Google’s skewed and biased search results are long known. This website rarely comes up in search results on issues I have focused on for fifteen years (despite its large readership). This website gets virtually no traffic, no referrals from Google. The proverbial deck is stacked in the information battle-space.
“How Google’s search engines use faked results to manipulate people’s views of jihad,” By Robert Spencer, September 5, 2016:
This post by Jihad Watch tech expert Marc offers extraordinary insight into how Google skews its presentation of information in order to manipulate people into accepting half-truths and falsehoods that serve the Left’s agenda. He explains how Google deliberately manipulates its results when one searches for the word “jihad” — and doubtless this is just one of countless examples of how Google advances the Leftist/Islamic supremacist line while burying the truth.
“How Google’s Search Engines use faked results for social engineering,” FreeSpeechDefense.net, September 4, 2016:
So how does it work, I’ll use one example, a simple Google search for the word “Jihad”, but first I’d like to give you some background on how Google search is understood and intended to work. My knowledge comes from a variety of sources, but is in line with the well known public authority on the subject of Search Engine Optimisation (SEO), an employee and till recently the public voice of Google and its search engine, Matt Cutts, he now works for the Pentagon (yeh, I know). Google has published an “overview” of how it all works, but that’s a lot to get through.
So in a nutshell, Google is looking for the freshest, most authoritative, easiest to display (big screen and mobile) content to serve its search engine users, it crawls them, caching (grabbing) content, looking at the speed of download, the textual content, counting words to find the relevance, checking what it looks like on different sized devices. It also looks at what other sites link to it, both number of and “quality” of those links. When I say quality, it wants to see how authoritative the linking in sites are. They also have a number of algorithms in place that block the listing of “spammy” sites, but spam would not be relevant here. Additionally they also have recently claimed to boost sites using HTTPS to promote security and privacy (fox, henhouse – lol).
There are a few exceptions which I don’t think anyone could have issue with, a search for a single word might bring up a dictionary or encyclopedia, but more often, they add Wikipedia to the list of results, especially if it’s a busy wiki page with constant updates.
There is a way to beat these results and get to the top, and that’s by paying for the Google Adwords service, these ads at the top are clearly identified with a little “Ad” button, that is not the case here.
I am not in the US, so used a VPN to proxy my research from the US, as searches from other locations provide different results.
So search the word “jihad”, and you will see at the top of a list of 32 million results a list as this:
A dictionary definition
A link to a page of the “Islamic Supreme Council”
A link to “Jihad Watch”
So we know how the dictionary definition and Wikipedia got there, but how did the “Islamic Supreme Council” and “Jihad Watch” get 3rd and 4th place? JihadWatch.org I know well, I do the server and site management, following SEO best practice, here are the major pertinent reasons for its high listing in such a competitive search, 32 million is huge in this game:
Robert Spencer, an accomplished author is a prolific blogger, adding a minimum of 10 posts of current jihad related news stories of the day.
It’s part of the domain name, that always gives a massive boot (searching “free speech defense”, my tiny, low volume blog always comes top).
Doing a jihad site:jihadwatch.org shows that the word “jihad” is mentioned on the site 35,000 times, proving its main focus of discussion is “jihad”.
A search for just jihadwatch.org shows that it is mentioned on 631,000 other sites pages (linking in), proving it is very authoritative and often referenced.
The site uses HTTPS and a responsive (mobile friendly) theme, so it looks great on any device.
So how about the “Islamic Supreme Council”, I’d never heard of them. I asked a few people who have studied Islam, they hadn’t either, so lets look at the comparative statistics:
The site is run by Sheik Kabbani, a Naqshbandi Sufi. It has additional posts added a couple of times a year, the latest news panel lists an event in 1996.
It has “Islamic” in the domain name, understandable that Google maybe has confused the two words. /sarc off
Doing a jihad site:islamicsupremecouncil.org shows that the word “jihad” is mentioned on the site 123 times, whereas searching the word “Sufi” brings up over 200 results proving it’s main focus of discussion is not “jihad”.
This is confirmed with an Alexa popularity search, showing it is the 307,832th most popular site in the US.
The site does not use HTTPS, and it is very mobile unfriendly, using technology from a previous millennium (I’m not kidding, it’s using web standards from 1999 if you look at the source files).
So what’s up? How does the site get this boost, if you search the word Sufi, the “Islamic Supreme Council” isn’t even listed in the top 10 pages. Funny thing about the meaning of the word “Jihad”, to the fast majority of Muslims they themselves know of two meanings, the Google dictionary definition at the top of the results is correct:
(among Muslims) a war or struggle against unbelievers.
the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin.
Often differentiated as the greater and lesser Jihad, but Sunni and Shia Muslims, who make up the vast majority of Muslims, understand when the word Jihad is used alone they mean the violent kind, world conquering imposing of Sharia law, blowing stuff up and cutting heads of infidels, and they accept the lesser Jihad as a false construct, but that’s another debate, you can read more here at wikiislam.
But what is unique about Sufis, a tiny minority of Muslims, if in fact they are Muslims, as the vast majority of Muslims do not accept Sufis as such, and many Sufis themselves do not identify with being Muslim, is that they are unique in only having this peaceful, lesser Jihad, being somewhat pacifists, ironically often violently targeted for their beliefs in Muslim majority countries.
So in conclusion, how are you being socially engineered by Google? Anyone doing a search for Jihad will think they are seeing an opposing, authoritative view of Jihad Watch’s, but the “Islamic Supreme Council” is of no authority, it’s poor in every way. Nonetheless, the Googler will read all about all this peaceful unrepresentative Jihad, trusting Google will live by their moto “Don’t be evil”. Former Google CEO and current executive chairman Eric Schmidt once said, “it was a dumb rule merely because the word ‘evil’ isn’t really defined, and Google doesn’t quite know what evil is.”
So how about another site which might be more of an authority on Jihad in the US, cair.com (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is constantly being updated, is far more popular at 146,590th place, actually probably even more so, as it has a vast network of sites. A search for jihad site:cair.com gives 342 results, and is mentioned and linked to a whopping 60 million times, it’s mobile friendly and has HTTPS enabled, and it’s not even on the top 10 pages of results for a search on Jihad. Odd, that except their own political agenda is for Americans to believe the Sufi understanding of Jihad is a common Muslim understanding, rather than their own aggressive one, with proven ties between CAIR, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Some would say “a war or struggle against unbelievers” Jihad was CAIR’s main purpose, advertising that fact doesn’t help their agenda, much better American Googlers read the Sufi version for them. I think I have described in detail how this subtle manipulation works.
It’s not a secret. Facebook has been at it also. The connections with the Obama administration and now Hillary Clinton are well documented. My enemy’s enemy is not my necessarily my friend, but here is what Julian Assange has to say on the collusion between the US administration and Google.
Comments at Atlas Shrugs are unmoderated. Posts using foul language, as well as abusive, hateful, libelous and genocidal posts, will be deleted if seen. However, if a comment remains on the site, it in no way constitutes an endorsement by Pamela Geller of the sentiments contained therein.
- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/09/googles-search-engines-use-faked-results-to-pervert-true-meaning-of-jihad.html/#sthash.5Nn8jINz.dpuf