[deleted]

It auto completes for me.

ETA: I have the customize google add on for firefox. It also works on google.ca for me.

Yeah thats fucked. I tried every letter and they all provide numerous autocomplete. I never trusted google, not with their epic cookie that doesn't expire till 2038. They don't delete ANYTHING either (even if you delete something on gmail, it stays). Go check out http://www.google-watch.org/ there are some interesting reads there. I also reccommend scroogle.org (same people) which is more anonymous searching.

I did a quick scan of that site, the bit about cookies specifically is just not technically correct. Just about every single internet site you ever go to stores a cookie on your computer. It's trivial to disable cookies if you want to (hell Chrome, Google's browser has a specific mode for it), and you can directly see what's in any cookies stored on your computer. Cookies fill a fundamental role on the internet, but they can be annoying, and as such can be avoided. Preferences are stored in cookies, and the point that you can pass preferences as part of the URL is bad form, difficult to maintain, and potentially a security risk.

What people don't seem to understand is that those who actually do understand these things for the most part actually can and do check up on what's being done on their computers. Believing that it's creepy that Google keeps so much information on hand is one thing, but claiming that they're doing anything funky on your computer is a whole extra step.

The final point though is that there's absolutely nothing forcing you to use Google. Use adblock to nuke Google adds, use Firefox or Opera instead of Chrome, use Ask or Bing instead of Google Search, etc. Considering that there are a plethora of free alternatives to Google, why not just switch?

Finally, having worked in software development I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt whenever something strange happens with a computer 99% of the time the answer is a bug of some sort. If they're trying to hide it then why do they autocorrect you when you misspell it? Also, are any other related terms treated similarly or is it just the one? The most reasonable explanation here is a software bug, to assume it's more you would need additional evidence.

FYI: I do use bing. Because I don't like google. For numerous reasons, including the fact that any google activity I do is stored away to eternity. No one is forced to use google (except advertisers) but they still do. That doesn't mean much to me. That doesn't mean suddenly google magically devoid of bad practice, like you seem to imply. The fact remains that google is used by the vast majority of people and all of it is recorded. I think thats a bad thing for obvious reasons. Information is power. And as for your "without a shadow of doubt", come on, seriously... I simply fail to see how this is a bug. Would you care to go technical on me? I would have thought such a 'program' would be a bunch of stacked loops - how could that go wrong? Did you even have any idea of what the bug consists of at the time of writing?

For numerous reasons, including the fact that any google activity I do is stored away to eternity.

You truly think M$ isn't storing away your information as well?

I do. I use bing because google has 70% of the market. I also use yahoo on occasion. Anything I don't want stored to eternity for, I use scroogle.

I simply fail to see how this is a bug.

Then you obviously have never worked in software. I've spent days tracking down bugs that should "never happen" only to find they're caused by something completely obscure and seemingly unrelated. Just because you happened to run into it in this one case doesn't mean it's unique to this case or even happens all the time in this case. Google's search indexing is not a static entity, and the results you get today might not be the same results you get tomorrow.

If you're interested in how Google works they've published a number of white papers on all sorts of subjects. I haven't read through them myself personally, but what I've skimmed through has been very interesting.

Also, no offense or anything, but calling Google's search indexing "a bunch of stacked loops" that couldn't possibly go wrong just shows your ignorance on this subject. It's a massively complex software system with millions of ways it could go wrong.

Did you even have any idea of what the bug consists of at the time of writing?

Only way to track it down would be to have access to server logs, source code, a detailed bug report, etc. Debugging is not a simple process. A famous computer scientists (I can't remember who off the top of my head) once said something along the lines of "Debugging software is always more difficult than writing it to begin with, so if you write the cleverest code you possibly can then by definition you aren't smart enough to debug it." Writing code is the easy part, maintaining and debugging it is where the difficulty is.

EDIT: Also, another point. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but most of the information that Google collects is aggregate information, rather than personal information. Some of their ad-tracking code does keep track of what you personally do/like, but as far as I know most of their search and site hit information is non-specific. I'm pretty sure that they don't keep a list of "so and so searched for these things" instead they keep statistics on "this many people searched for this, etc." If this really concerns you then it's not particularly difficult to be anonymous on the internet, especially as far as Google is concerned. Blocking cookies will cut out most of their tracking, and using a proxy will cut out any real hope they have of keeping track of you individually.

That famous computer scientist would be Brian Kernighan.

Right, thanks, found the actual quote, more eloquent than my paraphrasing...

Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.

One of my more favorite quotes.

Google's search indexing is not a static entity, and the results you get today might not be the same results you get tomorrow.

Which is why I thought it would be generalised as stacked loops. I agree it would be a complex set of programming to look up and calculate each autocomplete, however, I'd expect the frame of it to still follow a loop format. It seems strange that a code that is supposed to work on a generalised matter (input as a string) suddenly stops working for 'bilde'. You are right though, I am ignorant of programming (I have taken only a few units on Java at university).

Still, I find your answer on this to be very unsatisfying. All you did was rant on about how debugging is difficult - which is not relevant to me at all. Are you following the PR mantra of "Answer the question you wish you were asked?" Nice try.

Also, you realise they tailor the adds in your gmail based on the data they collect? Yeah, right... not personal. Why are you defending google anyway? You seem to be knowledgable about their practices - how so?

You seem to be knowledgable about their practices - how so?

Like I said, they publish white papers about a lot of what they do. A lot of how they run is public knowledge.

Why are you defending google anyway?

Because you're not being fair in how you're attacking them. Are some of their practices not so good? Sure, but the way to attack them is by being educated and knowledgeable on the subject and pointing out the flaws. Go to any programming community and you'll find plenty of people talking about Google's flaws.

What annoys me is when people who obviously don't understand something start taking about it as if they know what they're talking about. For you to take ONE single event and therefore conclude what that event means is faulty logic bordering on laughable. My point with the comments about debugging is that it's likely that even a Google software engineer isn't 100% sure what caused it to happen, so for you to assume you know is ridiculous.

To even start to believe it's some sort of a conspiracy there are 3 simple questions you need to answer first.

• Why are no other related search terms treated similarly?
• Why does Google automatically correct you if you misspell the term? It would make more sense to not correct it if they didn't want people finding sites.
• Why does Youtube not have a similar filter?

All evidence points to a software bug, that you happened to find. Not as sexy and exciting maybe, but it's reality.

Whats laughable about your post is that you have unwarranted assumptions about me. I don't conclude its a conspiracy. Where did you get that from? I am suspicous. It seems a funny coincident. So your rant about making assumptions applys to you, not me.

If we do entertain the conspiracy theory for a moment, I suppose the only explanation for your three questions is that if Google did do those three things, it would provide us with the evidence that they are suppressing information. By failing to do those three they have plausible deniability.

Why? What are your answers to those questions?

Why are no similar terms filtered?

Why doesn't Youtube filter it?

Why is it autocorrected?

However, what programming bug would result in the removal of a specific word from all searchable strings?

There are plenty.

The thing you're neglecting here is that the vastly more probably result here is that it's a software bug. Second most likely result is that it's not a bug and that there are simply not enough searches for Bilderberg in order for it to show up on auto-complete. In a distant third place here is that it's some form of a conspiracy.

Jumping to the vastly unlikely outcome isn't "not making assumptions," it's making an extraordinary claim. You need some form of evidence to support this over the more likely answers.

In short the burden of proof is on you to come up with some evidence more than "well the autocomplete doesn't work." You realize that autocomplete is just one of the services offered by google? Why would they filter it with autocomplete but not filter it in any of their other services? I've already checked and search will autocorrect you if you misspell it, Youtube doesn't filter it, Google Reader doesn't, Google Chrome doesn't, Google Maps doesn't, etc. etc.

So, given all this evidence, you think the most likely answer here is that in an effort to keep things quiet Google removed Bilderberg from their autocomplete feature, while leaving it in every single other service they offer? If Google actually wanted to keep something quiet they could, and it wouldn't just be removing it from autocomplete.

EDIT: Just another point, honestly the only explanation I can come up with here is ignorance. I can't imagine a single person with experience in software development and coding agreeing with your assessment of things. You say you work without assumptions, but you're also working without knowledge of what you're discussing. The average person understands very little about how coding actually works, and tends to trivialize the difficulty and complexity of it. For you to talk about what the answer is without understanding what's involved is a bit silly honestly.

What are you looking for exactly? Without access to their source code obviously I can't tell you what the bug is. It's not like there are different types of bugs or anything, it's a result of how everything is done, how it's written, etc. The one thing I can tell you is that there is no such thing as bugless code.

Sounds like all you do is assert its a bug, preying on our ignorance of code and touting your asserted programming mastery. There is nothing of substance about the topic of the code. Its all assertion.

Not all assertions are equal. You're saying that I'm making an assertion, sure, but it's a logical, probable, and all-together reasonable one. To disagree with my assertion is the illogical, improbable, and unreasonable assertion. In order to say that the most reasonable assertion is not true you need some evidence, not just the fact that you hope it's true.

Assuming that it is a conspiracy first, and not a bug, is actually ludicrous. If you apply logic to your argument, you will realize this is the actual truth.

Think about this: So say Google wanted to try to stop people from searching for Bilderberg... why only stop the auto complete after the e? Why does it still redirect misspellings to the correct search results? Why is google still essentially fielding request for Bilderberg information, and still delivering the search results?

From what I see, and what other intelligent people are trying to explain to you, is that YOU are the one making the jump to conclusions, not anyone else. You are assuming because one tiny function of finding information on Bilderberg is inconsistent that it's all a conspiracy of them trying to censor information, while ignoring that it is still entirely possible and easy to find information on Bilderberg using google. It's sensationalistic paranoid bull shit to believe that you are onto something.

My two cents. Also, I work for a large company doing web application deployments. We are not as big as google, but I do maintain web applications that span server pools numbering in the hundreds of servers. Stuff like this happens all the time, and it's entirely possible. Bugs like this that are so small and miniscule, and don't actually affect the users experience, are pretty much ignored by support and development staff. I'm sure google has other bugs and code support issues they have to work on that outrank this one. You know, like stuff that is preventing people from using their products correctly? This is a borderline costmetic bug, and my guess is the automation either works it out somewhere down the line, or it never gets fixed. The reason it is like that in the first place is probably as a result of conflicting possible outcomes for that string, or something inherently wrong with whatever algorithm they are using.

So where is your experience on this matter coming from? A Youtube video with some scary music about the NWO?

The final point though is that there's absolutely nothing forcing you to use Google. Use adblock to nuke Google adds, use Firefox or Opera instead of Chrome, use Ask or Bing instead of Google Search, etc. Considering that there are a plethora of free alternatives to Google, why not just switch?

So, if a corporation is part of a global conspiracy to suppress information, just switch to another search engine! Nothing to see here folks, just move along.

So if someone posts a long reply about how most likely it's a software bug rather a grand conspiracy, ignore all of that and instead quote the one paragraph that makes the point that even if there is a grand conspiracy it's trivial to avoid it?

Nice try Bilderberg Group / Google employee

I discovered this some time ago. Millions of results, but no auto-complete. For a group of people that doesn't exist/has no power, they sure do a lot to keep their tracks covered.

Fyi auto-complete is based off of the number of searches rather than the number of results, so talking about how many results you get is pretty meaningless. You can have 10 million sites about a subject, but if no one searches for it then it won't be in auto-complete. This is done in order to keep auto-complete somewhat timely and useful.

Also, if they're trying to hide it why are no related searches treated the same? Why does Google correct you if you spell it wrong so that you can find the sites you were looking for? Why does YouTube not have similar filtering?

Yes, but as the number of page results increases, the number of site clicks also rises. It's perfectly reasonable to think that millions of search results (including a wikipedia article) would have the few thousand site clicks needed to generate an auto-complete.

Actually it isn't, searches change from day to day, week to week, depending on what people are actually searching for. Meanwhile the number of results only changes as people create new websites.

You are completly W R O N G. when was the last time you searched for "why is there a dead pakistani on my couch"

In fact you see the Auto complete lists the numbers of the RESULTS!! not number of searches.

If you are not sure about something please dont post.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but more than 1 person uses google, and people search for strange things. For you to say "well I don't see why people would search for this, therefore they don't" is completely illogical.

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but they can tell you how many results will come up for a search without using that number to rank the results, strange I know. Hell, the image you posted is direct evidence that they don't rank by page results, otherwise why would a result with 57k hits follow right after one with 322 mil hits?

If you're going to claim I'm wrong at least have some actual evidence or logic to back yourself up.

OK WOW

I did have actual evidence you are just to dense to see it, what is your IQ 3?

What, that autocomplete obviously doesn't go off of number of results?

Fyi auto-complete is based off of the number of searches

please go argue with yourself

I never said that it was based on results only that it is NOT based on searches cause noone searches for dead pakistanis on couches

cause noone searches for dead pakistanis on couches

Apparently people do...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cb1L7aivW8

Yeah, it's only one of the funnier quotes from one of the highest rated television shows in history. The fact that so many people like you keep bringing up the search term probably adds to it's rank. Hell I just pasted it in to find the real reason people searched for it, turns out it's a quote from LOST.

Well I guess I am wrong then http://failblog.org/2009/02/10/google-suggest-fail/

I can believe people actually searched this term prior to it being sent all over the internet.

I am sorry

Could you find something from google that says how this works cause all I can find is just people speculating as to how it owrks

Could you find something from google that says how this works cause all I can find is just people speculating as to how it owrks

Honestly, it's hard to say. Part of how it works is patented, and kept secret, as that is part of their "proprietary technologies". There are numerous white papers as to how it works, but to keep people from exploiting page ranks and search rank, they have to keep certain aspects a secret. Otherwise spammers and porn sites would be the top search results for every search string.

My main point, is that just following logic, you can clearly see they aren't trying to do anything sinister with Bilderberg Group searches, but it's just more likely an anomaly if anything. Most things like this are self correcting through their algorithm and automation processes. That said, I don't even think this is a result of that, as the Bilderberg search and auto suggest works fine on my end.

This is a good read about how Google works...

http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

It's a high level view, and again, doesn't call out any specifics, as they are "trade secrets" of Google, though the general principles and processes do apply to Google, and most search engines.

Yet "farting kitten" autocompletes after you type only "farting k."

Clearly, kittens are farting in order to distract us from the evil machinations of the Bilderbergers! I always knew those furry little fuckers were up to something.

But you love cats.

Well, yes, but they are often very naughty.

Try autocomplete for "doubledecker". You get results.

Now try "doubledecker s". You get results.

Now try "doubledecker sa". You get results.

Now try "doubledecker san". You get 1 result where san is autocompleting to san francisco.

Now try "doubledecker sand". You get no results.

Why is that? It's because of an adult DVD. You may or may not recall that Google was recently blocked in China because the autocomplete mechanism frequently autocompleted to porn, and Google thought that preventing this was actually a good idea, even outside of China. "dirty sa" won't autocomplete either.

"bilde" is the german word for pictures... I'm not sure what suggestions you'd get if bilde was allowed to autocomplete, but I bet it's somehow related to.... online romance....

Back in English, "pictures of nak" doesn't auto-complete either...

Yes! I love finding these little evidences of the global elite throughout society. It happens to me 4-5 times a year

I've noticed Google now required capitalization whereas the word god, does not. try it!

Bug, or algorithmic anomaly somewhere in their auto-complete automation. Possibly conflicting ranking of spellings. My guess is it will correct itself eventually. In fact it works fine for me, it auto suggests Bilderberg Group for me when I get to the "D" in "Bild" considering "Bil" is pretty vague, I can see it not being suggested at that point.

So I guess the real question is, are your trolling? Or are you really just that paranoid over such a non-issue like this?

Robert Zoellick

Your comment means nothing, care to be more elaborate?

What you have discovered is that "bilde" doesn't yield any autocomplete suggestions on google.com (it does on some other domains, .ru or .cn for example). That is indeed odd, but there's quite a leap from here to "bilderberg group". Moreover, the search for the phrase itself works just fine, so it's not like it's completely redacted.

Power.

These people need to be wiped out. They are the enemies of all human life.

What the fuck are you talking about.

What the fuck are you talking about.

Right, thanks, found the actual quote, more eloquent than my paraphrasing...

Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.

One of my more favorite quotes.