Google Bomb Intelligent Design

[RichardR]

There is a move afoot to Google Bomb Intelligent Design so that the National Center for Science Education’s "Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists paper comes on top (or at least high up) on Google searches:

Link:

Google Bomb "Intelligent Design"

Post something on "Intelligent Design" (which is currently the #1 search on Technorati) which links to the authoritative statement by the National Center for Science Education, which I've linked to here by way of illustration. This way when those genuinely seeking information start Googling, they'll get to the right place.

In summary, if you have a blog or website, link to the NCSE’s paper, but make sure you use the words “Intelligent Design” in the hyperlink. Like this:

Intelligent Design

Every little helps.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you RichardR. I'm sure the IDiots are doing the same, so to get a few words in edgwise...even though they may be ignored by most...will help in those just beginning to explore the issue and don't understand what all the fuss is about.

What I don't understand is the sympathy these IDiots are getting for eroding science. They say they innocently that they want to present "another view". That's not the case. They don't want people to think there is any merit to science. I encountered this in the free anti-evolution seminar I just attended last month.

It was simply lies about science, and then religion presented as the only common sense to the craziness of "science". Science was covered up with IDiocy, painted over with lies, and punted around like the stupidest thing since trying to convert oneself into a dog by sheer will. It was all very much a screaming circus of misrepresentation. That is what ID is as well. They take evolution, lie about it, make it look like a clown, and present ID as the only thing that makes any sense.

How it makes sense is beyond me, but I guess asking for proof of such a "process" is sacreligious! It only points to how IDiocy is NOT science, but hey-they want to change the defintion of science now too. You are to believe because the "alternative" is antireligious-so they claim. It's such a circular bunch of nonsense that it has my head spinning.

How anyone can defend ID is beyond me. It's creation, pure and simple. It's not based on observable phenemona, it's only belief...yet they try to dress up evolution as the same. They cover the facts up, twist the truth, and offer up an easy to swallow pill of stupidity in its place.

Yes, I'm frustrated. I thought humanity would start to someday progress. Seems the more we progress the less we appreciate how and why we did. Science allows for miracles, not sitting back and saying "godditit/willdoit".

 

[Alkatran]

Isn't google bombing Intelligent Design a bit... wrong?

At least that's what my gut tells me. But then my head tells me its better if people find the right information about Intelligent Design.

 

[steenkh]

Isn't google bombing Intelligent Design a bit... wrong?

At least that's what my gut tells me. But then my head tells me its better if people find the right information about Intelligent Design.

Strange that you feel that way because my head tells me it is wrong to use links like Intelligent Design in order to skew the search results of a search engine, but my gut says go, go, go!

 

[Mercutio]

Isn't google bombing Intelligent Design a bit... wrong?

At least that's what my gut tells me. But then my head tells me its better if people find the right information about Intelligent Design.

Strange that you feel that way because my head tells me it is wrong to use links like Intelligent Design in order to skew the search results of a search engine, but my gut says go, go, go!

Ok...I have a question, out of ignorance. Does it make a difference how often we link Intelligent Design within this forum, or must we link Intelligent Design in other forums, blogs, chatrooms, etc., in order for the Intelligent Design Google Bomb to work? I am genuinely curious.

...is this what happened with Santorum?

 

[Loon]

It's a great idea, but what about linking <url=www.spreadingsantorum.com>Intelligent Design</url> with Santorum.....

 

[Dredred]

Does it make a difference how often we link Intelligent Design within this forum

Yes. To my knowledge, google calculates the value (PageRank) of a link by dividing it by the number of total links on a page. So a larger number of links to the same page from this page would mean a higher percentage of PageRank.

BTW, I do think googlebombing is a bit childish and will give intelligent design proponents an excuse to use the same kind of tactics.

 

[Mojo]

Intelligent Design Not Accepted by Most Scientists is currently ranked 8th in a Google search for the words Intelligent Design.

 

[Donks]

Isn't it more effective to put the link to Intelligent Design is our signatures, so it appears in more pages?

 

[Orangutan]

Strange that you feel that way because my head tells me it is wrong to use links like Intelligent Design in order to skew the search results of a search engine, but my gut says go, go, go!

Ok...I have a question, out of ignorance. Does it make a difference how often we link Intelligent Design within this forum, or must we link Intelligent Design in other forums, blogs, chatrooms, etc., in order for the Intelligent Design Google Bomb to work? I am genuinely curious.

...is this what happened with Santorum? [/B]

I don't know but I like the idea of putting Intelligent Design in our sigs.

 

[Yahweh]

I've put Intelligent Design in my signature. Thats almost 9000 free advertisements for Intelligent Design.

 

[Yahweh]

And I've just edited some of the templates on my site to put Intelligent Design at the bottom of every FSTDT entry, thats about 3000 more free advertisments.

 

[The Bad Astronomer]

Way ahead of you.

I am not sure if or how much Google spiders this forum, so it may not help much here. My site is spidered several times a day, so here's hoping...

 

[Mojo]

I have my doubts as well: "Kumar is intelligent" still seems to have no hits, and it's been on this forum for ages. On the other hand, maybe that's a notion too bizarre for Google.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I like the idea of putting Intelligent Design in our sigs.

The problem with that is that it artificially boosts the figures in the short term, since one day you will want room in your sig for something else.

 

[geni]

Google doesn't pick up the links pointing to my webpage from my sig.

 

[Plognark]

There seems to be a lot of people who think this is unethical. There was a bit of a row over at Bad Astronomy about whether Google Bombing is ethical or not.

I don't think a lot of people understand how it works, and think it's like hacking or something. It's no different from an ad campaign really, like putting up posters or passing flyers around to spread the word about a given topic.

I mean, if this was linking ID to something completely unrelated it would be misleading, but it's leading to a site about ID, just a perspective that isn't currently spammed and already google bombed by fundamentalist YEC idiots.

 

[Soapy Sam]

What's google bombing?

 

[Mojo]

Intelligent Design Not Accepted by Most Scientists is now ranked 7th in a Google search for the words Intelligent Design.

Still behind Talk.Origins and Skeptic's Dictionary pages, incidentally.

 

[Orangutan]

What's google bombing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb