I hope Newt and Santorum drop out. Other candidates are a joke, and so are they. But these two are just pure evil, in addition to being clowns.
Rick Perry is another George W. Bush, and seems more so every time he opens his mouth. Completely with being satisfied with having executed over 200 people. Jesus would be very proud of him, I’m sure.
I don’t think he has as much chance as Romney, and hopefully he’ll drop out, too.
I wish. The only thing I can think of is those are really popular sites, and they probably have only one or two mentions of the “new hampshire primary” terms, whereas all the usual suspects on the American side have so many mentions of primaries and election coverage and “new hampshire” this, “primary” that, that the British sites end up above them in the rankings due to their fewer mentions (which means those few articles would get more juice.)
But that’s just a guess. I honestly don’t know enough about Google’s algorithm to really have any idea…but then again, I doubt anyone outside of the company does either.
Hmm, I get mostly American sites if I search those terms from google.co.za, but The Guardian is still the top link… Then NY Times, Washington Post, HuffPo, ABC, CNN and The Economist.
It’s possible that you searched shortly after peak British browsing time, before it crossed the Atlantic - so those sites had received more hits in the previous few hours. BBC.co.uk is a default RSS feed in Firefox, of course.
But that would mean the algorithm would have to include allowances for site traffic…and possibly place more importance on that than on web juice. PageRank doesn’t seem to work that way. Especialy for general rankings. Obviously the “current news” listing surely has chronology as high imporance, but even on that one I’ve never heard of traffic actually affecting rankings.
What is “web juice”? Also, doesn’t Google “learn” about your preferences, meaning the ranking could be different depending on who is searching / what computer they are on?
Back on topic, why is there such a range in the projections of how many delegates each man got in Iowa? AP projects RP got 0, while CNN projects RP got 7. What’s the uncertainty? Also, who exactly are the delegates? If a candidate withdraws, are any pledged delegates they won obliged to support who that candidate endorses, or do they become unpledged? Being an unpledged delegate seems like a position of great influence in terms of deciding the result…
The more popular term is “link juice”, but that refers to specific links. I say “web juice” to refer to the aggregate attention the world wide web gives to a specific site. That’s basically how your page is ranked. If you’re interested, see PageRank.
No, rankings aren’t affected that way (as far as we know). That’s just advertisements. And even those are more affected by cookies and such than anything else, which you can easily remove. Internet searching is too broad to try and tailor results to any kind of “preferences” or patterns. I mean, you could try, but the results you’d get are too random, and there wouldn’t be much science to it ultimately. But what’s even more important is there’d be no real point to…the user wouldn’t really get anything out of it because for one thing, you wouldn’t be able to be that “tailored” in the first place, and what’s more, ranking results of your search based on what you’ve searched in the past isn’t a good method for producing relevant results. Just because your kid did a school project on apples doesn’t mean when you type in “apple computer” you would want to see pages for machine systems that process and count apples on an apple farm.
And on top of that, there’d be no practical way to keep up with those preferences. I suppose they could do it by how you’re logged in with a google ID, but how many of those get used by a single person…let alone in a household? The results would show up differently so often, there’d really be no point. And ultimately, there’d be no way to Google to monetize that. The only reason to do it would be to improve the user experience, and I think it would do the opposite.
I never heard of Paull getting 0 out of Iowa. That would make absolutely no sense. For an explanation of delegates and such, I’d check out
The Green Papers (be sure to check out the links there. All the numbers, definitions, and methodology)
FrontloadingHQ (check out the entries on the side column there for specific articles on specific states)
People who volunteer and get selected, basically.
This is mostly answered at the Green Papers above, and any answers you don’t get there will be at FHQ.
It’s one of the three sources used on the wikipedia results page for the Iowa delegate count.
Which website(s) are you using to monitor results as they come in?
I’ve read about the allocation methods and rule changes and so on, but I’ve not found direct answers to my questions. Is it radically different for every State or something?
Actually on further investigation, it looks like they’re trying to incorporate it. Obviously what they’re doing is quite different from simply changing the page rankings like we were discussing, but the “personalize” option is there.
You mean you’re asking for specific names of individual people?
-If a candidate withdraws, are any pledged delegates they won obliged to support who that candidate endorses, or do they become unpledged?
This varies based upon the rules the party in each state sets up. Again, you can find the specific answers at Greenpapers.com, like I said. For example, here is the Alabama page. All the important information is there including your answer to this question, as well as a link to an actual list of individual names of delegates who have filed. (if that’s what you were asking in the first question).
You may want to actually explore around that site as well as FHQ some more. If you still have a specific question that is not there, ask it here.
That’s insane. That’s got to be some kind of Pygmalion propaganda. Every source I’ve seen says a three-way tie. I see what CNN is doing though. This is the link wikipedia uses on the Republican Primary page.
They’re counting unpledged RNC delegates. Even Rick Perry has 4.
As was mentioned here, Paul certainly had the volunteers to get delegates. And on top of that, it’s all guesswork anyway, as they won’t even be finalized until July.
“Here are personalized results from your social networks!” Google says, hopefully, every time I visit.
Not really. But “Here are personalized results from the three people you know who are on Google+, two of whom are Google employees” doesn’t have the same ring, somehow.
