Part I - The Rant

(note: I speak only for myself here, not for the project or its organizers)

Over the past week- since starting this project- there have been many people questioning the efficacy, morality, and general point of this effort.  Some have been genuine, some have just been right wing shills trying to stir up trouble, and some others were well meaning but failed to actually comprehend what was going on or think through what they were complaining about.  I sympathize, obviously, with some of these people more than with others, but all have raised points which should probably be clearly addressed.

The Google Bomb Project grows out of two fundamental beliefs. First, that the media is currently underserving the general public through a combination of apathy, incompetence, and overt right-wing leanings.  Second, that voters (and by extention the country) would be better served by a complete understanding of the choice before them.  The project presumes that an impartial but impassioned presentation of the facts is difficult, if not impossible, to come by if this current atmosphere is left to its own devices.

To this end, thousands of people across the country have joined together in order to raise several specific issues of importance to the upcoming election.  These issues have all been reported by mainstream, impartial news sources, and if enough people are concerned about these issues to mount an effective Google Bomb, then, quite frankly, they are issues worth discussion in the national discourse.  This is no keyword gerrymander, this is a discussion of issues, predicated on faith in an open discourse to produce an improved group of representatives in DC.

Fighting back is not inherently the same as fighting dirty.  This is the system in which we've been forced to operate for the time being.  It's been constructed to restrict the free flow of information and issues, and we aren't cheating because we find a way to work within the constraints.  Believe me, it would be much better if there was no need for a Google Bomb.  I don't want to do it, I don't think many other people want to do it.  It's a huge pain in the ass.  If these legitimate and relevant issues were already being discussed in a press which was more concerned with facts than giving equal time to opposing opinions, this wouldn't be necessary and I'd sit back and watch.  But reporting, by and large, is nothing more than "he said she said" at this point, and that doesn't serve the public interest.  It tells people who they might be more inclined to agree with, but it rarely tells people who is actually right.  It gives people the option of believing reality or not, because it doesn't clearly demarcate where the line between reality and spin lies.  Until the collective media is ready to be an arbiter of truth rather than just a referee in the battle to avoid the truth, it is incumbent upon concerned citizens to throw as many facts out there as possible in the hopes that it might tip the balance a bit closer to center.

So please CNN.  Please New York Times.  Please San Diego Union-Tribune.  Please whomever.  I don't want this job.  Take it back.

Part II - The Lessons

In the meantime, we've gotta do this, so let's look at what's good and what isn't.  My results below are mindblowing.  So much so that I don't really trust them, but I'm not sure what would be causing them to be inaccurate.  36(!) of the articles appear on the front page. 16 don't seem to be catching on.  The following issues have been raised in the past week of tracking.

Many news outlets don't keep stories hanging around for too long.  We've seen this with Roskam.  We've seen it now with Hastert.  Identifying sites with long memories would be in our interest, but failing that, we need to be prepared to switch articles in midstream or just cut people out entirely.

Beware famous names.  Peter King and Charles Taylor in particular are stymied by SI writers, murderous dictators and the like.  This sort of thing makes clear that our pool of articles should be restricted to those who come up naturally in a google search.

Ensure the name is in the title if at all possible.  These results seem to prove that it's very possible to overcome this handicap.  However, if we get it to the top and then people gloss over it because the headline is just "Gazette", it doesn't do us a whole lot of good.  We want to attract people's interest once we get to the top.  Plus, the name seems to help articles move to the top.

Be conscious of our national bias.  I've been told that some of these articles (which might get most of us hot and bothered) are not particularly big issues locally.  Now, I don't know if it's because people locally legitimately don't care, or because people locally haven't been informed to a degree that would get them agitated.  But it should be a consideration.

Part III - The Future

If we want to pursue this for 2008, we need to find a way to expand the field, start earlier, and integrate more deeply into local blogs.  Taking each of these one at a time-

Expanding the field isn't particularly difficult, particularly if we get local blogs on the case early in the cycle.  It's going to be a nearly impossible task if we try to go after 500 Republican candidates, but the research is left to a handful of people.  The local blogs know the local issues, know the local papers.  They know what issues are a big deal, they know what local sources are respected.  We need this stuff to be fed "up the ladder."  That said, it's still a huge task to compile all that information, and it gets more than a little unweildy if we try to get people to run hundreds of hyperlinks leading up to the election.  Which is why...

We need a slow burn.  It would be great to have articles starting early on, as early as January of '08 potentially, with the focus being on local blogs to include the link everytime they mention the candidate.  As links die or storylines change, we can change the link, which ensures a constant stream of counterbalance stories in the forefront at Google (or so the idea goes).  Can still wait until just a couple of weeks before the election for the real "bombing," but getting people in the habit early is good.  If nothing else, it helps set the stage for the end of the election cycle.

Many people have been saying it for quite some time, so this isn't really news, but local blogs are the key to all of this.  These stories need to grow out of local blogs, they need to be fostered early on by early blogs, and by sheer force of volume, cooperation between local blogs is going to drive this sort of project.  Furthermore, it became clear during the initial article search for this project that some candidates simply fly under the radar in the press.  There are several who just don't get hit in the press AT ALL.  This is especially where we need great locals to step up into the gap.  Bowers said in the first place that great local blogs could take the place of an article if necessary, but you can clearly see that not a single blog made the list.  Why not?  Sites like Dailykos and MyDD are great, but should be just as much a point of coordination and idea-sharing for local blogs as they are a source for national-level news.  Think about it.  In your town, do people pay more attention to the local news or the nightly network news?  Do they read the local paper or import the New York Times?  It would be great to be able to go through well-written, locally credible blogs who are focused on specific races for a lot of reasons, not least of which being the capacity to catalog older stories that may no longer be accessible elsewhere online.  The network needs to keep growing to feed these sorts of efforts, so keep up the good fight, and we'll see you in 2008.

Part IV - The Actual Update

Please compare to the two previous Progress Reports from 10/26 and 10/28 (thanks aip).

And finally, here are my google results starting at 8:30am Pacific/11:30am Eastern:

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl is currently #6

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi wiki is currently #3

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth is currently #9

--CA-04: John Doolittle wiki is currently #2

--CA-11: Richard Pombo wiki is currently #3

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray is currently #4

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave is currently #8

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn is currently #5

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell is currently #6

--CT-04: Christopher Shays is currently #9

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan is currently #4

--FL-16: Joe Negron is currently not in the first 10 pages

--FL-22: Clay Shaw is currently #7

--ID-01: Bill Sali broken- requires registration

--IL-06: Peter Roskam broken- page no longer found.  But STILL #5 in Google- there's an exhibit of power for ya.

--IL-10: Mark Kirk is currently not in the first ten pages

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert broken- article unavailable.  But STILL #9 in Google- more power for ya.

--IN-02: Chris Chocola is currently #80

--IN-08: John Hostettler is currently #9

--IA-01: Mike Whalen is currently #29

--KS-02: Jim Ryun is currently #6

--KY-03: Anne Northup is currently #6

--KY-04: Geoff Davis is currently #25

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele is currently #7

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht is currently #4

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann is currently #4

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent is currently #96 (MyDD is #'s 6 and 7)

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns is currently #24

--NV-03: Jon Porter story is #3 with slightly different url

--NH-02: Charlie Bass is currently #4

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson is currently #5

--NM-01: Heather Wilson is currently #8

--NY-03: Peter King is currently not in the first ten pages

--NY-20: John Sweeney is currently #6

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds is currently #10

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl wiki is currently #4

--NC-08: Robin Hayes is currently #12

--NC-11: Charles Taylor remains stuck behind disambiguation

--OH-01: Steve Chabot is currently not in the first ten pages

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt is currently #7

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce is currently #5

--OH-18: Joy Padgett is currently #6

--PA-04: Melissa Hart is currently #7

--PA-07: Curt Weldon is currently #5

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick is currently #6

--PA-10: Don Sherwood is currently #5

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee is currently not in the first ten pages

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker registration required, but article is currently #4

--VA-Sen: George Allen is currently #5

--VA-10: Frank Wolf is currently #4

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick is currently #4

--WA-08: Dave Reichert is currently #5

These results seem too good to be true, but I don't know what to tell ya.  I logged out, cleared the history, restarted the comp first.  So I'll have to run with it I suppose- maybe I should just accept the good news right? Right.  In the meantime, when you find that you're getting worse results, report it, but make sure to find someplace to add to the bomb and help out.