Yeah. A freakin' knockout.
Posted on 04/18/2005 2:09:48 PM PDT by Bon mots
I often use Google's image search to find photos for various reasons. Lately, I have also taken to using AllTheWeb's image search function.
I have noticed something rather unusual. It used to be quite easy to find unflattering images of Hillary Clinton on Google's image search, but lately, they seem to have all disappeared! Funny, there are still plenty of them on www.alltheweb.com.
This is rather curious, especially since it is widely known that the people who run Google tend to lean left.
Now, on the other hand, if you want to find a nasty photo of Ann Coulter, you will find them in equal numbers on both the unbiased AllTheWeb.com or Google.
It has also become difficult to find current photos of the rapidly aging Hillary on the web. The MSM has obligingly been using older (read younger Hillary) photos of late. Hmmmm....
A couple of years ago, Google was just loaded with funny, sick and offensive Hillary photos - most of which were far from flattering. Where have they all gone? Can we trust Google?
It's too expensive.
The cameras keep spontaneously destroying themselves.
Thought I would give it a shot and searched "goofy Hillary" and I got this site. http://www.azanderson.org/anderson_reprt_goofy_gallery.htm
Theres some interesting right wing stuff there.
Yeah. A freakin' knockout.
I don't know what you are doing? I did a search for Hillary and found the very 1st one to display seemed about right - her half naked being groped by Saddam and OBL.
I don't know why they would be different (other than using different search algorithms) but the differences are rather striking.
I know it's time intensive. And I know I may well be wrong. I also know that programs can be written for time intensive things. Oh well... on to the next topic. rgds.
That's it! I did not know AllTheWeb was more neutral, but I checked what you said and it is. Thank you. I'm using DogPile from now on!
There is no doubt in my mind the Google is totally politically biased.
They claim to their priority rankings on number of external web links. But your example and many others indicate a strong bias to left coast feelings on search criteria.
I got clued in a couple of years ago when I did a search for YMCA Indian Guides web sites to get examples of web pages for my daughter's tribe. The number 1 position was a site decrying casual racism by various programs including the Y. The results had to have been totally cooked. I find it the case on most searches through Google.
I've gone back to Yahoo. It may be no better, but it seems somewhat more restrained.
Doesn't or didn't George Soros own a piece of Google when it hit the market stock-wise. A big piece.
No surprise.
Why I was thinking he could be right was becuase I read recently that a poll of google employees showed some 90% voted for Kerry, and most of them donated to his or DNC candidates.
The woman is a natural beauty and you know it!
Owl_Eagle
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
LOL! I can't add to this one!
Try the same search options with another search engine and compare.
Try this : http://www.freeworldalliance.com/hitlery.htm
I beg to differ.
This is a very nice shot of Hillary!. She is not what you call a natural beauty, but with the right lighting, right make-up, and caught at just the right time, she can take an attractive photograph.
And, of course, once Glenn Feron gets through with it, you would think she was Miss America...
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.