To whom it may concern:

If you used Facebook's search bar feature yesterday and were able to see your "top 5" friends, then there will be a PHP file containing the "o" ranking of every single one of your Facebook friends stored somewhere on your computer.

Please note: this tip applies to anyone whose computer saves temporary internet files.

(1) Open your "Temporary Internet Files" folder. (For example, from Internet Explorer, go to Tools > Internet Options > Settings > View Files.)

(2) Within the folder, look for files last accessed on May 13 around the time you first tested out the Facebook search bar function.

(3) You should be able to find a PHP file called "typeahead_search."

(4) Save this file to another folder and open it with a text editor like Notepad (or the Mac equivalent). You will see that the file contains script for every single one of your friends. (See the script here for an example.). If you search within the file for the name of any of your Facebook friends, you will find their ranking after the letter "o." The five people with the lowest "o" rankings will be the same as your "Facebook 5."

It was part of the autocomplete for the search box. The file the server sent when you clicked on the search box was a big list of Friends and groups (that it used to autocomplete when you type) like this:

{"t":"[Dude's Name]","i":2401357,"u":"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php

?id=2401357","o":216,"it":"","n":"Northwestern"}

for me the "o:" value here is 216 for the vast majority of the names,
216 being my total number of friends, but some are lower - lo and
behold people with 0-4 are the five people that show up in the search
box

o's just a ranking thing, like so when you type "a" it uses the o
value to figure out which names should come first, then everything
that's 216 is just in alphabetical order

The only thing that remains is how they computed the o values, I
assume the method was something nefarious. Anyway it's gone now, but I
hope this helps. I'm not affiliated with facebook or anything.

• The "It's People YOU Search For" Theory
  A passionate reader writes: "jesus.... PLEASE correct that facebook post. it's the five people whom YOU SEARCH FOR most often... not the other way around. it's driving me crazy reading through all the comments seeing people getting mad at facebook for absolutely no reason."
• The "It's A Coding Error" Theory
  From a Facebook discussion thread: "I suspect it's meant to be the people whose profiles you look at the most, but that they're referring to the wrong statistics (human coding error) and it's actually the 5 who look at yours most. I think it's a mistake because Facebook wouldn't do something like that deliberately, it goes against their ethos of anonymous browsing, but it definitely refers to a statistic that they're keeping, and between the [limited] information that the coding context gives and the nature of the names (after cross-referencing with 7 of my friends), I'd say they're accidentally calling up the 5 people who browse you the most."
• The "Search Frequency" Theory
  A reader attempts to parse the Facebook algorithm: "I have a theory. I think it's matching the frequency of times that you search for someone with the frequency of times that people search for you and it's an attempt at interpreting who your best friends are."
• The "It's NOT The People You Search For" Theory
  A commenter tries the process of elimination: "eek — okay so i went on my secret stalking-only facebook page, where i have no friends, and tried it. nothing came up, which makes sense, cause it's a whack name. however, the people i use it to stalk didn't show up either, which means it cannot be tracking the people we stalk."
• The "Facebook Says You Like These People" Theory
  A commenter claims to go directly to the source: "OK, my friend emailed her friend that works for the Good Book and here was the response (emphasis mine): This is the canned response we've been using:
  The five friends that you see below the search box are populated based on people whom we think you'd be most interested in. Taking into account various factors, we attempt to make an educated guess as to who it is you're looking for when you start typing a name in the search box. Please note that this information is only visible to you and will not be shared with your friends. We hope that this feature is helpful and we appreciate your feedback. Let me know if you have further questions."

[UPDATE: Although the "down arrow" feature seems to have been disabled, you can still pull up the list of five by typing a period (".") in the search box.]

First, it must be acknowledged that Clooney is a smart man. He's not a grown-up version of Ashton Kutcher, an airheaded frat boy pulling practical jokes that a team of writers dreamed up. Clooney may be a frat boy type and a practical joker, but he knows exactly what he's doing. He has a very solid reason for every career-related move that he makes; look at the crafty, political way he chooses his movies. Except that new one about the old-timey football thing—who knows what that's all about.

The point is, Clooney sees the big picture. Recall his response to the original unveiling of the "Gawker Stalker" map. While lots of celebrities moaned about the intrusion into their privacy and imagined ridiculous implications for their personal safety, Clooney actually had a plan: he told a bunch of entertainment publicists to flood the site with false tips, thereby rendering it useless. It turned out that the Stalker maps are hardly a threat to anyone, and the flood of outrageous fake tips that Clooney inspired eventually disappeared. But he did prove that he was thinking about how to fight back against the celebrity-industrial complex, and even came up with an effective strategy—more than you can say for Brad Pitt, whose decision to fire his publicist will (prediction!) fail to magically allow him to disappear from the eyes of the media.

The problem is that Clooney is a CORNERSTONE of that very same complex. A man who ambitiously rose from a bit part of "The Facts Of Life" to a place in the pantheon of outrageously famous movie stars is hardly a credible spokesman for the cause of anti-publicity. On top of that, the press that Clooney gets is, by celebrity standards, pretty positive. It's impossible to argue that the very same paparazzi and tabloid media that he deplores have not, on balance, been a boon to his career.

And look at it from the poor, poor entertainment reporter's perspective: without some effort at critical coverage, they are bound to feel like nothing more than tools of the equally powerful movie marketing machine. Sure, staking out every nightclub, restaurant, and dwelling place of a celebrity is not really hard-hitting, or even socially redeeming, reporting. But Clooney, whose father was himself a newsman, should understand that it's all part of the package of being a star—a deal that he surely enjoys.

The actor would doubtless say that he supports real journalism, which is all well and good. So do we! But Americans have an unfortunate taste for the minutiae of the lives of their big screen heroes. So perhaps some sort of bargain can be struck. The tabloids can promise to take Clooney's earnest projects seriously, and in return, he can throw them a bone by accepting that his social life will always appear in the gossip pages and on the blogs, until he chooses to retire into obscurity. Besides, even if he were to enlist each and every one of his celebrity friends in his cause of punking the media, it would never work—that story in and of itself would be covered to death, resulting in a level of scrutiny that's equal to the one that the Hollywood types already receive.

So let's all just get along, in the words of famous celebrity Rodney King. Except, of course, for those pranks on the paparazzi. Go right ahead with that. Nobody can stand those guys, anyhow.