桑托姆的“谷歌问题”不是谷歌的问题

    如果在谷歌（Google）上搜索共和党总统候选人桑托姆的名字，会发现排在搜索结果第一位的是一个用脏话向桑托姆进行人身攻击的网站“SpeadingSantorum”。不过需要澄清的是，尽管眼下人们经常用“谷歌炸弹”一词来形容这种现象，但这一次却并非“谷歌炸弹”在作祟。

    为什么一定要指出这一点呢？因为这关系到谷歌公司是否应采取某些措施改变搜索结果，而这正是桑托姆和他的支持者们一直都在呼吁的。所谓“谷歌炸弹”，指的是很多人将一个词组（通常是一个有污辱性的词组）指向与某个人或某个组织有关的网站，以达到丑化对方的目的。比如在2004年的美国总统大选期间，小布什的对手号召人们用“惨败（miserable failure）”这个词作为链接文字，指向白宫网站小布什的简历页面。随后，人们用谷歌搜索“惨败”时，小布什的简历页面就会排在第一位，直到2007年谷歌改变了搜索算法，这种局面才告一段落。同时期还有许多关于谷歌炸弹的其它例子。

    由于谷歌当年“纠正”了“惨败”的问题，于是桑托姆的支持者们表示，谷歌如今也应“纠正”反桑托姆网站SpeadingSantorum的问题。但事实上，二者不可同日而语。谷歌炸弹是将与目标页面不相关的搜索关键词引向目标页面，从而歪曲了事实。搜索“惨败”一词的人里没有几个是为了查看小布什的简历。如果真有人想看小布什的简历，他们就会写上小布什的名字再进行搜索，以获得相关结果。谷歌修复了这个问题后，会返回更多相关的搜索结果，从而也就改进了搜索功能。最主要的是，谷歌这样做不仅拆除了小布什的“惨败”炸弹，还阻止了其它类似恶作剧的发生。

    而SpeadingSantorum这个网站则是一个由某人（作家丹•萨维奇）建立的关于里克•桑托姆的网站。它可能具有人身攻击的意味，但它与关键词是相关的，也是个完全合法的页面。萨维奇和链接到这个页面的人并没有使用算法上的伎俩来提高这个网站在搜索结果中的排名。这是一个非常受欢迎的网页，它排到搜索结果首位的原因和搜索“咖啡”就能在搜索结果首位看到星巴克（Starbucks）的官网如出一辙。

    此外还需要澄清另外一个问题。正如本周桑托姆初步胜选后，搜索引擎天地（Search Engine Land）的丹尼•沙利文所指出的那样，桑托姆的“谷歌问题”实际上并不是谷歌的问题，而是一个搜索问题。作为谷歌的主要竞争对手，微软（Microsoft）的必应（Bing）搜索引擎在搜索“桑托姆”时显示的结果也是一样的。桑托姆的支持者们指出，谷歌之所以不愿意对算法进行调整，降低这个人身攻击网站在搜索结果中的排名，主要是出于政治偏见。这完全是无稽之谈。如果谷歌真的迫于桑托姆支持者的压力对算法进行调整，尤其是如果SpeadingSantorum因此成为唯一受到影响的网站的话，谷歌就有可能被告上法庭。谷歌是否要改算法，主要出于政策考虑，目的是为了解决与搜索功能相关的某些普遍性问题，而不是为了安抚一小撮对某个特定搜索结果感到不满的人。谷歌目前在这个问题上采取了袖手旁观的策略，这恰恰保证了其搜索结果的“有机”和“相关”性——也就是在最大程度上反映网络的原貌。

    First, a clarification is in order. The fact that searching for "santorum" puts the profane, anti-Rick Santorum site SpreadingSantorum at the top of Google's search results is not an example of a "Google bomb," despite the widespread use of that term to describe the result.

    Why does it matter? Because it plays into the question of whether Google (GOOG) should do something to change the results of the search, as Santorum and his supporters have long demanded. A Google bomb is when a large number of people link a phrase -- usually insulting -- to a Web site that belongs to or is associated with the person or institution they're trying to insult. This happened when the phrase "miserable failure" was widely linked to President George W. Bush's biography on the White House's Web site during the 2004 campaign. It remained among the top Google returns until 2007, when Google changed its algorithm. There were lots of other examples of Google bombs around that time.

    Because Google "fixed" that problem, Santorum's supporters say, Google should "fix" the SpreadingSantorum problem, too. But it's not the same problem. Google bombs skewed reality by linking irrelevant search terms to their targets' pages. Few people searching on "miserable failure" were really looking for Bush's bio, and if they were, they would have added his name to the search and come up with relevant results. When Google fixed the problem, it improved its search function by returning more relevant results -- and, crucially, it didn't do this just to disarm the "miserable failure" bomb, but to forestall all such pranks.

    SpreadingSantorum, on the other hand, is a page created by someone (writer Dan Savage) about Rick Santorum. It might be offensive, but it's relevant. It's a perfectly legitimate Web page. Savage and the people who linked to the page -- thereby helping it reach the top of search results -- used no algorithm-thwarting trickery to climb up the Google ranks. It's a popular Web page, and it lands at the top for the same reasons that Starbucks.com (SBUX) lands at the top for a search on "coffee."

    Another clarification is in order. Santorum's "Google problem" isn't really a Google problem, it's a search problem, as Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan noted this week in the wake of Santorum's primary victories. Google's main competitor, Microsoft's Bing (MSFT), yields the same result. Santorum's supporters have alleged that political bias is the reason for Google's failure to tweak its algorithm to push the foul page further down in the results. This is nonsense. If Google did employ such a tweak, that would make it subject to such a charge, especially if SpreadingSantorum were the only page affected by the change. Google changes its algorithm as a policy matter, to address widepread problems with its search function, not to appease people who complain about a specific result. By staying hands-off, Google is conforming to its mission to keep its results "organic" and "relevant" -- that is, to represent the Web, to the highest degree possible, as it really exists.