On google bombing and search engine presence

[matgb]

Right, we're all out of the sandbox and then some now. And I'm bored, and busy at work, so I want some easy amusement. I want to set up a [Poll #750784]
I'm tempted to do something like pointless waste of time but, well, some of you fools like Big Brother (could do the same for the World Cup instead?).

Partially, want to do this as a proof of concept, in theory, three participants doing it correctly can get an obscure term to a high ranked site easily, but, say, 20 people on my f-list could get pretty much anything if we wanted to. Theoretically. And if we can? Well, for example, Exeter students could do some nasty things to parts of the website or, say, the Vice Chancellor. Most cabinet members have been done over more than once already, but, y'know, the more the merrier...

Extra: Interesting Slate article on the subject, with a good roundup of the history.

Comments

[freddiefraggles.livejournal.com]

...why?

[matgb]

Why not? It's a challenge, it can help understanding of how the 'net works, and can amuse.

Were you genuinely not amused by "miserable failure", "weapons of Mass Destruction" and "French military victories"? I was, even the ones I disagree with. That Blair is a liar, Wade a traitor, etc is amusing.

We could, for example, target Steve Smith as an incompetant moron. Unless, of course, you like Steve Smith?

[freddiefraggles.livejournal.com]

"Were you genuinely not amused by..."

Yes. They seem rather childish to me. Yes, it's interesting, and worrying, that the internet can be manipulated in such a way, but amusing? Not really.

"Unless, of course, you like Steve Smith?"

...

Did I not tell you about the time I had to be forcibly restrained from slapping / hurting a lot / killing Chris McCullough in the Imperial?

[matgb]

amusing? Not really
Ah. Ok then. That does explain the disconnect in the conversation; I find any clever use of a facility to be amusing, but then, you like Clarkson ;-)

it's interesting, and worrying, that the internet can be manipulated in such a way

Worrying? Look at the Slate article I linked above. It's not worrying that people understand how Google works and make use of it. Google is, inherently, a democratic medium. People think Blair's a liar, Google therefore takes this into account. That's good.

Besides, corrupting it is very difficult, hence my caveats to the above.

As for restaint and Chris McCullough? I google'd him, can hazard a gues; what'd he do, specifically?

[freddiefraggles.livejournal.com]

Chris McCullough is the Head of Performance Arts, and a Drama lecturer. It is well known in some parts that he stood up in an important meeting about the closures and said that if Music wasn't shutdown, he would quit.

Hence why no Music student hates Steve Smith more than Chris McCullough. Or Chris McCunt, if you ask my friend Antony, who moved to Bristol for his last year.

[fearmeforiampink]

I like Steve Smith. He's a intelligent and reasonable person with whom you can have an interesting conversation.

He's part of a group that made the decisions on department closure, sure, but my opinion on that has long been that I can't fault the decision to close the departments, I just fault the it was carried out in various places.

Finances and making the University do well at what it's good at made them shut the departments. Announcing the decision to the press before the students, the overpainting of Music on one of the signs, and the "I'll quit if you don't close it" which I believe was from Mr McCollough (Performing Arts department head) were all big mistakes.

But they weren't really Steve Smith's mistakes, bar possibly the press one. Sure, he's in charge and should therefore take some of the flak, but most of the big issues were to a reasonable extent, someone elses fault.

[paulatpingu.livejournal.com]

Jesus Christ. I can't believe you actually just said that. Steve Smith is the head of the university and as such is directly responsible for any major changes that occur within it. Of course it's his fault that the departments closed - that's the way leadership works.

And no, it's not actually all about finances and making sure the university does well in it's 'special areas'. This is supposed to be academics, not just some business ripping off it's 'customers'. Closing down departments is anathema to the whole idea of education and learning, and Steve Smith, as the man that oversaw that, rightly deserves to be hated by anyone caught up in the whole mess. I mean, how many people's lives has Steve Smith screwed with anyway?

Final points - One of the financial reasons why Chemistry closed was that they were being charged very creative rates for things like cleaning and road maintenance, falsely inflating the amount they were 'losing' - Something that was pointed out to Steve Smith with he clearly ignored. And secondly, the whole '£10 million black hole was Steve's fault anyway - it was only the change to a new financial model which he oversaw which discovered/created the black hole in the first place.

Sorry to jump on you Pink, but I can't get over exactly how wrong I think you are.

[fearmeforiampink]

Like I said, I don't fault the decision to close the departments, just the way in which several parts of it was done.

I suppose the main difference of opinion comes from having been on Guild Council when this happened and thus discussed the issue a lot then, and having discussed the situation with the sabbaticals who were in many of the high level meetings on the issue, I do actually believe the university with what it says on the finances of the departments that closed.

There have been huge numbers of different stories going around about what the the financial situation is/was. I don't know what the situation is, as I haven't seen all the figures (and probably would have trouble working them out if I did).

What I believe is what I've been told by the Sabbs, who I know and trust, and who were in a lot of the meeting that went on at that time. And that is:

- That until recently, the University really didn't really know what it's finances were like, due to previous mismanagement, and was discovering the huge losses.

- That the auditors for the University told the university it had to substantially increase the amount in its reserves, or they wouldn't audit it as viable (or whatever they have to do). Which meant it had to make decisions fairly sharpish.

- That the new financial model is fairly accurate. I'm not at all saying its perfect, but on balance, I believe it more than the other claims I've heard about the state of the finances.

- That the University had to take into account the upcoming changes to the financing of University on the research side, which would heavily reduce/remove entirely research money from lower scoring departments.

Also, I think the Chemistry Department was losing money before the new financial model arrived. I'm less sure on that last one though.

Right then, that's my beliefs on the facts of the situation, now onto my opinions on it:

Yes, the University shouldn't be turned into a business, however (and I know this is likely to get people really disagreeing with me), I have no problem with a University choosing to reduce its departments, if the reasons are good enough.

There are a fair few Universities in the UK. If Exeter doesn't have a given department, you can go to another University that does. And given that one of the reasons that the department was closed is that it wasn't doing well, you'll likely get a better degree. You come to University to study a single subject (or 2-3 more with joint honours and suchlike), so you want somewhere that's good at that subject.

I don't believe that departments that are doing well should have to long term prop up/subsidise departments that aren't, rather than putting that money into making said succesful departments more successful.

Without the three departments that they're in the process of closing, Exeter still has rather more departments than the national average. Thus, I think it still provides a breadth of education. Beyond that, I don't see that they should have to keep departments open.

[tiredstars.livejournal.com]

I think we should google bomb Mapp.

[matgb]

Hmm, I like this idea. Plan is I'll poll it good from doable suggestions, so far the only concrete two are yours and Hazel Blears. She's, um, a valid target of ire.