I stand corrected, and apologize for know realizing that.
We are all guests here in Jim's virtual living room, and I appreciate my opportunity to post and discuss things here, just as you appreciate yours.
Go for it. ;-)
> It's getting a little difficult to keep track of the many personal attacks directed against me...
Actually I meant only to give you a hard time for your choice of forum area -- you will note I did not say you shouldn't post the article. You've wised me up to the fact that you're permitted to do so, so I have backed down as above.
I'm sorry if it seemed personal. The only personal comment I made (intentionally anyway) was about the links (one site vs. another) which you've explained. I apologize for any offense I gave.
You may rest assured that you can enjoy the rest of the thread without fear of further hard time from me.
---------------------------------------
That said, the issue of whether your article describes a noxious and unethical action on the part of Google, or a programming error on their or your part, or a glitch on the net, is still up for resolution. So I offer a further thought.
I would presume that there are other blogsites of conservative (or other) orientation, which get significant hits via FreeRepublic, and which use Google Analytics to track hits and whatnot. Presumably they have code to activate G.A. Are any of them reporting problems? (Not being a G.A. user myself, I can't offer knowledgeable advice on how to look that up, but I suppose it's available.) If G.A. has the "influence" you attribute to it, the information surely must be public at some level. I remain curious to know how this shakes out.
FWIW, I distrust Google intensely, and as Director of my company's IT/SysAdmin group, I have some pretty strong rules about not dealing with Google, other than their search. No Gmail, no toolbars, etc. If they're doing biased stuff in G.A., even though I think it's very unlikely, I am very interested to know.
Best of luck with your investigation!
> ...for know realizing..
"for not realizing"
I won't begin to describe the edit sequence that produced that one. ;-)
> If your concern is that "liberal gatekeepers" are somehow "limiting the influence" of FreeRepublic by manipulating survey results, well... who cares? ... I, and most other like-minded conservatives and libertarians, don't pay attention to internet surveys. Surveys are untrustworthy even at their best.
Then I wrote:
> If they're doing biased stuff in G.A., even though I think it's very unlikely, I am very interested to know.
Yes, that's a change in my position. You've convinced me that it's worth following up on this one.