BP buys Google, Yahoo search words to keep people away from real news on Gulf oil spill disaster

Originally posted by ThaLoccster

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix


I don't think the Op is wrong at all here is why..

If you use a search engine like www.exalead.com... you will get very different news, like law suits and such.. seems that might be rougher harder hitting news on the spill then both Google and yahoo are providing.

I think you, the OP, and anyone else with the same line of thought is blatantly wrong, if not attempting to deceive.

I search oil spill on yahoo, this is what I get.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3b0548d0c8bc.jpg[/atsimg]

3 out of the 4 first news results are in regards to tightening laws and looking for liability.

See that TOP first listing there in a diff color? That is the sponcered link they paid for. Its not hiding it but it is pushing other links down. Either way I think its funny how there trying to affect google searches.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster


I think you, the OP, and anyone else with the same line of thought is blatantly wrong, if not attempting to deceive.

No Not wrong.. do the search yourself.. yes you do get hits for "PB Oil Spill" On google and yahoo.. I never said you didn't..

My point was you get DIFFERENT results when you do a search using many other search engines.

It could be that these other search engines will pick up harder hitting stories than google and yahoo because they don't have any financial ties to PB. I think it could be a posibility.

Get your facts straight before you accuse someone of outright deception.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
How true is this story?

If really true.. Boycott Google and yahoo?

Whats the next best search engine alternative that will get you the goods on PB?

I cannot say that I agree with this. Google and Yahoo are both for-profit companies. And we still do live in a capitalist society, while I boycott to search engines that are trying to make a profit. When everything comes to light it's not really going to matter where in what order these links were in a search engine it will be visible to all. If this is as bad as what people say is. I'll save my boycott for people doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. We here at ATS no better the real truth and nothing but the truth is NEVER at the top of search engine. That's why we're all ATS because most of us are not afraid to go to the deepest darkest recesses of the Internet, or basements of actual file rooms to find out the deep dark secrets that are hidden from view.

The only people that BP is paying to keep from seeing the real devastation is the sheep that want to believe everything they see the first time they see it. The conspiracy community knows better and with how our government is being handled lately I'm sure ATS management could say that membership is growing by leaps and bounds as more and more people a "wake-up ". So no if BP wants to throw their money away let them do it.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


It doesn't push other links down. When you search for "digital camera" and Best Buy is a sponsored link, are they pushing other links down? Is Best Buy a part of some conspiracy to affect google searchs? Hell I'm in a gaming team, and at one time we had a sponsored search term. We're in on this affecting google search conspiracy too. You should just assimilate now, resistance is futile in the new google search age.

I mean I guess you kinda have a point "technically" the other links are now 1/2 an inch lower on the page. Oh the conspiracy.

Your post implied that on yahoo you got nothing but fluff news, while on another site you got the real deal, so therefore BP and Yahoo are conspiring to drown out any real news about it.

Also, there is a seperate function to search news articles, maybe you should use that function instead of searching websites. If you're looking for news anyways.

Maybe the variances in how different sites show different results is just the fact that they are different and employ different methods to gather results. OMG you get different results on different websites?!?! That just reeks of conspiracy. All sites should say the same thing.

I could just be thinking rationally.

Nonetheless I stand by my statement.

[edit on 6/7/2010 by ThaLoccster]

I show proof there is over 20 pages of web sites about the
GULF OIL SPILL right on yahoo and still you type in oil spill which could be anything from dropping a ting of 30 -40 to cooking oil.
If you dont know how to use a search function you really need to go play with your x box
GULF OIL SPILL not oil spill
heck even GULF OIL SPILL 2010 brings up many hits but teh most hits are with
GULF OIL SPILL typed in to yahoo search
so why are you wasting our time trying to get people to belive this load when anyone who knows how to use the net will see your just spinning it .
as far as im concerned this is a HOAX thread

Thats fun - I can buy "Oil Spill" as a keyword - and it costs just 11p

Not putting much effort in are they then.

ETA - perhaps they need an SEO expert - and I know a very good one

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Silk]

In my opinion, rather than boycotting these links it would be much better to click on them.

The adds are pay per click so why not make them pay.. Its not gonna break the bank im sure but its nice to know that i am getting my own back in my own little way, lol

If a few thousand of us clicked em it would result in an increased advertising bill.

Everything is budget based nowadays, they may have billions as a company but im sure there would have been a specific budget for this.

Surely all it would need is to take them over that budget and it would then no longer be considered viable.

or maybe i just like clicking the pretty blue links, lol

It's ad space. When they say "paid money for their link to appear at the top of the search results," they are referring to the ad space at the top of Google's search results page. Search engines do not favor whoever pays more money... they wouldn't work if that were the case. The reason something like Google is so successful is that it is able to show recent, current links according to their relevance and popularity -- i.e., how well the page matches your search words, and how many other sites have links to that same page. It has nothing to do with paying Google anything.

The ad space, however, is all about who pays more. Google's ad market is a major source of revenue for them and keeps them popular with the rest of the private sector. BP paid a lot of money to basically take over that ad space for search results like "oil spill," in the hopes that you will click that link and see their own interpretation / explanation for the event. A bit of a sleazy thing to do? I would say so. But the link is still clearly marked as an ad space. The actual search results are still there, and they remain unbiased. There is nothing illegal going on.

Edit: I should admit though, Google has its own share of wrongdoings. Supposedly they do affect the search results, and/or unfairly increase the prices for their ad space, for competitors that they don't happen to like.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Magnus47]

Originally posted by Skeptic4Sale
In my opinion, rather than boycotting these links it would be much better to click on them.

The adds are pay per click so why not make them pay.. Its not gonna break the bank im sure but its nice to know that i am getting my own back in my own little way, lol

If a few thousand of us clicked em it would result in an increased advertising bill.

The ads are pay per click, yes... payment from Google to BP. BP pays Google to get the ad space, and then Google pays BP everytime somebody clicks the link. So if you do this then you are basically providing monetary returns for BP. A few thousand of us clicking the link would make BP very happy. Is that what you want??

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
How true is this story?

It's from a blog.

Obviously BP has paid Google so that a search for "Deepwater End of the World" doesn't come up with news reports that everyone on the planet will die next year as a result of the oil leak.

Wow, this is unreal. Let me see if I have this correct.

1. OP finds a news story relating to an important current event.

2. OP decides to share story with fellow ATSers.

3. OP follows forum rules, and posts story accordingly.

Then, OP gets slammed and accused of deception and spreading a hoax, when in fact he was just sharing info with others.

I would like to thank the OP for sharing this information about BP buying search words from Google and Yahoo. And since I have the rational to determine the validity and importance of this info, I will do so. Thanks again !!

Oh, for those who don't like what I have written, your Doctor may be able to prescribe medication to help you deal with the problems you are having.....just be careful of the side effects.

Originally posted by Magnus47

Originally posted by Skeptic4Sale
In my opinion, rather than boycotting these links it would be much better to click on them.

The adds are pay per click so why not make them pay.. Its not gonna break the bank im sure but its nice to know that i am getting my own back in my own little way, lol

If a few thousand of us clicked em it would result in an increased advertising bill.

The ads are pay per click, yes... payment from Google to BP. BP pays Google to get the ad space, and then Google pays BP everytime somebody clicks the link. So if you do this then you are basically providing monetary returns for BP. A few thousand of us clicking the link would make BP very happy. Is that what you want??

Thats not how the Google advertising model works, to do that just wouldnt make sense?

You have Gogle adwords and Google adsense that work together

What happens is that BP pays the current rate for certain words they want to link to there ads and they are charged for every click. These words are the adwords

Now if i have advertising space online (a website or blog, etc) then I can sign up for google adsense. By doing this I get given a bit of Javascript code to place in my webpage which allows Google to serve ads to my site based on the content and my choices.

So when someone comes to my website and clicks on a BP addy Google will pay me say 0.05p but they will charge BP say 0.11p for that same click.

Its the adsense customer that gets paid by Google not the advertiser.

Im aware that these ads arnet on a website but on the search results pages but its the same principle.

How is this a HOAX? Because of the source, the hypocrisy here is outrageous everyone always claims you cant trust MSM, but yet when news breaks the only places anyone trusts for confirmation is a MSM SOURCE!!!! It's hilarious so here you go
www.cnn.com...#/video/bestoftv/2010/06/06/nr.bp.ad.space.cnn?iref=allsearch
BOOM! there it has been done now quit whining it is what it is they did it to improve their image and try and make up for the sh** we are in right now!

Edit: Link doesn't work but it was as easy as typing in bp buys in cnns search and it was the first link after about 4 bp add links

[edit on 8-6-2010 by FearfulButInterested]

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
I'm confused as to how exactly you can "buy words"?

Maybe someone can fill me in on that.

You can only BUY keywords for PPC campaigns and their placement/ranking. Those are the Highlighted links at the right when you search in Google. And you would need multiple campaigns for the same keyword, showing up on the same right hand column, which PPC (google) does not allow.(does not allow that kind of monopoly on a keyword)

You cannot BUY words that list naturally, what is called "organic hits" in SEO/SEM.

(Think Main Page Body in the search)

Googles algorithms now make the main search more friendly to CONTENT, not keyword jamming. So getting placed on 'first page' is not even something money can guarantee.

In fact Googles algorithms would not even allow that. Otherwise only the richest or those with the highest budgets would own all content on the Net.

If you type in "oil spill" they have the top ranking SPONSORED link...which many people don't pay attention to if it is not a PRODUCT or SERVICE RELATED anyways.

I should also ad that in a PPC campaign for let's say GOOGLE ADWORDS, a keyword has a different click cost for it's 'value'.

So a keyword term like "animal cracker" may only cost 5 cents per click, but a term like "affordable car insurance" may cost over 10 dollars. Different terms and words cost more money.



[edit on 8-6-2010 by Prove_It_NOW]

Originally posted by Magnus47

Originally posted by Skeptic4Sale
In my opinion, rather than boycotting these links it would be much better to click on them.

The adds are pay per click so why not make them pay.. Its not gonna break the bank im sure but its nice to know that i am getting my own back in my own little way, lol

If a few thousand of us clicked em it would result in an increased advertising bill.

The ads are pay per click, yes... payment from Google to BP. BP pays Google to get the ad space, and then Google pays BP everytime somebody clicks the link. So if you do this then you are basically providing monetary returns for BP. A few thousand of us clicking the link would make BP very happy. Is that what you want??

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, that's not how it works.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directly from the Google adwords site:

"You create your ads"

"You create ads and choose keywords, which are words or phrases related to your business. Get keyword ideas
Your ads appear on Google"

"When people search on Google using one of your keywords, your ad may appear next to the search results. Now you're advertising to an audience that's already interested in you.
You attract customers"

"People can simply click your ad to make a purchase or learn more about you. You don't even need a webpage to get started – Google will help you create one for free. It's that easy!"


Source: www.google.com...=awo&subid=us-en-ha-bk-b1-a13&medium=ha&term=google%20adwords&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=goo gle%20adwords&utm_campaign=AdWords%3A%2BEnglish%20-%20US%20-%20BKWS%20-%20b1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the benefit to BP is from positioning their websites at such a
high level as the top of the page, that people would tend to click
on the BP site, versus a site that may included criticism (or the truth
they don't necessarily wish for you to hear)

The idea being that people tend to click on websites that are near
the top of the search engine results, which is true. BP is being clever
in that aspect, but every time a person clicks on the BP ads, the
advertiser which is BP, is paying for that click, and costs to BP could
be anywhere from few cents per click to several dollars per click, depending upon the popularity of the particular word searched.

What you are referring to is what's called "Google Adsense" If a company, such as this site, ATS, has ads on it by Google, which they do, from various advertisers, both ATS and Google makes a certain percentage of revenue from your clicking on an ad, with the lion's share usually going to Google.

reply to post by manta78



Right now the CPC (Cost Per Click) average for the term "Oil Spill" is $1.47.

Global monthly searches for that term are around 2,740,000.

That can get expensive....lol

reply to post by Prove_It_NOW




Thanks for that info. I was going to check on that out of curiousity
later.

Great catch OP. Everything you said confirms my own ongoing experience with Google including meddling by the government. Yahoo was new to me as being as into it as Google. They never really seemed to be quite the faired haired boy to the government that Google was. Really appreciate the time you took to share this and bring it to the attention of people who care and will benefit by this information

Hmm, this thread on ats with cryptogon.com... was just deleted.

reply to post by Skeptic4Sale

reply to post by manta78


I stand corrected. I did research into Google ads once for one of my own sites, but apparently I have forgotten just how they work since then. Thanks for correcting me