NYT calls Google Bombing a 'campaign tactic'

[fulton savage]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/politics/26googlebomb.html?ei=5090&en=cf9c1ba8c49c62b2&ex=1 319515200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=p rint

Originally Posted by NYT

The project was originally aimed at 70 Republican candidates but was scaled back to roughly 50 because Chris Bowers, who conceived it, thought some of the negative articles too partisan.

[Chris Boggs]

Good catch fulton I was just reading this. Funny how they don't seem to realize that republicans are doing this too, albeit maybe at a slower pace than the dems. Good stuff...wonder who is going to get the SEO contract for the George Bush "heir" campaign next year? Or for whoever the dems put up?

either way, the more this stuff comes out, the more people will ask what the heck SEM is all about.

[fulton savage]

It is an interesting topic. If these candidates had their own websites in place and optimized they may be able to avoid this gaming of the SERPs--it's very easy to get ranked for a full name.

I supposed after G delivers on a statement they made a few weeks ago, that they will be able to verify factual statements ( http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2...60135,,00.html ), engines will have a much larger role in providing political information. Hell, Google might even be writing the speeches.

[sherwood]

The killer app here is the potential for negative propaganda: instead of optimizing for articles promoting you, optimize for articles slamming your opponent.

Throw some crowdsourcing into the mix, and you have a political WMD on your hands:
http://paylancers.blogspot.com/2006/...tion-with.html