|
|
| Happy American couple (1336802) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1336802) | |
Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 22:31:29 2016 Search terms |
|
|
| (1336803) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 1 22:38:13 2016, in response to Happy American couple, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 22:31:29 2016. Remember how bingbong and I have pointed out numerous times that google feeds you what they think you're into? I froze the results of what I got just for giggles on the same search without YOUR link.Google thinks you're a racist |
|
|
| (1336804) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 22:47:31 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 1 22:38:13 2016. All you did was add quotation marx. Google thought of the other one on its own. |
|
|
| (1336805) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 1 23:18:35 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 1 22:38:13 2016. This happy American couple came up on YOUR search, Selkoik. If Google thinks Olog is a racist...
|
|
|
| (1336806) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 23:24:26 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 1 23:18:35 2016. Google can never admit anything about itself.And Bing does it too. |
|
|
| (1336807) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 1 23:30:31 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 23:24:26 2016. Knowing how many searches work, I thought of a non-conspiratorial explanation. I tried the following search. Can you see what my hypothesis was?Search: "Happy African American couple" |
|
|
| (1336808) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 1 23:35:15 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 22:47:31 2016. NOT adding quotation marks will bring you everything of irrelevance. Google's formula requires quote marks if you want anything approaching what you ask for. You also have to use minuses in front of words to make it stop. Lrn2search or you get what doubleclick recorded about your personal stuff and serves up what they think you want instead.THAT'S what happened on your search, brah. They think you're a black militant. :) Seriously ... here's how it works ... http://dontbubble.us/ We've TRIED to tell you before only to achieve derision. Your results are your "official personal profile" and here's where it gets better - google SHARES that with DHS and NSA. Feel better? |
|
|
| (1336809) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 23:37:23 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 1 23:30:31 2016. Lots of people online are concurring with that explanation, saying it's Boolean. |
|
|
| (1336810) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 1 23:42:12 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 23:37:23 2016. Only problem is, it's not.Because subchat.com does doubleclick advertising, all you have to do is have this place in your "visited" list with google, and they'll spoon feed you the same stuff. Google's search engine is highly proprietary, and when they bought doubleclick many years ago, they got THEIR database engine as well. I'll have to see about uploading some interviews I did with Stan Bunger on his "New Media News" show back in the 90's when we first started our software company. I made my allegations at the time about doubleclick, doubleclick responded to them and whoopsied bigtime. In another program, went after Microsoft with the same comedic results. It's all about those cookies which are the link that ties you to your "history" and doubleclick/google has been amassing that dossier for a LONG time now. |
|
|
| (1336811) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 1 23:47:42 2016, in response to Happy American couple, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 22:31:29 2016. The first link on the regular search is to a new thread on Free Republic about this very topic. And you and your lickspittle mcorivervsaf claim you don't post on that site. It's almost certainly how you learned about this. |
|
|
| (1336812) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 1 23:51:09 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 1 23:18:35 2016. Looks like some of the locals, only difference is that none of them have done anything illegal that anyone knows of. But thanks for that thought, sure hope you have a safe room. :) |
|
|
| (1336813) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 1 23:51:14 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 1 23:18:35 2016. Looks like some of the locals, only difference is that none of them have done anything illegal that anyone knows of. But thanks for that thought, sure hope you have a safe room. :) |
|
|
| (1336814) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 1 23:55:37 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 1 23:51:14 2016. I hit the lottery ... OMG! OMG! Double post! Double post! Heh. |
|
|
| (1336815) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 1 23:57:41 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 1 23:47:42 2016. 
|
|
|
| (1336816) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 00:00:34 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 1 23:47:42 2016. And of course, because google stopped using "how many sites link to this other one" years ago because SEO ("Search Engine Optimization") was gaming the system, google now relies on which group of those words has the most hits through doubleclick being there unless there's other metrics which will override that positioning.Ever wonder how some searches unrelated to subchat will list it anyway? How many people visit subchat anymore? :) |
|
|
| (1336817) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 00:41:43 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 1 23:30:31 2016. Yeah, but Olog would rather go with his storming friends on this ... :-\ Fact is, google's search engine falls victim to hotspots of activity, as monitored by their ad placements. If a bunch of people go there, then it rises to the front page for a few days until something else using those search terms replaces it in popularity. Popularity is the major "deciderer" UNLESS your search history overrides it by them knowing "I don't want to see that, show me THIS instead or I'm shutting my wallet." :( |
|
|
| (1336825) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Jan 2 03:34:01 2016, in response to Happy American couple, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 22:31:29 2016. Yes, and...?A google image search for "happy american couple" yields images of couples who appear happy and are presumably American. Am I missing something? |
|
|
| (1336829) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 2 09:21:04 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 1 23:47:42 2016. Heh. And right now Subchat comes up as number 8. |
|
|
| (1336830) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 2 09:21:39 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by Nilet on Sat Jan 2 03:34:01 2016. No, you aren't missing anything. |
|
|
| (1336832) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jan 2 09:30:56 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 00:00:34 2016. That's true. Google indexes EVERYTHING said here. So when you're told your'e lying, it's on the record too. |
|
|
| (1336833) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 2 09:32:34 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SLRT on Fri Jan 1 23:30:31 2016. non-conspiratorial explanationYes. See the second post here. |
|
|
| (1336836) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by chicagomotorman on Sat Jan 2 10:09:09 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by bingbong on Sat Jan 2 09:30:56 2016. Big brother is watching . |
|
|
| (1336837) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 2 10:17:14 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 23:37:23 2016. The only reference I see to its being called "Boolean" is on Free Republic.And it's not actually Boolean, as the poster on Free Republic suggests. It's not a question of choosing one answer or another, with no middle ground, which is what Boolean means. |
|
|
| (1336846) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 11:17:41 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 2 09:21:04 2016. 
|
|
|
| (1336847) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 11:19:17 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by chicagomotorman on Sat Jan 2 10:09:09 2016. Our corporate overlords at work. :) |
|
|
| (1336858) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Jan 2 12:07:05 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 2 09:32:34 2016. Still, it's a good caution on trusting Google or other common sources.People think search engines are a lot more accurate than they really are. They give endless pleasure to conspiracy theorists. |
|
|
| (1336859) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Jan 2 12:13:38 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 2 09:21:39 2016. I think you've replied to the last innocent in a cynical world.He should be preserved in amber or something. |
|
|
| (1336860) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 2 12:24:21 2016, in response to Happy American couple, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 22:31:29 2016. what is the problem ? |
|
|
| (1336862) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 2 12:28:39 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SLRT on Sat Jan 2 12:07:05 2016. I agree that Google can be inaccurate, but this isn't an example. This was an example of someone not understanding how Google works.The searcher wanted to say: Find me images that show a happy American couple. But there's no way to ask Google that question. So instead he asked a quite different question and got quite different answers: Find me images that are attached to web pages that contain all three of the words: happy, American, and couple. |
|
|
| (1336863) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jan 2 12:29:18 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 2 10:17:14 2016. That's right, only freepers are Boolean. |
|
|
| (1336875) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 14:36:56 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 2 12:28:39 2016. And of course, the most important part of google results, "what are people talking about *NOW*" - they scan twitter and other places to establish "relevance" and if the echo chamber is all a-twitter about something, those go to the top. Duh. |
|
|
| (1336876) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 14:37:32 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 2 12:24:21 2016. They're not white. Lulz |
|
|
| (1336880) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 2 14:47:31 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 14:37:32 2016. ohic |
|
|
| (1336882) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Jan 2 15:27:18 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 14:37:32 2016. Klutz! |
|
|
| (1336884) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Jan 2 15:28:15 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 2 14:47:31 2016. No, that's a railroad that starts at Michigan and Randolph. |
|
|
| (1336885) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 2 15:45:45 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Jan 2 15:28:15 2016. oh yeah ? |
|
|
| (1336886) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Jan 2 16:14:53 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 2 15:45:45 2016. Yeah. |
|
|
| (1336889) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 16:35:56 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Jan 2 15:27:18 2016. 
|
|
|
| (1336892) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by chicagomotorman on Sat Jan 2 16:50:44 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 16:35:56 2016. Klutz |
|
|
| (1336893) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 16:56:38 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by chicagomotorman on Sat Jan 2 16:50:44 2016. Did you know that KLUTZ makes underwear? :)
|
|
|
| (1336894) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 2 16:59:36 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Jan 2 16:14:53 2016. i c |
|
|
| (1336896) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 2 17:06:29 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 2 16:59:36 2016. 
|
|
|
| (1336898) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Jan 2 17:10:59 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 16:56:38 2016. 
|
|
|
| (1336899) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Jan 2 17:14:20 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 2 16:59:36 2016. 
|
|
|
| (1336901) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 17:17:46 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Jan 2 17:10:59 2016. He could use some soundproof underwear. :) |
|
|
| (1336902) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 2 17:31:46 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 2 17:06:29 2016. lol |
|
|
| (1336903) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 2 17:32:27 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Jan 2 17:14:20 2016. illinois railroad right ? |
|
|
| (1336905) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Jan 2 17:41:20 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jan 2 17:17:46 2016.  Who, this guy?
|
|
|
| (1336906) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Jan 2 17:42:31 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 2 17:32:27 2016. You're half right. |
|
|
| (1336907) | |
Re: Happy American couple |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 2 17:52:17 2016, in response to Re: Happy American couple, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Jan 2 17:42:31 2016. oh ?only 1/2 ? |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|