BBV - Does Diebold have some pull with Google?

[harmonyguy]

Yesterday, I found the Seattle Times article on Jeffrey Dean by using Google-News and searching on the word Diebold. Simple, no questionable logic or fussy infra-red scanning involved, just a simple one-word Google search.

Oddly enough, if I do the same one-word search today, there's no sign of the article. Oh, I can still search for Jeffrey Dean and find it, but the association between the word Diebold and the article has uhhhh - vanished. Poof! Not a trace! No sign it ever existed. (That's the neat thing about not having results on paper - if you don't like the results, there are always ways you can change them, without leaving muddy footprints all over the place....)

Now, one really can't fault anyone for distancing themselves from some convicts that were in their midst, and maybe I'm being a bit too untrusting, but it's almost as if someone didn't like the results of the search, and found the way to change them.

Wouldn't you think that trying to keep on top of all the news articles and getting unsavory ones disassociated from one's name would be a, ahem, bear of a job?

Original Thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1810002

HG
;-)

[Eric J in MN]

1. Try it this way

Try it this way:

"Jeffrey Dean" +diebold

[ashling]

2. worked for me

I just typed "Jeffrey Dean Diebold" and up it came.

[harmonyguy]

3. Perhaps I wasn't clear.....

The issue isn't finding the article in question, it's no longer being able to find it using just the word Diebold.

Today, a researcher or reporter doing a search for news articles on Diebold using only the word Diebold would NOT even stumble across the article, whereas last night, they would have found it at the top of the list.

Ok, perhaps I'm the only one who sees this as even remotely intriguing, but I much prefer that Google index on all significant words, rather than becoming selective.

I'll go and get a life now, before someone else suggests it.
HG