It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary[W:73]

[Bootlace]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

I google every morning looking to see if hillary has gotten any bad news yet. Never had an issue getting up to date stories.

 

[Deuce]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

You do not debunk a question.

The facts clearly won again and show you to be wrong.

Thank you again for showing just that.

Google wasn't manipulating anything to protect Hillary. They were just using their standard autocomplete function.

Agree?

 

[TheGoverness]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Google wasn't manipulating anything to protect Hillary. They were just using their standard autocomplete function.

Agree?

He's never gonna agree.

It's always "I'm right, your wrong" with him, no matter what.

 

[joG]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

I'm not surprised to learn this, especially after what took place at FaceBook.



Here Are 10 Examples of Google Search Results Favoring Hillary


Here's the video that accompanies the story. It is very informative.

If true, it won't help Google much.

 

[joG]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Google wasn't manipulating anything to protect Hillary. They were just using their standard autocomplete function.

Agree?

I think, I would want more than speculation here.

 

[Deuce]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

I think, I would want more than speculation here.

...it's not speculation. you can try it with anybody's name.

 

[BitterPill]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

If true, it won't help Google much.

And even when it's not true it won't help google much.

 

[joG]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

And even when it's not true it won't help google much.

Sounds like a bummer.

 

[Excon]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Google wasn't manipulating anything to protect Hillary. They were just using their standard autocomplete function.

Agree?

As you can see from the follow quote it is a repeat of the same information already provided.
So what was it that you did not understand the first two times it was posted?

I have emboldened and underlined in blue the part you obviously missed both times.

Again.

The manipulation has been confirmed and explained.
It has nothing specifically to do with Hillary, but it is still manipulation. ← This part explaining exactly what google confirmed and explained.

"The autocomplete algorithm is designed to avoid completing a search for a person’s name with terms that are offensive or disparaging," wrote Tamar Yehoshua, vice president of product management for Google's search, in the post. "We made this change a while ago following feedback that Autocomplete too often predicted offensive, hurtful or inappropriate queries about people. This filter operates according to the same rules no matter who the person is," Yehoshua said.

Google defends its search engine against charges it favors Clinton​

​

---

He's never gonna agree.

It's always "I'm right, your wrong" with him, no matter what.

This is not about me. What do you not understand about that?
Stop making comments specifically about me or I will consider it baiting and harassment.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Google wasn't manipulating anything to protect Hillary. They were just using their standard autocomplete function.

Agree?

100% correct that's why the OP failed and has been debunked. THe op article claims it was for hillary that 100% factually false and that fact has been proven.

 

[Excon]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

100% correct that's why the OP failed and has been debunked.

As you were already told you do not debunk a question.

Facts prove you wrong again.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

As you were already told you do not debunk a question.

Facts prove you wrong again.

the video was NAMED like a question BUT OP article and link made factually statements that google WAS changing results in favor of hillary, that was factually debunked and proven wrong. It was done by me here and the link I poster, other posters and other sites/news groups :laughat:
Are you claiming the OP and link doesnt make statements that it was happening

See post 47#

And another dodge thats what I thought!!! LMAO
Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman
Disagree? Please post ONE fact that proves this was for Hillary, thanks
There will be no further response until you do so (so far you have zero facts that go against what I actually said, just egg on your face as your posts were caught lying again)
Your post gets destroyed, your lie and straman fails and facts win again
opcorn2:

AND THATS THE GAME!!!

Hook line and sinker!

Happy Trails :2wave:




Who wants to bet the same lies and strawmen are repeated and I never respond because there will still be ZERO facts presented that support his claim? Just more entertainment for us to laugh at.

 

[Excon]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

the video was NAMED like a question BUT OP article and link made factually statements that google WAS changing results in favor of hillary, that was factually debunked and proven wrong. It was done by me here and the link I poster, other posters and other sites/news groups :laughat:
Are you claiming the OP and link doesnt make statements that it was happening

See post 47#

AND THATS THE GAME!!!

Hook line and sinker!

Happy Trails :2wave:

As you were already told you do not debunk a question.

Facts proved you wrong again.

Who wants to bet the same lies and strawmen are repeated and I never respond because there will still be ZERO facts presented that support his claim? Just more entertainment for us to laugh at.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

I typed in Hillary Clinton, and the first three suggestions, in order, were indictment, email, and Benghazi. So much for Google manipulating search suggestions to protect her.

 

[Excon]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

I typed in Hillary Clinton, and the first three suggestions, in order, were indictment, email, and Benghazi. So much for Google manipulating search suggestions to protect her.

No.

I just typed in the name and this is what comes up for suggestions.

What was being pointed out in the video is that the auto complete function between the search engines is different, with what appeared to be Google making a deliberate attempt to hide suggestions.

Try typing in the following and see what the video was speaking about.

Hillary Clinton indi
Hillary Clinton cri

As already pointed out, a Google spokesperson confirmed and explained the manipulation.
While still manipulation, it had nothing specifically to do with Hillary.

"The autocomplete algorithm is designed to avoid completing a search for a person’s name with terms that are offensive or disparaging," wrote Tamar Yehoshua, vice president of product management for Google's search, in the post. "We made this change a while ago following feedback that Autocomplete too often predicted offensive, hurtful or inappropriate queries about people. This filter operates according to the same rules no matter who the person is," Yehoshua said.

Google defends its search engine against charges it favors Clinton​

 

[AGENT J]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

I typed in Hillary Clinton, and the first three suggestions, in order, were indictment, email, and Benghazi. So much for Google manipulating search suggestions to protect her.

100% correct

there is no factual manipulation in favor of Hillary which the OP claims, statements in the linked claimed here:
"Here Are 10 More Examples of Google Search Results Favorable to Hillary"
"Crime” and “indictment” are not the only terms Google is keeping hidden from searches of Hillary Clinton"
"Common search terms associated with Clinton appear to have been scrubbed from Google as the tech giant has been accused of manipulating its autocomplete results to favor the Democratic presidential candidate."
"Matt Lieberman of SourceFed released a video showing examples of Google skewing its autocomplete results for Clinton, while other search engines simply display the most searched terms."

All of those statements are 100% factually false and have been debunked

In fact as a representative explained its simply how their algorithm works and if you type any name followed by cri or indi you get the same results. More proof the OP is a lie and is debunked.

SO what was claimed to be happening in op was factually wrong and the other reality is searches and autofinishes work on algorithms, this is just how google works and there was zero manipulation involving hilary, hence why the OP failed and has been debunked.

 

[BitterPill]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Just more entertainment for us to laugh at.

You've got that covered.

 

[Excon]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

You've got that covered.

Silly reply.
It's already covered, and not by me.

---

I typed in Hillary Clinton, and the first three suggestions, in order, were indictment, email, and Benghazi. So much for Google manipulating search suggestions to protect her.

100% correct

You are again 100% Wrong.

The second sentence applies to what he said in the first.
That second sentence, the one which you emboldened, is predicated on the first sentence which was shown to be absolutely false.


You couldn't even get the following correct.

"Here Are 10 More Examples of Google Search Results Favorable to Hillary"

[...]

All of those statements are 100% factually false and have been debunked

That is 100% undeniably wrong.
The examples are "Favorable to Hillary". Not deliberately, but they are still favorable to her.


That you thought you needed to further explain when the quote from the Google Spokesperson confirming the manipulation and explaining it was provided, is hilarious.

And again, you do not debunk a question. Your claim is ridiculous.

 

[Peter King]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

The issue isn't about search results, it's about manipulating the auto-complete function to omit the most popular searches, that just happen to be negative toward Hillary Clinton.

.

And that already has been debunked because it does not just do that for anybody specifically.

Also, Hillary Clinton is not a criminal, you may feel differently but you would be wrong. If you type in Donald Trump investiga, you get Donald Trump investigates Obama.

If you type in donald trump university, you get donald trump university wiki, donald trump university of Pennsylvania, donald trump university of Chicago, donald trump university of Pittsburgh. But not Donald Trump university scandal, donald trump university lawsuit, donald trump university judge, etc. etc. etc.

If you type "Donald Trump frau" you get no mention of his fraud investigations, you get donald trump frau and donald trump frauen.

You are just falsely claiming that Google is aiding Hillary by not showing what you think needs to be filled in when you type something in google search.

Face it, it has been debunked. If you want to find other results than you get at Google, which for some reason does not negatively fill in stuff in their search engine, go to Bing, yahoo or some other search engine. Maybe there you will get what you desire.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

And that already has been debunked because it does not just do that for anybody specifically.

Face it, it has been debunked. If you want to find other results than you get at Google, which for some reason does not negatively fill in stuff in their search engine, go to Bing, yahoo or some other search engine. Maybe there you will get what you desire.

100% correct.

 

[BitterPill]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Silly reply.
It's already covered, and not by me.

It seems you can read my mind.

I tell you what; right now I'm thinking about how entertaining a certain vain, racist hypocrite can be.

Can you tell us who I'm thinking about?

 

[Excon]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Just more entertainment for us to laugh at.

You've got that covered.

Silly reply.
It's already covered, and not by me.

It seems you can read my mind.

Oh look, another silly reply. Figures.
Apparently you do not even recall what you said.
I have included it to refresh your memory.
No mind reading was required.

I tell you what; right now I'm thinking about how entertaining a certain vain, racist hypocrite can be.

Can you tell us who I'm thinking about?

Don't care, as it obviously isn't me.
But it sure does sound like some bitter fella.

---

100% correct.

Just as wrong as the other.

You do not debunk a question.
Sadly it seems some folks just do not understand that.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Moderator's Warning:

The innuendo and sly remarks where posters think that they're being sly (but really aren't) are going to stop now. Do not make personal comments. Stick to the topic and ONLY the topic. Unless you WANT to get thread banned/infracted? In which case us Moderators will have no problem obliging you...