Part I, Google Trends Contradict Media Polls On Ron Paul

Part I, Google Trends Contradict Media Polls On Ron Paul
Saturday, February 2nd, 2008 [align=left]
It all started when we began posting articles on all of the presidential candidates. We would post something on Hillary Clinton, or John McCain, and generate little interest. When we posted something on Ron Paul, however, our stats skyrocketed. What sense did that make, we thought, when Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are the only four faces the media is showing us? Why doesn't the people's interest correspond with the mass media polls?[/align]
[align=left]So we did some investigating. And the more we found out, the less we wanted to know - which is the sad state of politics these days. Don't get us wrong here: we loooooove our Government. And we are so, so proud of our nation and our system that we'd stand up and pledge allegiance right now.

But the mass media - that's a whole other story. They drive us batty. But if they didn't I suppose we'd be out of a job.[/align]
[align=left]Point being: if you want to check a poll with guaranteed accuracy, instead of wondering whether or not it's biased, there is one place to go.[/align]
[align=left]There is one place that measures readers' interest and statistics to an accuracy beyond any question. It's an automatically generated series of available charts that update themselves, measuring who is searching for what (and where) in any given time period. Stats you can trust beyond a reasonable doubt. Have you been to Google Trends?

Google Trends is a part of the Googlebot system; it's fairly new. Google Trends allows you to type in any keyword, name, or phrase, and see how many times it has been searched in Google and Google News over time.

Meaning, how many times someone has sat down and Googled Marilyn Monroe, or Bob Saget, or "who won the debate" (which was in the top 100 Hot trends this week...shame on you guys!...we shudder to know what results you got!) in any given time period in any given country, state, or even worldwide.

Still with me? If you want to learn more about how Google Trends works, you can read their explanation here. In short, whatever you search is automatically pulled by Google's data and plots it on a linear graph for you, to show you how many times the topic is searched by its volume.

Exact numbers are not given unless it makes the Hot Trends list (in which case it would say: "Mobil Logo" is the #1 search term of the day. (Which it is - it's hotness factor is labeled as Volcanic right now - likely due to the recent announcement of Exxon Mobil posting a third consecutive record profit).

Before we reveal what Google Trends shows us about the presidential candidates - that contradicts the mass media polls on the presidential candidates - let us tell you something about ConnieTalk. The stories on the left - the ones that are our Top 5 Stories at any given moment - are not chosen by us. They are voted on by the readers, and each reader is only able to vote one time at their computer.

Of all of the articles we've posted on each of the candidates, it is quite easy to see just by glancing to the left, who you have voted to the top, over and over again.

[/align]


We get up to a quarter of a million visitors per day, but 94.0% of them that arrive here while searching for Ron Paul are new visitors. So we know these are not the same people that are coming back here to read about Ron Paul specifically or any other particular candidate. That's just how they've overwhelmingly vote on our stories.

Which makes us think that these are not the same people who may have read any other article we've posted on a candidate; these are people who just searched for Ron Paul news (since that's what gets the most traffic here according to our stats), and arrived here for the first time.

This is what made us think to take a look at Google Trends. If you've noticed how presidential candidates Congressman Ron Paul and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee are being treated in the media, you might get the impression that they are not even contenders.

If you read about their low numbers reported in the mainstream media in certain states (while states they scored highly in aren't mentioned), you might get the impression that they are not even contenders. If you saw how little speaking time they were given in the Florida and California debates, you miiiiiiight just get the impression that they are not even contenders.

You would be so wrong. At least for one of them.

Don't miss the results, just click more!
[align=left]Continue to PART II > > [/align]

Pisshead, do you know how google trends works? If someone kept smashing the refresh button, would it count each time, or just unique IP addresses? I've checked their FAQ but it doesn't explain how searches are counted.

Does it really matter what people want in the way of a presidential candidate anyway? No. You don't get to vote for your president so it doesn't really matter.

We could be using the "text vote" after the debates as an indicator also but lets face it.......the numbers ONLY count in primaries and caucuses.

To put across that a google search is something to be used as a "favorable" item though is REALLY stretching the truth. Example? here's a few google searches on Ron Paul:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

We could be using the "text vote" after the debates as an indicator also but lets face it.......the numbers ONLY count in primaries and caucuses.

To put across that a google search is something to be used as a "favorable" item though is REALLY stretching the truth. Example? here's a few google searches on Ron Paul:

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Man, I can't believe your a cannabis smoker!

By the way, OPEN YOUR EYES. Jeez man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xellos

Man, I can't believe your a cannabis smoker!

By the way, OPEN YOUR EYES. Jeez man.

---

Oh, ya have to like Ron Paul if you smoke weed. Makes sense to me!:rolleyes:

Have a good one!:s4: