I discover and document how Google has omitted “Snowden” from their Top Trends algorithm. Prove it for yourself. Go to http://trends.google.com and see what search teams Google says are leading, then compare those same terms to “Snowden” [click on "add term" below "Snowden" in the left column near the top] or “Edward Snowden” (about 25% fewer than “Snowden” but should be combined, along with “Ed Snowden” in the algorithm) to see where “Snowden” SHOULD appear but DOES NOT. Does this further illustrate Google’s manipulative complicity in the global, big data spy grid being set up by the unconstitutional NSA spy apparatus? Or is it merely a function of their algorithm that weighs recent changes and increases versus longer-term (days, weeks, months or years) popularity?
by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
This is a follow-up to the article I published on June 7: Are US Internal Spying Disclosures Signifying Slippage of Big Brother Control? I commented: “People often criticize me for sometimes covering things that on the surface don’t seem to be relevant to exotic free energy. However, especially when it comes to the conspiracy to establish a global tyranny, these things are very relevant to exotic free energy, because those same players are behind the suppression of energy solutions that empower, rather than enslave people.” I also mentioned that even as I was writing that story I would be passing by the huge NSA data center near Camp Williams (near Bluffdale). I lived not 10 miles from there in Eagle Mountain when construction began on it about four years ago; and my wife’s cousin was a general contractor who is now being harassed weekly for leaving.
And as follow-up to that article, I would argue that indeed, the control of the powers that be seems to be slipping because of the bravery of hero Edward Snowden and others. Snowden was inspired by Constitutionalist, former Congressman and 2012 presidential candidate, Ron Paul.
So with that preface, let me report to you something I just discovered.
How Does Snowden Fare in Google Trends?
I was curious how, nearly two weeks later, “Edward Snowden” might be faring in Google Trends, which tracks the most searched terms on the worldwide web. I expected it to rank high.
In going to their default home page, they list the seven most “Hot Searches”. Here is a screen shot of their results for today, Tuesday, June 18, 2013, as of around 6pm MDT (GMT-6).
I was then curious to do a comparison between searches for “Edward Snowden” and some of the hot searches from today. Based on the fact that Google did not list his name in the Top Trends, I presumed that such a comparison would show the name in question to be ahead of “Edward Snowden”.
Imagine my surprise to find that the comparison function actually puts Edward Snowden at least in position #3 if no higher, even though he doesn’t snow up in today’s hot search terms.
The only thing I can surmise from this is that this is a documented instance of censorship by Google. They seem to have purposely omitted Snowden from the Top Trends results.
Let me prove my case.
Here’s a screenshot of a comparison between “Edward Snowden” and “Steve Gleason”, who is listed in #3 position today: (In all of the comparisons below, except where noted, Snowden is in blue, and the comparison is in red.)
A similar result is shown in comparing Snowden with the other names listed in the Top Trends in positions 4-7. No comparison. They don’t even register on the same scale.
Now, here’s a comparison with Lil Wayne, who is listed in #2 position:
Then I was thinking that the term “Snowden” alone, probably surpasses searches for his first and last name: “Edward Snowden”. Even though generally, in the past, searches for “Snowden” will capture a lot of material not directly related to “Edward Snowden”, but given recent events, “Snowden” is going to be an easily identifiable operative term, compared to the readily identifiable baseline at around 5%.
By the way, searches for “Ed Snowden” are barely 2% of those for just “Snowden.”
Still, the “Ed Snowden” search surpasses the “Steve Gleason” search to date by nearly 20%.
Now let’s compare “Snowden” to “Lil Wayne” over the past 30 days.
And who is Lil Wayne? Here is a headline: Lil Wayne defends trampling American flag while shooting new video. Pretty sad. Google has no problem with him being listed, but blocks Snowden. Not only are they censoring, but their bias is skewed to wickedness.
So, how does “Snowden” compare to the #1 search term listed today: “Mac”, who Google ascribes to a popular guy by that name, even though “Macintosh” is certain to be a large reason for many of those searches.
Note: According to Google’s own statistics shown above, the search term “Snowden” should be in #3 position for June 18, and the search term “Edward Snowden” should be in #4, and the search term “Ed Snowden” should be in #5 position.
However, apparently Google’s algorithm combines likely “similar” searches. In going to their home page again, instead of “Mac” in position #1, they have “Mac Miller” with “Related searches: mac” listed below it. And apparently some new scandal has broken as I’ve been writing this, regarding Aaron Hernandez of the New England Patriots, with the police searching his house, so now he’s in position #2.
Okay, Google, let’s compare “Mac Miller” to “Snowden”, without the weight of MacIntosh behind it (which is what we get in “Mac” being the #1 search term as first listed above. (Note, I listed Mac Miller first, so it is blue this time.)
It sure looks to me like Snowden is ahead by a good 20%. Let’s get out our magnifying glass and compare them over the past 7 days. According to Google, Snowden isn’t even in the Top Trends, and Mac Miller is the #1 search term, the foremost “hot search” trend today.
It seems to me that Google is not accurate and that politics are in play, and that those political algorithms do not favor the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it protects of unwarranted search and seizure, nor or freedom of the press, nor of the first amendment freedom of speech.
Incidentally, for you Macintosh lovers, check out this search query comparing “Snowden” to “Mac”.
Note the similar curve shapes, timing, volume, and duration. Something is really fishy here, as if the recent push for Mac Miller by MTV was specifically with the intent of trying to overshadow Snowden. And to show you how shallow the US viewing audience is, here is the MTV story that helped pushed him into the spotlight: Mac Miller’s Watching Movies With The Sound Off Is ‘An Event’.
Apparently, Google’s algorithm combines what it considers “similar” searches, and it lumps “Mac” and “Mac Miller” together, pushing him into position #1, even though Macintosh has a lot more to do with the popularity of the search for “Mac”. Hence, my statement above about various combinations of a search for Snowden being in positions #3,4,5; would be modified by Google, to combine those into one, which, if anything, should add their weight together, giving it an easy #2 spot.
So, Now do You Believe Google?
So, given my documenting of these statistics that show that not only should Snowden be in the Top Trends, but he could even be in position #1 or #2 of top searches, depending on if you’re comparing it to “Mac” or just “Mac Miller”; and the fact that they are obviously omitting Snowden from their Top Trends results as a matter of clandestine policy; do you believe that Google is not involved in consenting to allowing the NSA to use their database for their mega data gathering operations? They say they know nothing about Prism nor of any involvement with NSA to this effect.I think they are lying.
One of my reasons for that is that Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, regularly attends the annual Bilderberg meeting, in which the most rich and powerful leaders of government and industry meet clandestinely for several days to discuss world strategies. One of their main subjects this last week (they were assembled when Snowden leaked his info) was “Big Data” .
Also, Google was launched in the first place as a DARPA project, so the military-industrial-complex tie has been deep from the beginning.
Furthermore, if you think this is just a U.S. domestic issue, think again. Google is global. Bilderberg is global. The New World Order is global.
June 19, 2013; 9:00 am Mountain
As I do more comparing, it seems to me that the database for comparing has little resemblance to the Top Search Trends that Google displays. Terms like “Google” and “Yahoo” are way above “Snowden”, putting the latter down near 1% in comparison for search popularity.
When the question of “trend” is asked, this involves a “change in status”, either up or down, and Google Trends is going to be highlighting new terms that suddenly spike, not overall popularity.
So given that factor, we would have expected “Snowden” to show up around June 9 in the Google Trends, when that term suddenly came onto the scene, but now that the search is waning, while other searches are coming into sudden popularity compared to baseline, this explains why “Snowden” no longer appears. It’s not about overall popularity.
So, to answer my opening question, I will have to say that my initial premise that Google is intentionally censoring “Snowden” from the results is incorrect. Their algorithm weights short-term trends, not overall popularity. If they weighed overall popularity, the list would remain fairly constant, and would be boring.
Indeed, pursuing this angle, I kept clicking on the “more” button at the bottom of the Google Trends page, and it took me back through time. And finally, on June 9, “Ed Snowden” showed up in position #4 (with a photo of Obama).
However, it doesn’t show up outside of that, and the fact that still, all these days later “Snowden” and “Edward Snowden” are still surpassing the number of search queries over the present top listings, makes me very leery of the accuracy of Google’s algorithm in the best case scenario, and suspicious of political weighing.
Then, on the other hand, given how shallow our society is (thanks to being well trained by the corrupt media, whose agenda is to sway away from truth and topics of substance, and entertain with detraction) I could see that terms like “Tony Awards” and “NBA” and “E3″ might have actually surpassed “Snowden” on that day.
But let’s look at Google’s own data, comparing “Snowden” to “Tony Awards.”
At no time other than from June 6-7 was the increase in searches for “Tony Awards” greater than the increase in searches for “Snowden.” Note the slope of the curve for “Snowden” searches from June 8-11 is definitely steeper than for “Tony Awards,” not to mention heading quantitatively higher. So both from a “change in” metric as well as a “total” metric, “Snowden” should have come ahead of “Tony Awards”. Remember, “trends” isn’t about volume as much as it is about change.
As for “E3″, this one was an obvious winner over “Snowden” on June 9 (where label “B” is).
On Friday, June 7, the term “PRISM” showed up in position #7 with “NSA” coming in position #10, despite this being one of the biggest developments this century toward an awakening of the corruption of the Powers that Be. People’s priorities are really messed up. Or is Google contributing to the skewing somehow?
FYI, here is a comparison over the past 30 days of searches for “Snowden”, “NSA”, and “PRISM”. Note that they are similar both in volume and trend direction (“Snowden” didn’t show up until his name was released on June 9).
Note that the volume for “PRISM” is greater, and the slope is slightly steeper as well. The only thing I can think of as to why PRISM did not surpass into #1 spot (let alone #7) is because the Google algorithm is based on a different time zone. The slope for PRISM drops down after June 7, whereas is was level for Santa Monica College, based on the time zone reference for this comparison.
As for the #2 listed term: “Shannon Richardson”, it’s slope is not nearly as steep as PRISM’s slope, but again, this could be a function of time zone reference for the Trends algorithm, though the difference here would be harder to justify.
What about #4, “National Doughnut Day”? On this comparison as well, PRISM surpasses both in volume and slope, and the time zone consideration favors PRISM here as well. Do you smell something fishy here?
What is sad to me about this is that the attention span on “PRISM” was so shallow. This was one of the most significant disclosures of the decade — that our government is illegally (certainly unconstitutionally) using companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, and Skype to spy on us — and it barely competed with the daily trend.
So Google, 1) I apologize for initially jumping to a wrong premise about outright censorship. However, 2) I remain suspicious about your algorithm being politically and manually manipulated and not based purely on data. And 3) I still maintain a question about your founding and tendency toward facilitating big data and Big Brother, following George Orwell’s 1984 as a script rather than heeding it as a warning.
Now, all things considered, here’s a poll to get our readers’ pulse on this.
# # #
- Directory:Suppression – of free energy
- Directory:Free Energy as an Antidote to Conspiracy
- Directory:Antidotes to the Conspiracy to Enslave Humanity
- Directory:Big Brother / Orwell Conspiracy
- Directory:Martial Law
- Directory:9/11 Conspiracy
- Oklahoma City
- Directory:Weather Control
- Directory:HAARP — High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program
- Directory:BP’s Gulf Oil Volcano