Cloaking Part II: Googlebombing

Google states in their Blog: "We don't condone the practice of googlebombing, or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results, but we're also reluctant to alter our results by hand in order to prevent such items from showing up."

Ironically, the disclaimer is in an article describing exactly how to create a link to http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html with the anchor text "Failure" or "Miserable Failure." I remember a similar prank where Googling "Weapons of Mass Destruction" led to a parody of the Microsoft "Not Found" page. I always wondered how they did that.

The Google post does help to clarify one point: Their Webmaster Guidelines say, "Don't send automated queries to Google." I've never been able to find an explanation of what they consider an "automated query", but apparently links like:
"http://www.google.com/search?q=miserable+failure"
are O.K.

More to the point (Cloaking, remember?) if you dig a little deeper, Google explains that you can prevent those who post comments to your Blog(s) from creating such Googlebomb links by adding "rel=nofollow" to your anchor tags. (Online Blogs do this via their settings, so you don't have to manually edit visitor posts.)

Who knew the "nofollow" part of the robot exclusion protocol could apply to a single link? Well, googlebot and a lot of other 'bots recognize the extension, so it "sort of" works.

You could for instance add the "rel=nofollow" to affiliate links to reduce the danger of being deemed a "thin affiliate" by googlebot. Of course that might "affect the integrity of [our] search results," but so does the intelligent use of keywords, or linking to on-topic resources, or any searchengine optimization whatever.

Congratulations Longhorns!

The big game is in the record books, and Vince Young has led Mack Brown's University of Texas Longhorns to victory. It was a great game, and a vindication of the much-maligned BCS system, which this year managed to pair up the only two undefeated conference winners in their annual championship. As a Big 12 fan, I couldn't be happier with the Texas win. It is also a perfect opportunity to grind my BCS axe without the appearance of "sour grapes."

College football wasn't organized to determine a national champion. Regional conferences were formed because athletic programs couldn't afford to travel long distances to games. Schedules were arranged to determine conference winners. With the advent of lucrative TV contracts, gigantic stadiums, and fans willing and able to spend a small fortune on tickets, there has been a role-reversal. The football team now supports the university -- at least in terms of revenue.

As college football grew in popularity, everybody wanted to get a piece of the pie. First the Rose Bowl (1902) and all the post-season bowls that followed. Then the AP got into the act with their silly "beauty contest" poll in 1936. Nobody took the idea of a bunch of sports writers voting on football ratings seriously, but it helped to sell papers. In 1992 the Bowl Coalition was formed, after figuring out a way to include the existing conferences, polls, and bowls while still carving out a slice for themselves.

In 1998, the Rose Bowl came on board, and the Bowl Coalition was renamed the Bowl Alliance. Next year there'll be one more game, after the four existing BCS bowls, which will "fix" the system which left the undefeated 2004 Auburn Tigers and Utah Utes out of the running, and just incidentally make a lot of money for the organizers. Now nobody will ever claim they "should have been number one" again, right? Dream on.

As long as teams play primarily within their own conferences, there will always be room for disagreement. Conferences just aren't equal nor do they retain the same relative strengths from year to year. Unless somebody figures out a way to include (i.e. pay off) the conferences to increase inter-conference scheduling in some sort of year-long tournament, the mythical national college football championship will remain elusive.

Of course, such a system would have its detractors, and arguments against it. Apparently the need to declare a national champion is based as much as anything else on the need for a point of reference for the disappointed majority of fans who will swear they were robbed. But that's just speculation. The 2006 Longhorns are the real deal, and they have the trophy to prove it!

"Christian" Values

It irritates me to no end to hear Karl Rove and his cronies pontificate about "Christian values" as if Christians were a homogenous bloc united in their opposition to biological science, religious pluralism, gay rights, and a host of other wedge issues concocted to appeal to their neo-conservative base.

Actually, the history of the chuch since the Protestant Reformation has been characterized by disagreement, schism, and pluralism. On the whole, this has been a healthy process. Nobody should be denied their religious freedom because of church or state-sponsored dogma.

Unfortunately, respect for the rights of others -- coupled with political correctness, and perhaps a bit of personal timidity -- has led to a sort of tacit approval of their opinions. There is no reciprocation on the part of the ignorant loud-mouthed snake-handling Bible-thumpers that presume to speak for us all.

I wish everyone would hear Davidson Loehr's sermon Living Under Fascisim and realize that passive opposition to the more abusive policies of the current administration is not nearly enough. Our very democratic institutions are under attack, and all that is required for their destruction is for people of good will to do nothing, and allow criminals like Rove to persuade the "undecided" centrists.