Dear Google,
What happened? Where’s the love? You used to bring me flowers, you used to sing me love songs. You used to bring me traffic, at any rate.
At first I thought you were just busy. I know, it’s the holidays and you’ve got lots of parties to go to, lots of froogle gifts to pick out according to price or relevance or location, lots of stuff you need to do all over the world. I figured you were just working late. I assumed you were doing your own thing. We never said we’d be exclusive, and I didn’t want to be the big blog bitch and be all waving the big “hell, no” finger in your face and calling you a two-million-timer. So I took it easy and said nothing.
But I can’t be silent anymore. You know I’m big on communication, and we were good together, baby. Sure, I admit, I wasn’t always thrilled to pieces with the crowd you brought to my parties. Mr. “Litter Girls Pussy” and his friend “Grandmas bloody fuckfest” really weren’t my type. And that guy “monkey fuck panties” really left a big mess in the corner that one time. But if having them hanging around was the price I had to pay to have “loving things to say to your lover” and “giantess farting houses” visit every now and again, I was cool with it. I could deal. Plus, you brought so many people who were just looking for me and my pretty dumb things, and that always put a great big smile on my virtual face.
But now, baby…I haven’t heard from you in days. Have you lost my number? Is it something I said? What is it, Google-baby? Tell me you haven’t lost that lovin’ feeling.
Are you all right? I mean, really, what were you thinking, changing those algorithms? Are you on drugs? Or worse—have you been born again? What were you doing making those changes to your search protocols without any thought to me and mine? You couldn’t find a way to block those evil sex spambots without blocking me? I’m just trying to keep the sex real, Google. I thought we understood each other.
I know, I know. It’s not me. Or it’s not just me. Tony Comstock and Violet Blue and Bacchus over at ErosBlog are having the same problems with you. All of a sudden, you just froze us out, you gave us the cold digital shoulder. You hit the road, Jack Google, but don’t say you won’t come back no more.
I heard you and Babeland made up. How about you and me, sugar? A little kiss is all I ask.
Google, baby. Let me back in. Me and my pretty dumb things are shivering out here in the digital ether with no one but Ask.com and Yahoo to keep us warm. We need you, honey. We miss you and the 500+ visitors a day you used to send to us. We’re lonely.
Please, Google. Don’t be evil.
kissykiss,
chelsea girl
ps. You don’t mind if my readers remind you every now and again by searching “pretty dumb things,” and then scrolling to the bottom of the page and clicking on the link that says “dissatisfied?’ and leaving a little comment, do you? They love you too.









Dissatisfaction level communicated, Cap'n...
Posted by: S.P. | 27 December 2006 at 10:58 PM
Google must have heard you *wink* You were 3rd when I searched ya. :)
Posted by: pandora | 27 December 2006 at 10:59 PM
What exactly changed? I always have to Google PDT because I forget to bookmark the site, and I don't see anything different in the search results than what has come up for the past three to four months. It could be because Google favors its own service, Blogger. Post on that and you tops forever. I learned that the hard way!
Posted by: Kitty Laverne | 27 December 2006 at 11:23 PM
Actually, the problem is not fixed. If you search my domain name--prettydumbthings.typepad.com--you get results of pages other than mine with my domain in them. You do not, however, get this page. If you search the blog name without quote marks, you don't get my site at all; you get links in Viviane's Carnival and you get links at BlogHer. If you search the page in quote marks, mine is the third result. It used to be the first.
Also, it does not matter if you post on Blogger or not. Always Aroused Girl is on Blogger and she's googleable. Eros, Logos is also on Blogger, and she's not. There's no rhyme or reason, it's all of a sudden, and it's a problem
I really appreciate each one of you who challenges Google on this point. You're not just standing up for me; you're standing up for bloggers and sex-positive activists and others. We all appreciate you, even if we don't know about you individually.
kissykiss,
chelsea
Posted by: chelsea girl | 27 December 2006 at 11:37 PM
I understand Eddie Izzard is having the same problem. If a six foot transvestite can't get no love what's the hope for lil ole us?
HER
Posted by: Desire X | 28 December 2006 at 12:13 AM
Good thing I bookmarked you ages ago.
Oh--and I know this has nothing to do with this post--but I eagerly await your thoughts on the Jessica Cutler lawsuit and its repercussions in the blogosphere.
Posted by: Caliban | 28 December 2006 at 09:41 AM
i just tryed it, CG, and i got exactly what you say above - all sorts of other sites that contain your URL, but nothing that actually points to here.
and, oh yes, i let google know about it...
g'luck....
Posted by: i.m.butch | 28 December 2006 at 11:39 AM
Xeni on BoingBoing just updated her entry to say this is fixed, but it's not; anyone know how to reach her to tell her so?
Posted by: Karl Elvis | 28 December 2006 at 01:44 PM
Funny...I'm on a comp where the site isn't bookmarked for the holidays, so I went to google and searched for you. And this is the latest entry. Coincidence? I'd say 'I think not,' but I can't think what it would mean if it weren't.
Posted by: Sara | 28 December 2006 at 07:14 PM
Sara,
I don't know what to say--I just searched my blog name without quote marks, all excited-like after reading your comment, and I received nothing but links to me. I used to search "pretty dumb things" and my site would be the very first entry, as well as the next few entries. Now, I'm not even on the first page.
I usually receive around 400-500 Google visitors a day. Today I've had 4.
I am not Googleable. While Google has fixed the issue for some sites--Tony Comstock, Tiny Nibbles and Erosblog are searchable--my pretty dumb things are not.
kissykiss,
chelsea
Posted by: chelsea girl | 28 December 2006 at 07:41 PM
The problem with Google's new algorithm is that it doesn't take spacing into account. Searching "Pretty Dumb Things" brings up your link from Viviane's page because it is called pretty-dumb-things.html rather than prettydumbthings. If you search "prettydumbthings" your site tops the list.
I think if people mention this in their complaints it will get google's attention. After all, we're talking about the size of their algorithm...
Hope this helps!
Lexi
Posted by: Elexus | 28 December 2006 at 08:07 PM
Hmm, that's interesting. That's something else spam-related.
Searching IN QUOTES ["pretty dumb things"], I see your site as #3
Searching one term [prettydumbthings], site is #1.
But it's not apparent for just the words [pretty dumb things]
AHA! Something's masking you somehow. Turn off the *similarity* filter (not SafeSeach, but similarity), and back to #1 for the words [pretty dumb things]
You have a different problem than the others. I'm not sure what it is exactly, but it's a separate issue.
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | 28 December 2006 at 08:36 PM
Thanks, you two. I'll put that information on my next "dissatisfied" response, and anyone else who wants to too, I am deeply appreciative.
kissykiss,
chelsea
Posted by: chelsea girl | 28 December 2006 at 09:55 PM
I see the search for the words [pretty dumb things] returning this blog as #1 now.
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | 28 December 2006 at 11:56 PM
She's baaaaaaack! While I was happy to help viewers find you, I am glad I no longer get visitors really intended for you.
kissykiss
Viv
Posted by: Viviane | 29 December 2006 at 08:56 AM
Google is a fickle bastard, giving you everything one minute, and then having it away with the next door neighbour the next. Bastard!
Posted by: James | 02 January 2007 at 10:39 AM
Hi CG,
I left this comment on the PBS site.
XOXO
Chuck
Hi PBS,
There are two ways to look at this issue.
1. Include the links, because when you are citing content, regardless of how controversial, people have a right to travel to the original source.
2. Include the links, and have fulminating, sycophantic congresspeople scream at you in the next hearing, which results in this one marginally objective outlet lose money and/or not cover these types of issues.
Considering and following (2) hasn't worked, because the enemies of sexual content, free speech, and Public Television and Radio are as strident, vigorous, and violent in their attacks as ever. More than ever, it's time to stand up to the bullies.
It's time to stop running.
Posted by: WhattheChuck | 11 January 2007 at 09:54 PM