Looking to ask Jeeves a question?

You might need the wayback machine for that. I don't quite know what happened to Jeeves. I hope he's doing alright. Talk of Googlearchy made me bizarrely nostalgic. However, I'm pretty sure my six year old self wasn't asking Jeeves about abortion. Although, if I had and wound up at Planned Parenthood or National Right to Life and remembered what I read for the rest of my life, it would be a great example of Googlearchy's effect on upcoming generations.

The principles of Googlearchy as described by Mathew Hindman in Chapter 3 of the Myths of Digital Democracy state that links pointing to a site are the most important determinant of site visibility, that niche groups such as online auctioning or file sharing are most likely dominated by one or two sites winner-take-all and that because many people use search engines to surf the web or find information, successful sites get even more successful.

Hindman doesn't fault the public for this pattern because he sees it as a sign of the internet's great size and scale. He still takes issue, in Chapter 4, with the way that the internet allows search engines to serve as gatekeepers, especially in the shockingly small realm of political sites. Even if people were not already searching for familiar terms and outlets, it small political sites rely on google hits.

I think there are parts of the reading that are very dated, but that Myths of Digital Democracy has aged relatively well. Search engines remain important as do internet powerhouses'. I use the internet alot but I don't really travel or link much outside the Alexa top 500. Although it seems as though the world wide web lives in dog years, websites of influence don't quite fade away. Even though google.yourcountryhere is sweeping the Alexa top ten and they had the poor taste to fire their butler, ask.com is still ranked number 52 globally and number 36 in America. I imagine Jeeves got a heck of a severance check courtesy of the senior citizens have that kept this site around.

Hindman mentions at one point that the Huffington post was the 796st most popular site in 2007. I feel as though its almost transcended politics at this point, but I found that Alexa ranked it 85 globally and 24 in the USA. This is a much higher ranking----even if it makes it neck in neck numerically with the likes of Ask.com. Its users have become younger and more female since the book was published. But I've definatly seen more links online to the Huff Post or the Onion than to my local paper. (And patch.com, owned by AOL gets much more action than the Bellmore Life) The bulk of what I'm refered to online is completely apolitical. If I do want to read about specific issues, I admit to googling pundits and organizations that confirm my leanings or challenge them in the most flagrant way possible. No generalized "abortion" searches for me!

Complete generativty is impossible. is Changes float slowly on the waves of the internet. However, this doesn't mean they don't happen. In my first blog entry, I discussed google bombing, politics and the Spreading Santorum site. The latter is more a popular alternate definition than a google bombs, but the search engine readjusted after 7 years and it is no longer on the top page of hits. I almost forgot about ask.com. And unless my future children enroll in this class, I doubt they'll know who Jeeves is.

(but if he/she/it is going to attempt to resuscitate him as a college student, I hope they don't forget to vote first.)