Posted on 07/11/2014 12:12:56 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
As Dave Weigel reports in a tart blog post today, conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza recently managed to pull off an impressive marketing feat.
D’Souza and his lawyers claimed that despite the hit status of his new book and movie, “America,” Google was deliberately downgrading the project in its search results and Costco had removed the book from shelves for politically motivated reasons. The result? Google bumped “America” up in the rankings and Costco restocked the book.
Of course, as Weigel explains, “D’Souza’s book, like his movie [which made $2.75 million in its first weekend], is no runaway hit. According to Nielsen’s Bookscan, which tracks sales, D’Souza’s latest has sold 23,000 copies. That’s not bad — my publisher would call it a win if my upcoming book sold that much in a month — but it’s 139,000 fewer copies than Ben Carson’s latest, ‘One Nation,’ has sold.”
D’Souza can get away with this not just because claims of political oppression work – neither Google nor Costco wants to be on the receiving end of conspiracy theorizing – but because it has become increasingly hard to define what constitutes a hit in any area of pop culture.
It is one thing to say that a monster blockbuster like “Avatar” or an absolute runaway best-seller like “Fifty Shades of Grey” is a hit. It is quite another to figure out where the border lies between hit and modest success.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well, check my last reply. I can’t be expected to post responses simultaneously, I am not that good.
The price is worth it to add to his sales numbers, thereby sticking it to the faggy metrosexuals writing the reviews in the print and PC media.
Leni
“D’Souza and his lawyers claimed that despite the hit status of his new book and movie, “America,” Google was deliberately downgrading the project in its search results and Costco had removed the book from shelves for politically motivated reasons. The result? Google bumped “America” up in the rankings and Costco restocked the book”
You are claiming THIS is bogus?
Based on a few searches done, after the claim, by some people posting on FR?
It’s D’Souza and his Lawyers making the claim.
You’ll have to come up with equal documentation, lawyers from the other side.
Wrongo.
“You are claiming THIS is bogus?
Based on a few searches done, after the claim, by some people posting on FR?”
Yes, myself and others tested this independently multiple times on the day the claim was made, and it just wasn’t happening. Also, you’ve ignored my other point, which undermines the claim completely, that being the nature of google’s personalized search results.
There’s a third point I can make as well that shows how the claim is bogus. This article says that google corrected the issue, but do you know what that correction was? It was not to go into their search algorithm and modify it to increase the rankings for this film in searches. They simply gave D’Souza a free “sponsored link” ad at the top of the search results, so it comes up on top when someone searches for certain keywords.
If there was really a downgrading going on in their algorithms, they would have fixed that, but instead they just gave away a premium ad to shut him up. It was not there in the morning when the story came out, but by the afternoon, google had put it up there.
“It’s D’Souza and his Lawyers making the claim.
You’ll have to come up with equal documentation, lawyers from the other side.
Wrongo.”
I don’t have to come up with jack. I know the claim is bogus from testing it and seeing the results with my own eyes, as well as from simply knowing how search engines function. You might want some other documentation, to satisfy yourself, but that is not my problem.
Its not logical
D’Souza and his lawyers have made a claim
It is now in the hands of the court in which it was paced to decide whether it is bogus
The cartoon at least has bottom teeth. Alyssa apparently has none.
I'm no prize, but why are 96% of leftist women ugly?
Statistically that shouldn't be the case.
It should run about 50% average, 40% above/below average, 10% at the extremes.
I’m not surprised.
I don’t need to wait for the courts, since I know it was bogus from my own first-hand experience. If you need the courts to tell you what is true or not, that’s your problem.
If you witnessed a traffic accident, would you need to wait for the courts to tell you who was at fault?
The article states that D’Souza and his lawyers are citing Costco as well as google
You are saying that they don’t have a case against google, yet his lawyers have filed the case against google
It is now in the hands of the courts, not like witnessing an accident, where I could be called as a witness
If the court calls you as a witness, due to your after the fact experience on google, after they allegedly fixed the search, and the court finds D’Souza to then be erroneous, at that point we’ll be able to factually say it was bogus, IF, that’s the finding
Until then, the google claim is in the court system. D’Souza’s lawyers say they have a case.
Call them if you have an argument. I’ll wait for the courts to figure it out
“You are saying that they don’t have a case against google, yet his lawyers have filed the case against google
It is now in the hands of the courts, not like witnessing an accident, where I could be called as a witness”
You’ve missed my point. I know the claim is bogus. I have no need to wait for the courts in order to know the claim is bogus. I don’t need a court to tell me the sky is blue either.
“If the court calls you as a witness, due to your after the fact experience on google, after they allegedly fixed the search, and the court finds D’Souza to then be erroneous, at that point we’ll be able to factually say it was bogus, IF, that’s the finding”
It wasn’t “after the fact”, after google applied their fix, it was both before the fix was applied, and after the fix that we tested the claim. Secondly, there is no “we” here. I already know what the truth is. If you want to wait for the courts to tell you what the truth is, that is your problem, not mine, and not ours.
Why are you trying to get Boogieman to argue sotto voce with D’Souza’s lawyers?
Boogieman is declaiming the Google part of the allegation due to his investigation of the situation. You are supporting the claim based on the evidence of D’Souza’s lawyers’ actions (which, BTW, is not in and of itself evidence).
You have presented no evidence of Google altering their search algorithms over the issue. You haven’t even summarized the evidence allegedly produced by D’Souza’s lawyers, at least as far as I have seen. Yet you tell Boogieman he has to counter vague, unspecified evidence in order to make his claim that the issue is junk.
Essentially, you are saying the fact that an allegation has been made is the same as showing how the allegation is true, or at least how it COULD be true. By that logic, our very own Buckhead shouldn’t have immediately debunked Dan Rather’s national guard memos about President Bush based on his own expertise and experience.
I’m genuinely confused by your choice of argument on this subject - you demand all evidence while presenting none.
Confused? Or not reading what I wrote?
He said the google claim is bogus
I said the lawyers put a case in, so people can think its bogus but it is not necessarily so
It’s in the court system now
I never said it was not bogus
So if you want to stick your nose into it, read every post
Then present it factually
I am most assuredly reading what you wrote. I am simply pointing out that you are trying to get your debate opponent to counter claims made by a third party, while not addressing the technical aspects of the claim asserted. Meanwhile, you discount the opposing debater’s opinion (for which he describes the basis of forming the opinion) because a claim was made by a third party.
Sorry if you think I’m being nosy, but when I see circular logic and misdirection, I am prone to say something about it. Doing so tends to help the level of discourse on FR.
Have a great day, FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.