"

I didn't perform this search on 1-20, but on 1-22-17...

Search term: clinton foundation going out of business, 1-22-2017
  • Silver Doctors - Reports: Clinton Foundation Is Closing Down!
  • Conservative Daily Post - Clinton Foundation Closing Unexpectedly, Hillary And Bill...

Silver Doctors, again! They're in the #2 spot, with our fan-fiction-writing friends at the Conservative Daily Post right behind. How cozy they look together.

Search term: "clinton foundation lights out"

On 1-20-17...

Search term: clinton foundation lights out, 1-20-2017

On 1-22-17...

  • The Political Insider - The Clinton Foundation is Finished! BREAKING NEWS
Search term: clinton foundation lights out, 1-22-2017
  • The Political Insider - The Clinton Foundation is Finished! BREAKING NEWS

Political Insider prances in at #1 on both days I checked.

Search term: "fact check clinton foundation closes"

On 1-20-17...

Search term: fact check clinton foundation closes, 1-20-2017
  • Breitbart - Facebook Fact-Checker PolitiFact Funded by Clinton Foundation Donor
  • Breitbart - Fact-Check: No, the Clinton Foundation Did Not Spend 'Ninety Percent ...

On 1-22-17...

Search term: fact check clinton foundation closes, 1-22-2017
  • Breitbart - Facebook Fact-Checker PolitiFact Funded by Clinton Foundation Donor

Breitbart, a right-wing, white supremacist, xenophobic, LGBTQIA and woman hating opinion outfit dominated both the #1 and #2 spots just two days ago. Impressive. Now just one story of theirs lands in the #4 slot. Forgive me if I'm starting to sound like Casey Kasem, only instead of counting down Top 20 songs, I'm counting down the Top 4 con jobs.

Search term: "clinton foundation closing doors"

On 1-20-17...

Search term: clinton foundation closing doors, 1-20-2017
  • USA Politics Today - Clinton Foundation Is Closing Its Doors For Good!
  • Conservative Daily Post - Clinton Foundation Closing Unexpectedly, Hillary And Bill...

On 1-22-17...

Search term: clinton foundation closing doors, 1-22-2017
  • Silver Doctors - Reports: Clinton Foundation Is Closing Down!

On 1-20, the fakest of fake news sites - USA Politics Today and Conservative Daily Post - are rocking our fan-fiction world in the #1 and #2 slots. Two days later both sites are gone, poof!, but the Silver Doctors are back, this time at #2.

Search terms: "clinton foundation out of business"

On 1-20-17...

Search terms: clinton foundation out of business, 1-20-2017
  • The Political Insider - The Clinton Foundation is Finished! BREAKING NEWS

On 1-23-17...

Search terms: clinton foundation out of business, 1-23-2017
  • The Political Insider - The Clinton Foundation is Finished! BREAKING NEWS

We wrap up with The Political Insider at #1 yelling about how "The Clinton Foundation is FINISHED! BREAKING NEWS" when seeking facts on whether The Clinton Foundation is gone or not. Apparently a site that pushes "right wing conspiracy theories" and has a low fact-check score is still good enough for the best slot Google has to offer.

Here's a Snopes to ease your worried mind.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)

Or, how to hack search results from the comfort of your mom's basement

Since learning Jews are maligned and misrepresented in Google's search results thanks to white supremacists' SEO manipulations which pushes hate speech above facts, I've grown resigned to how this search company in particular, which is owned and run by Jews, lets any hate group, including those that specifically hate them, hack their search results just to make money.

Was this how Germany fell? Jewish newspapers letting their pages fill with hate speech about themselves because, "Wow, this sort of speech sells more papers than ever before, you SEE that guys?"? Was it?

Selling yourselves and your own people out just to make money is fine until the haters who hate you, whom you made this money off of so indifferently, seize it along with your lives, which is exactly how Nazi Germany turned out. A bit chilling? Sure. But hey, it's all fun and games until no one but the haters can laugh about it anymore, amirite?

In that spirit - one of pre-ackowledging defeat not at the hands of the enemy, but thanks to the indifference of some powerful and influential members of the very group of people in most compelling need of defense - I've kept a jaded but watchful eye over the racial, religious and political slant of Google's results.

While I've seen many instances of right-wing slant, there have usually been enough left-wing or simply neutral websites (such as and/or mixed in to keep me from speaking out. So I waited for a more egregious and flagrant violation of both my intelligence and common sense. And I finally got it.

Background: last night; myself and another person discussing politics. Opening salvo: the other person asked what I thought of the Clinton Foundation shutting down. My response: silent open-mouthed disbelief, then one word: "WHAT???"

So began my Google search to learn the truth. Here's how it went.

Google lets SEO experts employed by right-wing websites hack their search results - a picture of Google's search results for [clinton foundation] being hacked by SEO experts]

In the above picture the top three results - framed and centered across the top of the page in big, gorgeous, drop-shadowed lightboxes with splashy pictures included for each website in question - point to three right-wing websites with the following articles:

  • National Review - The Clinton Initiative's Ignominious End
  • Fox News: - Clinton Global Initiative to Lay Off Employees, Shut Down Amid Dwindling...
  • NewsBusters - Silence From Networks As Clinton Global Initiative Shuts Down

But wait, I thought the person I was speaking with said "Clinton Foundation". Yes, he said "Clinton Foundation"; I'm quite sure of it. Maybe Google's having an algorithmic brain fart of some sort, giving results for Clinton Global Initiative instead of Clinton Foundation. So I tried again, using [Clinton Global Initiative] this time as my search query.

Google lets SEO experts employed by right-wing websites hack their search results - a picture of Google's search results for [clinton global initiative] after being hacked by SEO experts]

In the above picture the top three results - drop-shadowed lightboxes with splashy pictures included for each website in question - point again to two of the same three right-wing websites, and one other besides, running the following articles:

  • National Review - The Clinton Initiative's Ignominious End
  • Breitbart: - Peter Schweizer: Clinton Global Initiative Folded Because They Can N...
  • NewsBusters - Silence From Networks As Clinton Global Initiative Shuts Down

Well, given these titles at the top of the fold in search results, it certainly looks like the person I was speaking with was right; the Clinton Foundation has indeed shut down.

At a loss for what to think, I scrolled down the page to the so-called "organic" results, but those were just a strange mixture of the same right-wing websites and a few more, besides, with similar titles on their articles, along with some links to the Clinton Foundation and a Wikipedia page.

Not really wanting to, still I scrolled back up and decided to click on the Fox News article, considering them the father of, but still the lesser of most online evil you'll see around distorted news these days. Well!

From the article (archived version, in case they rewrite, move or delete it):

The Clintons are moving ahead with plans to downsize their controversial foundation’s network of offshoots, a decision carried out as the powerful family’s political influence wanes and its once-lengthy donor list shrinks.

Wait, "downsize"? I looked again at the article title: Clinton Global Initiative to Lay Off Employees, Shut Down Amid Dwindling.... The title says "shut down", but the first sentence says "downsize". So this already looks misleading. But hey, let's give it a chance; maybe the "shutting down" part is further down the page, "below the fold".

In a decision announced last week, 22 additional employees are being laid off from the Clinton Global Initiative – known for its annual glitzy gathering of high-powered leaders and celebs. The layoffs are tied to a decision to shutter CGI that originally was announced in an Aug. 22 letter from former President Bill Clinton.

Here we have a big problem: "22 additional employees". Additional? How many - if any - were laid off in the past?

At the time, the Clintons were under pressure to explain how they would handle potential conflicts of interest with their namesake foundation if Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton were to win the White House.

OK, unlinked and unsourced, but probably considered (disputed) common knowledge.

Bill Clinton wrote in his letter at the time: “Nine years ago in my book ‘Giving,’ I wrote, ‘I want to continue these meetings for at least a decade, with the objective of creating a global network of citizen activists who reach across the divides of our interdependent world to build real communities of shared opportunities, shared responsibilities, and a genuine sense of belonging.’ ... That is exactly what CGI, its members, and its dedicated staff have done.”

OK, but Bill Clinton does not, in that specific quote, say that the Clinton Foundation is about to "shut down". Does he?

Clinton lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump -- but the family is proceeding anyway with its CGI plans, and those “dedicated staff” are getting the ax.

The 22 staffers are part of a wave of layoffs.

The last sentence appears to be, at best, an unsubstantiated rumor. reported on Oct. 4 about a WARN notice announcing 74 employees would be laid off. Another notice was issued on Jan. 12 stating 22 more employees would be let go. WARN is the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires employers to give 60-days advance notice of business closings.

The article isn't linked to; because it's not, there's no way to verify what Fox News claims they've reported. So I right-clicked and googled the first half of the sentence about the WARN notice, which is where this gets a bit interesting. The article says, and I quote:

The Clinton Foundation will lay off 74 employees at its Clinton Global Initiative office in New York City at the end of the year, according to a notice filed with the state.

The notice, required under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), said the 74 employees at the initiative's offices on the 42nd floor at 1271 Avenue of the Americas will be laid off on Dec. 31.

But the link to the WARN notice gives this message: This is an invalid WARN Notice ID. So there is no valid WARN Notice that has linked to to prove their claim.

While I won't speculate if created a false WARN number just to lie about what the Clinton Foundation is up to, it's quite possible. Getting back to the Fox News article, it goes on to say:

Under the form’s “Reason for Dislocation” section, a staffer wrote: “Discontinutation (sic) of the Clinton Global Initative (sic).”

Yep, sure they did.

The “layoff date” is set for April 15.

It’s unclear how many employees will be left at CGI after the latest round of layoffs, or if any of those workers will be shifted to other Clinton projects. A spokesperson for the Clinton Foundation declined to comment on the record for this story.

Again, the article's title is: Clinton Global Initiative to Lay Off Employees, Shut Down Amid Dwindling.... It says "shut down". Yet this far in we're still discussing 22 layoffs - in addition to 74 previous layoffs that supposedly occurred on Dec. 31st - and linking to another website which offers only an "invalid WARN Notice number" on yet another website as "proof".

Oh, and a Clinton spokesperson declined comment, so let's report this as the total annihilation of the Clinton Foundation, because they did. Moving on to the rest of the article to find any shred of linkage between this 22-person layoff and the Foundation going *poof*:

CGI, which began in 2005, is not a direct-action charity like the Clinton Foundation, but instead brings power players together to address “significant global challenges” through their own commitments to action.

While Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects were quashed mere months after Bill Clinton penned his August letter, other factors may have contributed to CGI’s ending despite the disappearance of looming conflict-of-interest issues.

OK, so now we learn that "CGI" (the Clinton Global Initiative, which Fox News cleverly disguises behind an acronym to make it seem like it's the same - or just another arm of - the Clinton Foundation) is in fact a separate entity, and that "other factors may have contributed". These are "weasel words", strung together to seemingly substantiate a claim without presenting any facts.

Here we go with the speculation, unlinked sources and unsubstantiated rumors again (seen behind the cut, from the front page):

Here lies the body of the Clinton Foundation - wait...nope, 'fraid not )

I quote the entire article to prove that not once did it explain Fox News's use of the title, which was, again: Clinton Global Initiative to Lay Off Employees, Shut Down Amid Dwindling... It says "shut down". But there's no proof of any shutdown linked to or spoken of, nor offered in any way, shape or form. Nothing.

Google allows - and expects - the entire Internet to believe the Clinton Foundation has already shut down, even returning results for the Clinton Global Initiative shutting down (which is in itself an unsubstantiated claim) when one merely searches for the "Clinton Foundation". "Desire to broadcast the actual truth 404, that's all we know!" And they don't care if that's all you know, either.

Not only do they not care what you believe, they're actively working against your ability to even know what to believe by highlighting lies, distortions, and twisted facts in their big, beautiful, fully photo-enhanced lightboxes along the very top of their results. If that's not caring, then I don't know what is.

Who's actually said (or even suggested) the entire Clinton Foundation - including the Clinton Global Initiative - is shutting down? So far, just some right-wing websites. Not any WARN Notice, not Bill Clinton in his above-quoted letter, not Hillary Clinton at any point in time, not any spokesperson for the Clinton Foundation, nor any unnamed source speaking for the Clinton Foundation.

But if right-wing sources say it (or merely suggest it, or enhance their search engine "signals" to "prove it" by showing up in Google's top results) then it must be true, so let's take their word - rumors, unsourced speculation, and invalid WARN Notice numbers included. Google takes their word, and expects you to do so, too! Google returns almost nothing but their articles in search results, which are all some flavor of the same words - SHUTTING DOWN - up in those big, fancy boxes, so it must be true, right?

Most people won't question that. They'll say, yes, you're right, it must be, simply because they trust Google that much.

My over-arching message: if Google won't fact-check what they let SEO experts push into their big fancy lightboxes at the top of results then they need to get out of the search business, because their results are misleading everybody, which is actively harming users while threatening Google's existence through hate speech about the very people who own and run the search engine.

Objectivity draws in audiences and is much more trustable, believable, quotable, and verifiable then left or right wing slant or any form of hate, so why not leave slant and vileness to bloggers, leave bloggers out of the results, and start either holding news organizations accountable via search placement and ranking penalties, or else start fact-checking search results before pushing them out to users?

Or does Google really want to restrict their entire US search business to the SEO-enabled right wingers and white supremacists? If they won't change their results to more accurately reflect reality, that's the only audience they'll have left.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)

ETA: after posting I did a bit more Googling and found this and this, which both say has turned on AMP for all users by default, while the latter page states there is indeed an opt-out (yay, because actually, I wouldn't let Google cache Anti-AOL if I could figure out how to stop that while still allowing indexing so people can find it).

ETA on the ETA: but apparently, even opting out won't remove the content right away. The fastest way I can think of is to opt-out (which I did, already), then edit the page to, say, be completely blank, save it, re-visit the AMP URL, and since it fetches the latest version, that should remove the content, if not the page itself, from AMP servers. Of course I'm not going to do that, so oh, well. I have to sit back and just let someone else control it until they decide not to anymore.

What I don't like is the AMP version of my content is hosted on Google's servers, which in this case, is Wordpress deciding where my content should live without my input or permission. While I haven't looked through a ToS or EULA in forever (maybe never) I wonder if them farming out my content to Google's CDN servers violates it, because I never said they could.

Also, clean URLs, which I saw in one article (can't find it) that they promised to do "when possible", my foot. Not that it matters...clean URL or dirty (and my God, the one seen below is a mess), I don't want my content on their servers. Also-also, this:

To take advantage of the Google AMP Cache, an AMP URL must be accessed directly from the cache using the AMP Cache URL format. Each time a user accesses AMP content from the cache, the content is automatically updated, and the updated version is served to the next user once the content has been cached.

Sounds like they took a page from AOL's playbook and said, "Hey, let's download the entire Internet!" except they're downloading it only after insisting the source gets rewritten by content creators or CMS owners, so they can serve ads from it even faster.

AOL literally wrote the book on "Hey, let's download the Internet!". Not original thinking. But caching the entire Internet to serve super-speedy ads from it (which is probably the entire point of AMP, let's not kid ourselves)? All Google, man, all the time - AOL missed the boat on that, completely.

Think this is resolved, for now (see ETA above) - thanks for reading!

...without my knowledge or permission, an action which tends to bother me (previous examples that have drawn my ire: (one user scraped a post on Anti-AOL for a forum post) and a post about* (which was inserted through Javascript into the HTML of a post on another person's blog, which had the awesome effect of stealing my page rank for the search terms it corresponded to), the latter of whom reciprocated my call-out by claiming a domain name with my name in it for the next four years, apparently so I couldn't have it for myself.

Today when I logged into to do some image uploading (about the only reason I log in, anymore) I checked my stats and saw a referrer from:

Long link, huh.

To be clear, this was a referrer, which means the visitor in question (assuming, as I might, that it wasn't a bot) was coming into my blog from the Google AMP page, not exiting out to it. The page is my content, mirrored from end to end. All links in the scrape seem to point back to my blog, but still. According to DTWhois the site belongs to Google. Playing with the URL to find different pages of my blog hosted on the domain hasn't worked so far, but then again, my blood pressure is a little too high right now to play with the URL too much.

So, questions:

  1. Who exactly is scraping my page? Or is this the work of bots?
  2. All the documentation I see seems to indicate website owners create their own AMP pages. I didn't create that page. So, did Wordpress create it? [ding ding ding we have our winner] Or did Google, or someone else? If yes, how do they do that without being me, and why would anyone do that?
  3. Is Google creating another entire web cache/new index out of AMP pages [yep], or is some individual doing this to some or all web content creators?
  4. How do I get this page taken down? [WP opt-out allowed]
  5. How do I find out if other pages of mine are on their servers?

I could easily serve as the literal poster child for confusion right now.

*Edited after posting to correct info on who scraped what.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)

A year and eight months ago I wrote a post about how tags are for the birds in which I explained why I deleted all of mine. Apparently I didn't know how good I had it at the time: Google was indexing my Dreamwidth like a major site similar to Techcrunch or AOL; you could sort of find things you looked for, like some of my weightier tech pieces or news on Aesop (who, btw, doesn't exist anymore), and all was fairly good in the land of MM.

Just not good enough: if you look at the picture linked to above, you see Google built my results on the backs of pages like "Tags" and "misc". One of the more prominently featured results is a sausage and peppers recipe, which seriously burnt me up. And still does, come to think of it. If the best thing I've ever done to get such prominent Google placement for one of my pages is to be all like: "Folks, look - I cooked something" then just forget it.

So I kept the tags missing for around a year and a half. About a year into this I was having trouble finding certain things on my DW that had easily turned up before in Google; within another few months I was using Dreamwidth's search for almost everything. Well, that's fine if you happen to be logged into Dreamwidth. A lot of times I wasn't, which made me feel like fine, I can just piss all over this, so I'll have to try something else.

Realizing Google's algorithms are no smarter than Cortana might be after a few drinks, I decided to use - as an experiment - some sophisticated and obscure words for some of my new tags. Roll the dough out, knead, bake, remove from the oven and let cool on a wire rack (for two months) - yet my tags still have no Google presence.

I could put a few ideas up to try to explain it - I changed the meta tag sometime in the last six months to stop Google from archiving; before that I might've not been in Google's index, at all - but a canonical URL's a canonical URL; once it's back in their crosshairs their spiders should spider it and must have some way to see the content's more or less the same as it was, and that the URL is mine, which should be enough for them to rebuild an index of my tags.

But they didn't, so perhaps I'm under penalty for messing with the meta tag - or perhaps Google's algorithms are literally too stupid to define and index my tags before giving up in defeat.

For instance, my old "computers" tag now reads "computationally inclined". Part of the content that built the "misc." and all of the content that built the "my thoughts" tags now falls under "experiential". The sausage and peppers post that bothered me for showing up as prominently as it did probably had a "food" tag which now reads "comestibles" while "cats" became "felinity", and so on. I recycled old tags to a small extent, but for the most part, they're all new, and some are pretty complex compared to their once-simpler synonyms.

I've never hit on one solid reason why I did it, but I can give two partial reasons: 1) privacy (I figured Google would choke on complicated tag names) and 2) I figured Google would choke on complicated tag names, period, but the experimenter/Marah Marie Girl Reporter in me HAD TO KNOW.

The only thing I can do to try to remedy the situation (in which case Google might prove me wrong on my guess that their algorithms can't handle complicated tag names, after all) is do something I never do much of and log into my Google dashboard (I made this DW one sometime back in the Stone Ages) and see if I can't get a decent re-spider/re-index going from there submit sitemap this, request crawl that.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)

I mean, UDP? Why choose this ancient relic of a protocol for QUIC? The answer is pure LOL:

Why didn’t you build a whole new protocol, rather than using UDP? Middle boxes on the Internet today will generally block traffic unless it is TCP or UDP traffic. Since we couldn’t significantly modify TCP, we had to use UDP. UDP is used today by many game systems, as well as VOIP and streaming video and AOL, so its use seems plausible highly fucking likely if you're too lame or else too lazy to push a better protocol you know damn well you guys have probably already invented - knowing Google it's probably named PUSH and already runs its own version of Internet on encrypted servers across the entire fucking state of Montana - doesn't it?.

Yes, I just seriously bulldozed that blockquote, so sue me. UDP? It's a joke. I will laugh through all the guaranteed publicity for my copyright violation, thanks.

Seriously, techie/Googlely/UDP-y type people, explain to me (like I'm an idiot, the more so the better) the advantage(s) of using UDP over TCP/IP for QUIC - but sell me on something besides the fact that 1) it's not TCP/IP (which is Google's only real excuse for using it) or that 2) it keeps Google from having to bother with inventing a new protocol. Both excuses seriously ring of bullshit.

It's like Bob Kahn telling people he couldn't do anything with the Web because hell, no one used it so where would any protocol he invented actually GO?!! I want to know so bad what the hell Google's thinking that I am dying here.