Search Engine Censorship?

Eli · Post by **Eli** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:44 am

I don’t know if this is something that only happens with Google or all search engines.

The terms/results tend to fluctuate in numbers and that is OK as web pages come and go. Using Google results I’ve been pointing out that the term United Statesian was growing at about 1,000 entries per month and at some point it reached close to 20,000 results for the query, about a month ago somebody in Google must’ve noticed this and decided to trim the numbers, it went down to 13,000 then 4,000 now there are less than a 1,000 returns for the term United Statesian. IMO this is nothing short of censorship of the web.

Clearly Google is a private company and as such capable of displaying/censoring whatever they want, however, I’m interested in finding out other terms we know they are censoring.

Do you know any other terms censored by Google?
Should there be a public search engine without an agenda?

Would it be possible to have a public search engine without an agenda?

Post by **Art** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:45 am

Do you have any evidence that anything is being censored by Google? I was under the impression that they simply show whatever comes out of their mathmatical model, that there is no editing of specific results. They change their algorithm occasionally, when it changes the search results can differ wildly.

Of course, it is true that they do allow the Chinese to censor the results for their citizens.

If you Google "failure" the top result is "President of the United States - George W. Bush." That was achieved by "Google bombing" Bush, and Google hasn't censored that.

------------------

¿Tienes evidencia que cualquier cosa esté censurada por Google? Creo que simplemente demuestran lo que resulta de su modelo mathmatical, que no se corrigen ningun resultado específico. Cambian su algoritmo de vez en cuando, y cuando cambia los resultados de la búsqueda pueden diferenciar violentamente.

Por supuesto, es verdad que permiten que los chinos censuren los resultados para sus ciudadanos.

Si buscas en Google para "failure" [falta] el primer resultado es "Presidente de los Estados Unidos - George W. Bush." Eso fue alcanzada por el "bombardeo Google" de Bush, y Google no lo ha censurado.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:53 am

I think it was a temporary glitch in their search engine. I just googled "united statesian" and got about 12,000 entries.

Eli · Post by **Eli** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:55 pm

I posted pretty much the same thing in several forums, even GAnswers, were it got deleted lol but not before several very interesting comments were made

It looks like what I've observed does really happen but not in the manner in which I had thought.

The search engine crawls the net over and over again, every time it does this it posts the results it then trims and edits what it deems redundant or links that are junk or of 'low quality', if you happen to search for a term in between crawling and automated 'prunning' of the results you'll observe a difference in the amount of returns.

One of the better responses came from search engine watch it said this:

If it was being censored, don't you think it would not have gone back up to 12k+?

Google does censor. And edit, and make choices. The very nature of a search engine is to decide what is relevent and what is not, then order it.

Additionally, there are legal requirements in various jurisdictions. Google is heavily censored in China, and France and Germany have strong censorship regarding Nazi symbols, among other things.

Further, a lot of spam is left out, as well as duplicate content, to a degree. It's also really hard to find illegal things on Google such as illicit MP3's, certain types of pornography, and so forth.

Everytime a search engine refines it's filters, some sites are left out, and some are included. There is no need to waste storage space on sites that will never meet quality standards high enough to show to someone, for example.

I would not consider a term censored unless either it resulted in no results at all, or results that are not representative of the information known to be available. That's different than simply not listing all possible references containing a term, which is more of a technical issue than a social one.

Ian

so, it happens, just not like I thought.

Post by **Art** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:16 pm

So, is your conclusion now that Unitedstatian is or is not being censored?

------------

Pues, ¿ahora estás pensando que unitedstatesian está sido censurado o no?

Eli · Post by **Eli** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:44 pm

United Statesian is not censured, but censure does occur for other terms. What are duplicate entries get edited in an automated manner, that happens with all the terms, and accounts for most of the normal variance in results. On top of the above another way to account for the variance in the results when for instance it goes down to as low as 900 entries, is different data resides in different servers, so if one of the servers that houses this data goes down we see a significant drop on the number of returns. Google has a triple redundant system, if one of the servers goes down the information it has is also stored in two other servers in other locations, so no one event will wipe out all of it’s data. However, it takes some time for the backup server to become the default server for that query sometimes several hours, if you happen to do the search between switching from dead server to back up server you get almost no returns. Learned a lot more than what I had bargained for from this question....

Now, on to the next cause. Setting the world straight from misinformation...

lol

I looked up '[Americana' in Dictionary.com only to see this "Origin: 1835–45, American; Americ(a) + -ana] " I was like no no no ... no no no So, thought I send them an e-mail clarifying things a tad for them this is what I sent them

I believe the definition of the word ‘Americana’ could use some clarification. Dictionary.com states “[Origin: 1835–45, American; Americ(a) + -ana]” this is incorrect. The word Americana was originally used to define/differentiate traditions, American vs. European. The term Americana came about “this or that is ‘Americana’” in that manner it was differentiated form what was customarily European culture, or more specifically Spaniard traditions. For instance, ‘La Pachamanca’ was often referred to as ‘Americana’ in Spaniard literature as far back as the early 17th century.

Although I have no proof of this, I believe that the term ‘Americana’ passed in to the English vernacular around 1845 from the Castillian spoken in Mexico shortly after the US-Mexican war. The current use of the word in US English meaning United Statesian culture is incorrect, or at least it is a ‘new’ meaning given to the term.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:55 pm

I have most often heard the word "americana" used to describe practices or objects that are distinctly (if not uniquely) American (US meaning of the word), but not necessarily in contrast with Europe. Historical tidbits, cultural artifacts, arts objects, folklore and folk practices can all constitute americana.

Eli · Post by **Eli** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:14 pm

As you should, since clearly you are not old enough to have been around when the word was introduced into the English vernacular. Although I don’t have proof of this I’m positive that the ‘Spanish costume’ of using the words ‘tradicion Americana’ got transferred into United Statesian English shortly after the United Statesian-Mexican war along with many other Castillian words that have been adopted and made part of English. Most people would never know the origin of these words, for instance rancho became ranch, cafetería became cafeteria, lazo became lazo, tradición americana became Americana and so on. All of these and many other words became incorporated into the United Statesian English at around the same time, shortly after the US-Mexican war. For instance this book published in 1827 by Alexander Von Humbolt uses the term as it was customary at the time http://tinyurl.com/rs3r2 In order to get more examples of the sore one would need to read books of the era, unfortunately most of them are not conveniently on-line for me to link to.

Below is something from Tradiciones Peruanas (to read the whole tradicion http://tinyurl.com/j8pbo read 'Una carta de Indias'), written over a century ago referencing documents from two centuries, it explains the name of America and it’s history (history of the name), however as we all know the historical truth matters not once a story has become commonplace, it keeps getting repeated over and over and over again, until eventually it ‘becomes’ the accepted truth. It is commonly said that America was named for Amerigo Vespucci, from Wikipedia

“the name was derived from the Latinized version of the explorer Amerigo Vespucci's name, Americus Vespucius, in its feminine form”

it then goes on to give an unlikely explanation for this most unusual occurrence naming the discovery of a continent not after the man that commanded the trip Columbus but after a member of the crew

Some sources say that he was unaware of the widespread use of his name to refer to the new landmass. Others hold that he promulgated a story that he had made a secret voyage westward and sighted land in 1491, a year before Columbus.

it then says ‘yeah not likely’ but it repeats the story.

This is how it was documented by the people at the time well almost at the time

Entre col y col, lechuga; y a propósito de las Cartas de Indias recientemente publicadas, vamos a dedicar un párrafo a una cuestión interesantísima y que la aparición de aquella importante obra ha puesto sobre el tapete. Trátase de probar que la voz América es exclusivamente americana, y no un derivado del prenombre del piloto mayor de Indias Albérico Vespuccio. De varias preciosas y eruditas disquisiciones que sobre tan curioso tema hemos leído, sacamos en síntesis que América o Americ es nombre de lugar en Nicaragua, y que designa una cadena de montañas en la provincia de Chontales. La terminación ic (ica, ique, ico, castellanizada) se encuentra frecuentemente en los nombres de lugares, en las lenguas y dialectos indígenas de Centro-América y aun de las Antillas. Parece que significa grande, elevado, prominente, y se aplica a las cumbres montañosas en que no hay volcanes. Aun cuando Colón, en su lettera rarissima describiendo su cuarto viaje (1502), no menciona el nombre de América, es más que probable que verbalmente lo hubiera transmitido él a sus compañeros tomándolo como que el oro provenía de la región llamada América por los nicaragüenses. De presumir es también que este nombre América fue esparciéndose poco a poco hasta generalizarse en Europa, y que no conociéndose otra relación impresa, descriptiva de esas regiones, que la de Albericus Vespuccius publicada en latín en 1505 y en alemán en 1506 y 1508, creyesen ver en el prenombre Albericus el origen, un tanto alterado, del nombre América. Cuando en 1522 se publicó en Bale la primera carta marítima con el nombre de América provincia, Colón y sus principales compañeros habían ya muerto, y no hubo quien parara mientes en el nombre. Por otra parte, en toda Europa no era América nombre de pila que se aplicara a hombre o mujer, y llamándose Vespuccio Albérico, claro es que si él hubiera dado nombre al Nuevo Mundo, debió éste llamarse Albericia, por ejemplo, y no América. Otra consideración: sólo las testas coronadas bautizaban países con su nombre: verbigracia, Georgia, Lu(i)siana, Carolina, Maryland, Filipinas, etc.; mientras que los descubridores les daban su apellido, tales como Magallanes, Vancouver, Diemen, Cook, etc. El mismo Colón no ha dado Cristofonia o Cristofia, sino Colombia y Colón. Es evidente, pues, que el autor del plano de 1522 oyó antes pronunciar el nombre indígena de América a alguno de los que acompañaron a Colón en 1503, y tomó el rábano por las hojas. Cuando apareció la carta de Bale, ya Vespuccio había muerto, sin sospechar, por cierto, la paternidad histórica que se le preparaba.

setting the truth free contra viento y marea

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:25 pm

I won't argue that you are wrong, Eli, but I will stand by my understanding of at least one way in which "americana" is used today. The meaning of words can and do change over time, and words are often applied to new things or situations.

Some dictionaries are more descriptive and some more proscriptive. At best, all they can do is reflect the living language. Even languages that have official academies change and evolve.

Post by **Art** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:18 pm

I noticed the other day that Mexico's formal name is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos." I'm not sure how they translate that officially: "Mexican United States," "United States of Mexico," or "United Mexican States."

That makes me think that the term "Unitedstatian" would be indeterminate... which United States?

Elí, have you given this any thought?

-------------------

Noté naotro día que el nombre formal de México es “Estados Unidos Mexicanos.” No estoy seguro cómo traducen eso oficialmente: "Mexican United States," "United States of Mexico," or "United Mexican States."

Me hace pensar que la voz “Unitedstatian” sería indeterminada… ¿cuál Estados Unidos?

¿Elí, has pensado de éste?

Eli · Post by **Eli** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:29 pm

You are absolutely right Bob, my point was just that the origin of the word was not Americ(a) + -ana that made no sense at all. Americ was a native American word used to describe the mountains of Nicaragua from were America got it’s name (a non recognized part of history) and in English we never add 'a' or 'o' to a word making Spanish sounding words. However, out of nowhere by adding ana they described this unique word.... well.... we may soon see words like ‘stopo’ become popular as Spanglish makes further inroads, but not just yet.... you know what I mean....

Hey Art, yeah I have thought about that. The US and Mexico are not the only nations that have that designation in America, we also have the United States of Venezuela and the United States of Brazil (actual name: ‘República Federativa de Brasill’ a bunch of States in a federal union). In these cases ‘United States’ is used to describe a Federal form of government were the States have their own local government although they recognize the Federal government. As supposed to the central government of a constitutional republic or nation-state.

The difference between all these countries and the United States is that they named themselves i/e Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela that's why they are Mexicans, Brazileans, Venezuelans, while the United States simply used the name of the continent were it is located, a geographic reference. Since the name of the continent America was in use to describe the people of the continent centuries before the US became a nation it would make no sense to 'rename' the majority of Americans so that a small minority (about 30%) can use the term for themselves. The term American is already used to define all Americans wherever they might be in the continent, it’s use to define U.S. nationals is confusing at best and erroneous at worst. That’s why most Americans call US citizens ‘Estadounidenses’, and of course, ‘United Statesians’, is the English translation.

Post by **Art** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:09 am

Reading your thinking again, I'm struck by the futility of getting the people of the US to change their name for themselves. You'd have to come up with something to motivate them (besides a confusing mess of names and feelings).

The truth is that we're all used to dealing with words that have multiple meanings. Drug (medication) and drug (past tense of drag) are very different, as are hide (skin of an animal) and hide (to conceal). There are a bazillion of these homonyms. We don't have a lot of trouble keeping them straight because we pay attention to the contexts they appear in.

The meaning of all kinds of words is pretty darn arbitrary, and in many cases accidental. That arbitrary, accidental quality is inherent in life. I tend to cuss a little, then try to accept it and move on to do something I really care about.

But... you care about this, so I wish you all the best! Maybe it's your destiny to push this boulder up the hill. (It can't hurt that we're discussing the term. At least the search engines will find more content related to Unitedstatian!)

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:23 am

Here's an interesting website with several versions of the origin of the name "America."

http://www.uhmc.sunysb.edu/surgery/america.html

Post by **Art** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:36 am

I don't know how much contact people from the US had with people south of the border in the 1800s. It's entirely possible that words did come from the south, as you suggest. But it's not the only possibility.

Similar words can evolve separately in parallel. As Bob has said the English "Americana" and the Spanish "americana" have different shades of meaning.

The American Heritage Dictionary (2000) claims that the -ana suffix is taken from Latin. This suffix means "a collection of items relating to a specified person or place." http://www.bartleby.com/61/35/A0273500.html

Particularly in previous eras, our intelligentsia studied Latin, so it's not surprising that many of our new words had a Latinate flavor even if heavily bastardized.

Post by **Art** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:28 am

The article Bob posted a link to is fascinating. Basically, it claims that we probably can't know how America got its name because there is no good documentation.

But one thing we can be sure of is that America was given its current name by Europeans. Shouldn't South Americans be up in arms, protesting that a European invention was foisted on them as their name?

Whether the name "America" had its origins in the name of Amerigo Vespucci, or the name of the Amerrique mountains of Nicaragua, or the name of Richard Amerike (the Welshman who paid John Cabot), or any of the other possible origins -- the name was attached to the New World by Europeans.

Maybe Southern Hemispherians should come up with a name created by themselves that honors their Pre-Columbian heritage.

And what would that name be?