| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today 02:19 - Mar 24 with 5114 views | monytowbray |
Considering it's very relevant to my work and there are so many facts that have been overlooked, such as how search engines work.
Political yes, but from what I'd bravely consider to be an expert perspective...
http://callismakesfilms.co.uk/blog/seo-marketing/google-terrorism-facts-daily-ma
Happy to debate this or go into detail if anyone has any questions. |  |
| |  |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 09:56 - Mar 24 with 1402 views | stickymockwell |
I wonder how the terrorists learnt their trade before the internet?
"I couldn't find any Semtex Boss, so I got you this!"
 |  |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 10:15 - Mar 24 with 1376 views | tractorshark |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 09:26 - Mar 24 by Keaneish |
Not when it's an establishment which prints lies for its own commercial gain. Tabloids should be regulated stringently and if found to be negligent, banned. There are plenty of credible free press alternatives without sound bite propaganda based on falsehoods stirring up emotions.
There should be a degree of media censorhip and accountability. It's absurd |
The press is regulated. It's no longer by the PCC.
Leveson is too draconian and too politically motivated. It encourages censorship. There should be no censorship in a free world unless the subject matter is illegal.
It is in the press' interest to adhere to the new regulations otherwise the clamour for Leveson will increase. |  | | |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 10:30 - Mar 24 with 1369 views | uncle |
Good work and well written.
But...
For me the bigger problem is that people just read the mail/express/torygraph/ Guardian, and nothing else. They get their world view from one bonkers skewed bunch of people, and nowhere else. I do wonder how many people look at multiple newspapers or news sources, just to get the other side. A mate of mine used to buy the Sunday Times and the news of the world "to see life from both sides". In fairness he probably really did it for decent sport coverage and boobs, but I always thought it was a decent idea.
Basically the mail just re-enforces peoples terror of the world. If we had a solution, we'd be billionaires I suppose. |  | | |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 10:39 - Mar 24 with 1355 views | oldbluestu |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 09:06 - Mar 24 by BorisOrTrevor |
I agree with you almost Stu, wow. [Post edited 24 Mar 2017 9:07]
|
It must be Friday |  | | |
| on 13:45 - Mar 24 with 1315 views | _ |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 10:30 - Mar 24 by uncle |
Good work and well written.
But...
For me the bigger problem is that people just read the mail/express/torygraph/ Guardian, and nothing else. They get their world view from one bonkers skewed bunch of people, and nowhere else. I do wonder how many people look at multiple newspapers or news sources, just to get the other side. A mate of mine used to buy the Sunday Times and the news of the world "to see life from both sides". In fairness he probably really did it for decent sport coverage and boobs, but I always thought it was a decent idea.
Basically the mail just re-enforces peoples terror of the world. If we had a solution, we'd be billionaires I suppose. |
| | | |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 14:30 - Mar 24 with 1308 views | chicoazul |
Attn: people who get really worked up by the Daily Mail, Katie Hopkins, Milo et al. Make sure you ignore them. Because they make money off their notoriety. That's how media works now. |  |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 14:40 - Mar 24 with 1290 views | GlasgowBlue |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 14:30 - Mar 24 by chicoazul |
Attn: people who get really worked up by the Daily Mail, Katie Hopkins, Milo et al. Make sure you ignore them. Because they make money off their notoriety. That's how media works now. |
Which reminds me of this story
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/mehdi-hasan-please-please-please-can-i-wor |  |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 16:03 - Mar 24 with 1269 views | BlueBadger |
Were you ever admitted to hospital after overdosing on Toblerones? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| on 16:45 - Mar 24 with 1247 views | _ |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 16:03 - Mar 24 by BlueBadger |
Were you ever admitted to hospital after overdosing on Toblerones? |
| | | |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 21:07 - Mar 24 with 1208 views | monytowbray |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 06:06 - Mar 24 by MJallday |
Is that stat really right?
"15-20% of which have never been searched for before."
Just seems quite high. Almost astonishing. Youd have thought by now most search phrases would have been done?
Edit. Good article btw. As a trchnology leader i found the 60 second infographic interesting. I might steal that.
[Post edited 24 Mar 2017 6:09]
|
I'm amazed it's not higher to be honest, when you consider how the goings on in the world influences how we search, alongside new celebrities and businesses/brands. I bet brand new Donald Trump related searches have been in huge numbers this last year. | |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 21:08 - Mar 24 with 1210 views | monytowbray |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 14:30 - Mar 24 by chicoazul |
Attn: people who get really worked up by the Daily Mail, Katie Hopkins, Milo et al. Make sure you ignore them. Because they make money off their notoriety. That's how media works now. |
I've refused to link or acknowledge their brand in the post, they'll be getting no click, link or brand signal benefit from that post, at least from an SEO perspective, so I'm happy with that :) | |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 21:09 - Mar 24 with 1208 views | monytowbray |
Cheers for the nice feedback all. Seems we're mostly in agreement on this one. Who are you all and what have you done with the real TWTD? | |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 00:04 - Mar 25 with 1185 views | blue_oyster |
It sounds like Google is out of control. The size of the organisation is a poor excuse for failing to control material that is made easily available that can harm the safety of the country. The same goes for cynically taking money from advertising, whatever the evil cause. It's a shame that you thoughtlessly attack the free press for bringing this to people's attention. |  |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 00:58 - Mar 25 with 1163 views | Melford |
I remember when I was at uni 20 years ago there were two you could download, The Anarchist's Cookbook and the Terrorist's Handbook and they had recipes for bombs with fertilizer and sugar and the like. We went up to the woods one day and set a few of these things off. Wouldn't dare do that kind of thing now, like another of our habits of taking the odd random pot shot with an air rifle out of the window every now and then. Get caught doing that kind of thing now and you'll have 50 coppers through your door. |  |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 02:39 - Mar 25 with 1142 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 21:09 - Mar 24 by monytowbray |
Cheers for the nice feedback all. Seems we're mostly in agreement on this one. Who are you all and what have you done with the real TWTD? |
Good stuff Callis
A couple of things suprised me:
- 2 million google searches per minute. That's a ridiculously high figure.
- 15-20% of searches are new. Years ago in school, me and my mates used to play googlewhack which is basically trying to get a search in with just 1 result. Suprised so many are new searches entirely though. |  |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 07:10 - Mar 25 with 1111 views | MJallday |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 02:39 - Mar 25 by The_Romford_Blue |
Good stuff Callis
A couple of things suprised me:
- 2 million google searches per minute. That's a ridiculously high figure.
- 15-20% of searches are new. Years ago in school, me and my mates used to play googlewhack which is basically trying to get a search in with just 1 result. Suprised so many are new searches entirely though. |
When you apply some thought you can see how its right. Callis cites an example above of new celebrities
For example Ive just thought of some particuarly inventuve things with a kardashian and any number of household objects, so i can guarentee they have havent been searched for before.
Update "mrs mj: she does WHAT with a jif lemon? You digust me" |  |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 07:37 - Mar 25 with 1100 views | Dolly2.0 |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 02:39 - Mar 25 by The_Romford_Blue |
Good stuff Callis
A couple of things suprised me:
- 2 million google searches per minute. That's a ridiculously high figure.
- 15-20% of searches are new. Years ago in school, me and my mates used to play googlewhack which is basically trying to get a search in with just 1 result. Suprised so many are new searches entirely though. |
You should read this (or watch the show)...
 |  |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 07:39 - Mar 25 with 1097 views | Dolly2.0 |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 09:23 - Mar 24 by tractorshark |
And, more worryingly, scary that people would want this. |
Scary that people would want the press to be accountable so that they tell the truth?!
You're happy for the NEWSpapers to just make up whatever they want?
THAT is scary. | |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 07:41 - Mar 25 with 1097 views | Dolly2.0 |
Excellent article Callis. I particularly liked the last line; "I refuse to mention the D*ily M*il or link to their website on moral grounds." Nice. | |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 09:26 - Mar 25 with 1063 views | vapour_trail |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 10:30 - Mar 24 by uncle |
Good work and well written.
But...
For me the bigger problem is that people just read the mail/express/torygraph/ Guardian, and nothing else. They get their world view from one bonkers skewed bunch of people, and nowhere else. I do wonder how many people look at multiple newspapers or news sources, just to get the other side. A mate of mine used to buy the Sunday Times and the news of the world "to see life from both sides". In fairness he probably really did it for decent sport coverage and boobs, but I always thought it was a decent idea.
Basically the mail just re-enforces peoples terror of the world. If we had a solution, we'd be billionaires I suppose. |
Whilst I get the idea, your mate was purchasing two papers from the same stable, so not sure he was getting life from both sides.
Still you'd get the likes of Clarkson and Liddle in the ST, and when you've had enough tits you'd have the NOTW to enjoy. |  |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 09:42 - Mar 25 with 1045 views | tractorshark |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 07:39 - Mar 25 by Dolly2.0 |
Scary that people would want the press to be accountable so that they tell the truth?!
You're happy for the NEWSpapers to just make up whatever they want?
THAT is scary. |
No, that's not what I said. I was referring to censorship.
The press has been reformed massively over the past couple of years.
It needs to show it has changed, it needs to adhere to regulation.
It doesn not need a politically-motivated ruling like Leveson. Leveson suits politicians and celebrities who would rather not be questioned.
The press should never be censored unless it is acting illegally.
What I find scary is this social media mob mentality that tells people what you should or shouldn't read.
You may not like certain newspapers but you have the choice not to read them.
I have a choice to do the opposite.
I don't always agree with your views, I don't always believe you're right but I don't call for you to be banned or censored. That's called free speech.
Of course we all want the truth from newspapers but the myth that the press makes everything up is not backed up by the amount of libel cases brought against it.
There were obviously issues in the past and issues in the recent past that needed addressing but it's important we have an organisation that can freely challenge the actions of those who wield power and influence.
I find it scary that people would toss that away just because they don't agree with the subject matter or viewpoint. | | | |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 10:17 - Mar 25 with 1026 views | Superfrans |
Really interesting piece, Callis. Thanks for that.
I take your point about it being a grey area as to whether Google should or shouldn't try to block or make it more difficult to find certain types of content. Personally, I believe that illegal content should absolutely be blocked/delisted *wherever possible*
None of us would argue about child pornography being blocked, I'm sure, which suggests that it isnt grey at all - some content should be blocked and some not, it simply depends on where you draw the line. And, as I say, the line for me is illegal content - and that includes terrorist handbooks, as well as pirate material etc.
The next question is what can be done. As you say, it is pretty much impossible to block every page. But services such as Google can do more than they do. Sites can be delisted. Many will quickly be replaced by other sites, of course, but you can only control what you can control - and in my view they should do what they can. It is no defence to not do what you can, just because there is certain other action that you are not able to take. If that makes sense.
Google have just agreed to take action against pirate music and film sites, essentially agreeing to ensure that such sites don't come up at the top search rankings if and when you ask for a movie or music download. And they do take action and delist sites which they know to be distributing illegal pornographic content. And so they should.
Where the Mail would have a point (and I'm afraid I'm not going to give them my money, so won't read their content) is if they have found some kind of terrorist guide/handbook using Google, that they then informed Google and Google refused to delist it. They should indeed delist content which attempts to enable illegal action.
This is all aside from the fact that, surely, everyone knows how to drive a car into a crowd of pedestrians, of course. [Post edited 25 Mar 2017 10:20]
|  |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 10:21 - Mar 25 with 1017 views | Dolly2.0 |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 09:42 - Mar 25 by tractorshark |
No, that's not what I said. I was referring to censorship.
The press has been reformed massively over the past couple of years.
It needs to show it has changed, it needs to adhere to regulation.
It doesn not need a politically-motivated ruling like Leveson. Leveson suits politicians and celebrities who would rather not be questioned.
The press should never be censored unless it is acting illegally.
What I find scary is this social media mob mentality that tells people what you should or shouldn't read.
You may not like certain newspapers but you have the choice not to read them.
I have a choice to do the opposite.
I don't always agree with your views, I don't always believe you're right but I don't call for you to be banned or censored. That's called free speech.
Of course we all want the truth from newspapers but the myth that the press makes everything up is not backed up by the amount of libel cases brought against it.
There were obviously issues in the past and issues in the recent past that needed addressing but it's important we have an organisation that can freely challenge the actions of those who wield power and influence.
I find it scary that people would toss that away just because they don't agree with the subject matter or viewpoint. |
i agree with you and obviously misunderstood your previous point. Censorship is wrong and dangerous... but we both agree the press should be accountable too. | |
| |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 13:12 - Mar 25 with 973 views | tractorshark |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 10:21 - Mar 25 by Dolly2.0 |
i agree with you and obviously misunderstood your previous point. Censorship is wrong and dangerous... but we both agree the press should be accountable too. |
No problem, agree with you. | | | |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 16:34 - Mar 28 with 876 views | monytowbray |
| I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 00:04 - Mar 25 by blue_oyster |
It sounds like Google is out of control. The size of the organisation is a poor excuse for failing to control material that is made easily available that can harm the safety of the country. The same goes for cynically taking money from advertising, whatever the evil cause. It's a shame that you thoughtlessly attack the free press for bringing this to people's attention. |
1/10. You've lost your touch old man! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
