Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 8:05 AM
Sat Nov 28
15 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/25/09
- a video of Ukrainian teens murdering a hobo with a hammer and screwdriver
- a guy shoving a Tom Collins glass up his ass, the glass subsequently breaking and then him dealing with those consequences
- a shitload of racist websites hating every type of person you can think of.
I get that outrage/counter-outrage/chance at zingers gets interest but you are coming off as a bit of a harumphing dowager or worse, a college freshman. You're damaging the legitimacy of your future posts and that makes me cry.
11/25/09
11/25/09
Seriously? I realize Gawker slants left, but that's a bit ridiculous for a blog that has never seemed to mind being offensive to anyone.
11/25/09
As compared to, you know, the regular Gawker stuff that you find "offensive"?
It's all just on a par to you, is it? "Black-people-are-monkeys" pictures and standard snarky Gawker fare?
O-0-oh ka-a-ay ...
11/25/09
But it's not as if offensive images haven't been posted here before. Perhaps "ridiculous" was an overstatement on my part. "Surprising" would have been more accurate.
11/25/09
That history is: they ALWAYS post them.
11/25/09
Well ... at least it has does ever since the departure of Owen "Travolta's Rumored Gay Lover Discovered Dead Son" Thomas.
11/25/09
11/25/09
Ok, maybe Gawker doesn't have any lines they won't cross after all ...
11/25/09
I'm amazed at even the suggestion here that it should be removed, because that is totally assholish and misguided.
Seriously, a balderdash thing to say. I'm disgusted. Chen, you call yourself a writer? I'm sorry, no. You are not allowed to call yourself that. You obviously cannot be trusted to protect what I consider to be the most important freedom we have, therefore I shall lobby that your name never come up in any search result.
You are a bad person. Or, perhaps, a decent person with an inability to make a point without failing badly and being misunderstood. Either way. Not appreciated.
11/25/09
You know, that sounds just like "Google should remove it", doesn't it?
Talk about trying to make a point and failing badly.
11/25/09
But there is no debate. No controversy, even. This is what I meant by failing at making a point. There was not, in fact, any reason to bring the image up. This is the point of the bad stuff. You don't like it, ignore it.
Oh, and go to hell, Go Like Hell, for that last crack of yours there. I'll send the ACLU a couple bucks in your name.
11/25/09
It's the distinction between saying the KKK is disgusting and shouldn't exist vs. saying the Government should prohibit the KKK from existing. Big difference--HUGE difference.
11/25/09
There is not a shortage of Obama monkey images. It's neither here nor there, and not worth discussion. It really isn't.
What's worth discussion is the suggestion these images be pulled. I say again, that is the overwhelming flavor of this post. Or, almost as bad, it's "tut tut, this is bad" and leading people to Google image it, which they have now, and it's still, what? Just another Obama monkey thing.
A story might be about who is posting these. A piece about Google refusing to take it down? Makes me mad that it is disappointed they will not. Saying again: #gfail. Failed how? "Racist picture...will live forever..." Well, yeah, that's the idea of a library. Respect the Internet as a library of everything.
I can't believe this is even an issue. No, I can. It's why I'm pissed.
Fiercely protect it, yer stupid freedom of speech, or yer screwed.
11/25/09
11/25/09
How's your head feel this morning? :-)
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
This image is on the first page if you search for "Rush Limbaugh elephant."
Let's all click it incessantly so it shows up when you just type "Rush Limbaugh"!
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
Nonetheless, it seems to me that the big story is that the offending image comes up first or on the first page of the results, so why would people be linking to the image? The image itself isn't the story, it's Google.
11/25/09
11/25/09
Are we to believe that the picture which replaced the former number one, which Google claims was removed on the 17th has amassed more compounded(?) clicks than the seventeen others on the first page?
11/25/09
But really...if people start to worry themselves over the kind of offensive awfulness they can find on the internet, via Google or any other search engine, they will drive themselves nuts. There is a lot of sick stuff out there. I'm sure this picture (though I have not seen it) is the tip of a really ugly iceberg. I just use safesearch so I don't get the proverbial vapors when doing an internet search.
11/25/09
Say there's a racist message board that produces the image and spreads it online. Google's ranking is low. Huffington Post commenters find the image and link to it saying "OMG how racist!%#" Since HuffPo has a high Google rank, the algorithm thinks the result must be "good." People then send e-mails around saying "Look at these racists!@!$%" and link to the image, and bam, its ranking goes up, and subsequently appears higher on the image search results.
So basically the people who are offended by the image and link to it are keeping it alive. Gawker is good to not link to the image so that it doesn't self perpetrate.
I guess the lesson is: Google's search algorithm isn't human. Its a computer program, it doesn't understand the difference between an offensive image and a benign one. Search results are an attempt to take the real world, convert it in to math that a computer can understand, and spit out human-friendly results.
11/25/09
Google claims pagerank is determined by "500 million variables and 2 billion terms", which sounds like hyperbole or they're simply counting searches, but nonetheless, if a "new" image can climb so quickly, then I'd say they may be off somewhere with their math.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
#tips
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
#tips
11/25/09
#tips
11/25/09
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
Well, now we know what type of pad Nick has.
11/23/09