First the background on “Don’t be evil” as reported by Wikipedia:
In their 2004 founders’ letter prior to their initial public offering, Lawrence E. Page and Sergey Brin explained that their “Don’t be evil” culture prohibited conflicts of interest, and required objectivity and an absence of bias:
Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating. We also display advertising, which we work hard to make relevant, and we label it clearly. This is similar to a well-run newspaper, where the advertisements are clear and the articles are not influenced by the advertisers’ payments. We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see.
And now this surprising screen cap I’ve been sitting on for awhile. While WUWT was the top result, the user is given the option to block WUWT results forever in Google Chrome:
That screencap is from April 22nd, 2011.
ADDED: Some folks suggest it was solely the use of the “f word” in search that triggered it. If so, why is there no block option for Lucia’s the Blackboard?
I ask readers to try getting that message to pop up searching for specific titles on Real Climate or Climate Progress and other pro AGW sites. I tried and could not back then, though it is possible the algorithm has changed in the month since I tried. I’ve also noted that once you ignore the “block all results” option, it does not appear again (for that website).
Your experience may vary, I’m only reporting mine and it appears that once you have a look at the content you get the offer to block, the option goes away. So I can’t repeat it without doing a reinstall and registry cleanse.
[ADDED: Reader Jeremy was able to get the same result with RealClimate, see here so it is good to see that it is not specific to WUWT, though that still leaves the graph below]
What prompted me to publish this screencap today? I needed confirmation that something was afoot.
Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com dropped me an email about his article Climate cleansing: Google to censor skeptics? where he quotes this from the Yale Climate Change Forum:
——————————————————–
The Yale Forum on Climate Change reports that,
… Google leads people to accurate information about climate change. Fifty-two percent of the 980 sites [returned by a Google search on climate change-related terms] contained clear statements in line with the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science evidence. For example, if you had searched for “climate change myths” in early May, you would have found this Environmental Defense Fund site, which says, “The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it.”
And Google may be willing to fix this problem for the alarmists. The Yale Forum goes on to state:
Meanwhile, can search engines do a better job of pointing the public toward credible sites?
A Google spokeswoman, who insisted on anonymity because she is not a Google executive, said the company is always looking for ways to improve results. “Last year, we made 500 changes to the algorithm to improve search quality,” she said.
————————————————————————————-
So, it appears if you can’t beat them, censor them. I hope I’m wrong about that, but this graph below suggests that my traffic has been impacted by changes in search engine algorithms, Google of course being the lions share.
Here’s my Alexa search driven hits to WUWT, note the step change in mid 2010, perhaps one of those “500 changes to the algorithm to improve search quality” was implemented then:
Source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com#
ADDED: Some commenters suggest “lack of interest” in climate issues as the reason for the sharp drop, compare the number of search related visits at RealClimate.org then:
The blocking option might be a one shot deal, but the step change and continued lower results (for WUWT search hits) concern me. I had a large traffic spike in December 2010, related to the COP16 climate conference worldwide interest, but no corresponding large uptick in search hits.
UPDATE: Harold Ambler points out in comments his story about what happened when ClimateGate broke, and Google’s search lagged well behind Bing at the time:
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/google-gate/
As I stated on another site, I no longer use Google for Climate searches. I think it was in one of your articles about the time of Climategate, where the comment was made that Bing brought up much better hits than google. it was then I realized they had already started doing that – this latest is just their dropping any pretext to objectivity.
Agreed. For a while, some time back, this site was coming up at the top of searches when I would Google a phrase or quote form a WUWT article. I was impressed. I supposed it meant that WUWT was getting high traffic and high search results, thus making the site prime real estate for Google and their ad machine. Apparently profit motive and “do no evil” take the back seat when it comes to pushing progressive agendas.
The following google search : http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=real+climate+watts+up+with+that&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=29fe7f6f85cbb9ba
Gives block options for both your site and real climate. This new feature is probably algorithmic and not specifically targeted at ‘deniers’.
Does it only work for Chrome? I use Firefox and I don’t have the option to block any search results.
I use Bing.
It is more likely a feature to deal with content farms and scrapers, crowd sourcing the use of ‘block this site’ to bias overall search rankings.
http://glasskeys.com/2011/05/05/how-to-remove-content-farm-sites-from-google-search-results/
REPLY: OK how do I get around it? – Anthony
Thank you for pointing this out in your typically fact-based way. If that chart were inverted and labeled “global temperature,” Michael Mann and Rajendra Pachauri would be shouting “Incontrovertible proof!” from the rooftops.
Seriously: this is scary. For you, for us, for the public. Ultimately for Google, because it shreds their cred. And without that, they are nothing. Between this kind of “kindly smothering” and “nudging,” and the exposure of their enablement of privacy erosion, they are under new pressure. I hope they respond as conscientiously as their slogan suggests. But their slogan implies a dualism: either “don’t be evil” or else “be evil.” The problem is, as Edmund Burke showed us, “all that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.” So not being evil is not enough. You have to work to be good.
I use Bing. Not because they’re better, or I’m in love with MS necessarily. They’re just the best “not Google” search engine at the time.
But, most of the time, I know what I’m looking for anyway, and where to go.
This needs watching but I think you need some more information before suggesting this “feature” is specifically targeting WUWT. It also appears to be broswer feature rather than google.com.
I assume this is what they talk about here: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-chrome-extension-block-sites-from.html
Wuwt still shows up as #1 for that search for me (currently on an iPad).
This is potentially really scary, but let’s not jump to conclusions!
The problem is likely at Google much as it is at many newspapers. You have people with a certain world-view who sincerely believe they are out to make the world a better place who decide to “make a difference” by advancing that view through their work.
The problem comes in when what they believe to be true might not actually be true. Some people are likely to suppress or censor information that is counter to their own world-view as it calls their entire belief system into question. If they could be wrong about climate, maybe they are wrong about a lot of other things, too.
Heck, next someone will be telling them that they are all wrong for buying that “fair trade” coffee.
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Fair+trade+coffee/4782606/story.html
Thankfully, I do not get the blocking option either (pre-Chrome). Maybe they didn’t bother to implement the feature for older systems, knowing that old folks like me generally don’t limit our knowledge to initial results from a search engine anyway.
Truly, though — that screenshot is pretty evil.
Blocking was an experimental extension to chrome, they must have made it live. Really this is nothing to freak out about as a specific attack on your blog.
REPLY: it also happens in Firefox, I don’t think it is that specific Chrome extension – Anthony
I don’t think there is a way to get round it. You can trigger it for any site, seems to be relevancy related.
http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=google+is+really+awesome&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=29fe7f6f85cbb9ba
Allows you to ‘block google.com’ for one of the results on the first page..
REPLY: Doesn’t work for me. No options to block presented. But the more troubling problem is the graph I presented. – Anthony
The good news is it is just a feature to allow visitors to improve their search experience by rejecting results from sites of the user’s choice. /sarc
The bad news is for that feature to be offered, Google will have had to already decided the site is a candidate for mass rejection.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/hide-sites-to-find-more-of-what-you.html
Not surprising for the single most evil enterprise on the internet.
Basically, you’re screwed, Anthony. Google, having made up their mind about your site, is sharing their opinion with others in a clever example of passive aggression.
Personally, I’d like to reject all results from ExpertsExchange as it is an extremely annoying site that, based on google results, has every answer to any question except you can’t see them unless you open an account with them. It is a search engine bunny trail.
The Google reject option is present only if you are silly enough to have a google account *and* are actually logged in. One more strike like that should be grounds for having your computer confiscated. When you have a google account and are logged into that account your life is like an open book and Google has scanned every page. That, my friend, is evil.
Don’t be evil depends upon what you consider to be evil.
It may well be that climate skeptics are now considered “evil”
Obviously the freedom of the internet is going to be compromised.
I use bing.
I think that’s just a “filter block” for the immediate search results… the opposite is the “More results from wattsupwiththat.com »”
the question would be is a permanent block or temporary, long-term or short-term.
At least you are in good company: http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Screenshot2011-05-20at120214PM-1.png
REPLY: Ah good to know. Thanks Can you tell me how to replicate that? Update: tried all three browsers again, cannot get it to occur. – Anthony
1) First time i heard Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” mantra i though, “Yeah, as if…”….
2) When the warmist fanboys decide to see nothing, hear nothing, they cut themselves off from reality and finally make the full scale transition to a cult (Rule number 1 in a cult is to control the information the cult members get). This will weaken them further. Wholesale descend into mass madness RSN.
Climate blog gives me WUWT on page 2.
Climate skeptic gives me WUWT on page one, item 6.
I have a dev channel chrome, with the blocking extension installed for the same blocking expertsexchange reason as dp and the option is presented to block docs.google.com and google.com. Did you log into your google account before searching?
As for the Alexa rankings, you would be better off using a dedicated web stats system. They use a pretty dodgy sampling method..
I’ve started using dogpile (no joke!)–the good part is that it is neither Google nor Bing–both of whom are owned by less than stellar companies when it comes to ethical behavior.
I’m checking out Bing.. Who do these guys think they are. I guess there the geeks at school trying to be hip.. Whats is it called, “Cool by Association”
Is this the first casualty in the UK of the Carbon Tax.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/may/20/tata-steel-job-losses-yorkshire-teesside
Construction slump and carbon costs blamed for 1,500 steel job losses
No “Block” option for me when I execute that search. Latest Chrome in use.