Coffee Diva
08-08-2006, 01:34 PM
http://plentyoffish.wordpress.com/2006/08/06/aol-releases-googles-most-prized-keyword-list-google-is-gonna-get-mega-spammed/
# Jonny Quiz Says:
August 8th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
If you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear from your search history going public? Yeah right. Let me tell you why I wouldn’t want my searches exposed.
I live in England and one of my college buddies now works in Toronto, Canada. He was back in England at the start of the year and telling me that he was thinking of going to the UNESCO World Heritage Site in Newfoundland and Labrador called “L’anse aux Meadows”. It’s a Viking landing site and something that I had never heard of. So I got on the computer, Googled it and opened the following link.
http://www.virtual-tours-newfoundland.ca/LanseauxMeadows/Meadows.html
On this website there are a whole bunch of links at the top of the page, one to Cape St. Mary’s Bird Sanctuary, another to a map of St. John’s, Newfoundland, but the one that caught my eye is in the top right-hand corner: “Town of Dildo”.
So I clicked on the link (well, you would, wouldn’t you?). And you’d better believe it: there is a town called Dildo. So I went back to Google and typed “dildo labrador”. Try it for yourself. It pulls up about 250,000 links and it is only three quarters of the way down page 4 that anything vaguely sexual appears (the definition of “dildo” on answers.com).
So I started reading up on the town, its history and its genealogy. One of the families that lived there was called Pretty. As I used to know a girl called Claire Pretty, for old time’s sake, I decided to go back to Google and typed “dildo pretty labrador”. Again, try it. 35,000 results and nothing remotely suspect until page 5.
I hadn’t been doing anything wrong, but imagine how my search history now looks:-
“dildo labrador” followed by “dildo pretty labrador”. People might assume that in my first search I was looking for bestial sexual acts, but made my second search because the canines just weren’t cute enough in the results from the first search.
This is why Google must resist following AOL’s disgraceful lead in releasing customers’ search histories. With the above searches my search history looks quite suspect. Unfortunately, if you have any curiosity at all and did the searches for yourself, now so does yours.
# Jonny Quiz Says:
August 8th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
If you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear from your search history going public? Yeah right. Let me tell you why I wouldn’t want my searches exposed.
I live in England and one of my college buddies now works in Toronto, Canada. He was back in England at the start of the year and telling me that he was thinking of going to the UNESCO World Heritage Site in Newfoundland and Labrador called “L’anse aux Meadows”. It’s a Viking landing site and something that I had never heard of. So I got on the computer, Googled it and opened the following link.
http://www.virtual-tours-newfoundland.ca/LanseauxMeadows/Meadows.html
On this website there are a whole bunch of links at the top of the page, one to Cape St. Mary’s Bird Sanctuary, another to a map of St. John’s, Newfoundland, but the one that caught my eye is in the top right-hand corner: “Town of Dildo”.
So I clicked on the link (well, you would, wouldn’t you?). And you’d better believe it: there is a town called Dildo. So I went back to Google and typed “dildo labrador”. Try it for yourself. It pulls up about 250,000 links and it is only three quarters of the way down page 4 that anything vaguely sexual appears (the definition of “dildo” on answers.com).
So I started reading up on the town, its history and its genealogy. One of the families that lived there was called Pretty. As I used to know a girl called Claire Pretty, for old time’s sake, I decided to go back to Google and typed “dildo pretty labrador”. Again, try it. 35,000 results and nothing remotely suspect until page 5.
I hadn’t been doing anything wrong, but imagine how my search history now looks:-
“dildo labrador” followed by “dildo pretty labrador”. People might assume that in my first search I was looking for bestial sexual acts, but made my second search because the canines just weren’t cute enough in the results from the first search.
This is why Google must resist following AOL’s disgraceful lead in releasing customers’ search histories. With the above searches my search history looks quite suspect. Unfortunately, if you have any curiosity at all and did the searches for yourself, now so does yours.