Written By: - Date published: 11:32 am, September 15th, 2008 - 78 comments
Categories: activism, crosby textor, dpf, humour, john key, Media -
Tags: google bomb, rochelle rees
Well it turns out my niece has been having fun and done an effective google bomb on John Key. I’ve just been watching her TV3 clip when I wrote this post. Rochelle shows her experience with the media in expressing her opinion. This is something that belongs in the Tips on campaigning.
I’ve had something to do with enhancing her programming skills, but very little to do with her skills at activism. Those have been honed since she started campaigning on animal rights when she was about fourteen.
It appears that the Herald On Sunday reporter didn’t listen closely enough to what Rochelle said – that she is not currently affiliated to any political party. This has always been the case, her primary focus has always been on animal welfare. Her main focus as a member in the Labour Party was to put forward remits on animal welfare legislation. She has also promoted animal rights with other parties as well. Over the last few years her rapidly changing career and life has been limiting her degree of activism in most areas including labour, greens, other activist groups, and even in animal rights. But apparently not entirely.
I see that the updated article in the Herald on Sunday now correctly states that she is not currently affiliated to any party. The crucial dropping of a single word in the article was pretty poor editing. Rochelle is not exactly invisible on the net either, if any confirmation was required. This is what happens when media organizations shed too many staff and the quality of the media reporting suffers through lack of fact checking.
An astonished uncle.
Update: NZ Herald article today. Looks like John Key has been whining – face it John – you got done by a 22 year-old with a brain.
BTW: David Farrar did a post about Rochelle yesterday. The comment section was a bit turgid with conspiracy theories, but the post was amusing and fair and heavily updated, thanks…
DPF asked.
I also found it amusing that that they are trying to suggest with their Google bombing that John Key is clueless. The bombing works better if it is an attribute that many people will agree with. They should have gone with ‘swallowing dead rats’ or something.
That I can explain having done some reading today. It either takes a lot of time with few people to setup a google-bomb or it takes a lot of people a short time. It looks like Rochelle took the former course
Most of the phrases you’d now consider to be relevant weren’t current even at the end of last year. At that time John Key was an enigma to most people, and probably still is. About the only thing that was known about John Key at the time was that he made policy and speech gaffes regularly (and still does). Who can forget his claim to be leading the Labour party… That was quite clueless.
However there is nothing like a long hard election campaign to shine a bright light on leaders. It is going to be a long 8 weeks. Lots of time for the voters get to know him better and to figure out if he is politically clueless or not, despite the usual Crosby/Textor techniques to avoid it.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
It is true that some women often demand a double standard. They expect equal treatment in every respect (which of course they should have), but then retreat behind accusations of sexism when criticised. Look no further than Sarah Palin.
But on the other hand I don’t think it’s correct to say that a lot of women set out specifically to play the part of the victim. Most women would take offence at that suggestion.
By the way, the plural of woman is “women”
Lprent- you mentioned me, but I am at a loss at what you are talking about? My blog has the same opinion of the Standard as you have of me. Except I revel in the fact that I am not in NZ seeing Labour in action…. and for that I am incredibly thankful.
Although I am not that wound up enough to not want to have a Xmas beer with you on my return to NZ. I am not that bitter
How childish of her… I see Canterbury Uni cut ties with her before mid-morning yesterday http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=29723066&threadid=29723066
I know they changed it. You can still pull it off easily enough. What I am saying is, when they detect one they investigate it. If they can link it to someone, using The Standard as an example, they will drop your ranking in Google.
That’s why people normally use it for MPs, Presidents, CEOs etc.
Regardless, I think it’s a rather childish thing to do. It’s not because I prefer National over Labour. If a nat did something like this i’d think the same. I know she apparently has no political affiliation (yeah right) but anyway…
8 weeks thats a bit harsh
[lprent: I was annoyed - you called my niece one of my least favored terms. Ok - lets drop it to two weeks.
Of course I could always ask rochelle for her opinion? Ok I've been overruled by my girlfriend..... 4 weeks.
BTW: she had a description about where you should stuff your complaint... Perhaps you could redeem yourself - try commenting on thehandmirror. I'll watch with interest. ]
Lprent if you want your niece to be a top-notch in developing search engine algorithm, then I could point her out to resources of where to start. This is my domain area. I do know very well how the Google PageRank algorithm works. There are many variants of PageRank where they only vary in their precisions & recall capabilities. I have written one (power-law variant of PageRank) for the purpose of web-site surveillance. This is not new, intelligence services are using it. Also corporates are using it as well to keep an eye on their competitors in real-time (for the purpose of price wars) rather than manually (ie, a staff that is doing the surveillance) which is time-consuming (hard to keep up). The original article on PageRank (title : The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine) was published by Page & Brin (Google founders) was made available in the Proceedings of the seventh international conference on World Wide Web, 1998, so any interested person can grab the algorithm from this publication (available in most University libraries).
The best online free publications (peer reviewed) of search algorithms is the Internet Mathematics. There are tons of other sources (online & print computing journals) that are dedicated to text/web search in general that I can list them here if your niece is interested & wants to be a top-notch software developer.
mike…are you the person writing horrible thread headers on twademe about rachel?
Why is that female computer programmers are always so naff-looking?
[lprent: Why is it that trolls are such morons? Not to mention have the social manners of a yeti. ]