Interesting Google results

TalkieWalkie

Here are some interesting results from searching the word "conspiracy" @ google using "specific date range" search option.

Results:
From To
1/1/2000 - 1/1/2001 3.4 million
1/1/2001 - 1/1/2002 3.3 million
1/1/2007 - 1/1/2008 1.9 million
1/1/2008 - 1/1/2009 3.1 million
1/1/2009 - 1/1/2010 45.7 million
1/1/2010 - 21/5/2010 69.1 million

I dont know, maybe there is some technical web or SEO explaination for this sharp rise in numbers ?

Brown Bomber

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here are some interesting results from searching the word "conspiracy" @ google using "specific date range" search option.

Results:
From To
1/1/2000 - 1/1/2001 3.4 million
1/1/2001 - 1/1/2002 3.3 million
1/1/2007 - 1/1/2008 1.9 million
1/1/2008 - 1/1/2009 3.1 million
1/1/2009 - 1/1/2010 45.7 million
1/1/2010 - 21/5/2010 69.1 million

I dont know, maybe there is some technical web or SEO explaination for this sharp rise in numbers ?

Think you need to rename the thread :P

(sorry its late and I'm pissed off I can't sleep):D

Mahatma coat

want to expand out a theory for us??

maybe if we have a look at the years more specifically, ie month to month for spikes we may be able to link it back to some real world event

studiorat

It would seem like internet usage has grown in the ten years between 2000 and 2010 in addition to conspiracy theroies becoming fashionable.

mysterious

studiorat wrote: »

It would seem like internet usage has grown in the ten years between 2000 and 2010 in addition to conspiracy theroies becoming fashionable.

Conspiracy's was never about been fashionable. People are just opening their minds up, you know like waking up to the real world of what people with real views have to say, rather than doing a head bow to another fashionable government.:P

studiorat

By fashionable of course I mean faddy and not in the sense of "al la mode". In the same way as the previous poster for instance uses fashionable or faddy lanugaue or cliches, such as "wake up" and "open your eyes" etc.

Naturally those who entertain themselves with such conspiracy fads, gratify themselves with the false belief that those who do not believe such nonsense and are deferent to the power structure. This however couldn't be further from the truth.

The true skeptic, is skeptical of all information from all sources until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Information is not to be judged on how it fits in with a world view nor should it be used to define oneself. Either should it be believed or disbelieved because of consequences that may be inferred from it.

Unfortunately the previous poster seems guilty of all of the above and would appear to have imprisoned themselves by deference to the "alternative" media for the simple reason that it is marketed as such.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

By fashionable of course I mean faddy and not in the sense of "al la mode". In the same way as the previous poster for instance uses fashionable or faddy lanugaue or cliches, such as "wake up" and "open your eyes" etc.

Naturally those who entertain themselves with such conspiracy fads, gratify themselves with the false belief that those who do not believe such nonsense and are deferent to the power structure. This however couldn't be further from the truth.

The true skeptic, is skeptical of all information from all sources until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Information is not to be judged on how it fits in with a world view nor should it be used to define oneself. Either should it be believed or disbelieved because of consequences that may be inferred from it.

Unfortunately the previous poster seems guilty of all of the above and would appear to have imprisoned themselves by deference to the "alternative" media for the simple reason that it is marketed as such.

Seems like you have a problem with people feeling open-minded if it doesn't fit your own definition?

Its easy to compartmentalise people and create them in your mind as mentally deficient and mentally inferior to you to make you feel more secure about your own views.

Personally I think some people are unable to suspend disbelief to be able to look at the other side objectively.

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Seems like you have a problem with people feeling open-minded if it doesn't fit your own definition?

Its easy to compartmentalise people and create them in your mind as mentally deficient and mentally inferior to you to make you feel more secure about your own views.

Personally I think some people are unable to suspend disbelief to be able to look at the other side objectively.

I couldn't agree more with the points you made there BB.

Regarding your question though. I certainly have issue with people who like you say, feel open-minded. There's much more to having an open mind than feeling like you do. That is what is lacking, there's no proper analysis.

It's all very well to attack [insert evil empire/dictator here], but to be truly objective you must also look at it from the other side. From the side that sometimes may not seem particularly 'right-on', and therefore may come up with conclusions that at first might be un-palettable.

How many conspiracy bandwagon hoppers really do examine the argument from both sides? Can you truthfully say that you believe the hard-core conspiracy theorist really does look at a situation from the point of view of (for example) the Americian government or do they simple find an angle and shout it from the roof tops. My bet is it's the latter.

There seems very few who aren't polarized regarding the whole CT issue, but there does seem to be a belief that if you don't concur with a particular CT you are in some way a supporter of the status quo. Judging by the statistics in the OP I'd hazard a guess that there's not enough people actually questioning the CT's and that the CT is becoming the mainstream that goes unquestioned.

humanji

Guys, tone it down a little. Don't make this personal. It's too nice out for giving grief.

Penn

Results for 'cheese'

1/1/2006 - 1/1/2007 = 2,540,000
1/1/2007 - 1/1/2008 = 8,300,000
1/1/2008 - 1/1/2009 = 112,000,000
1/1/2009 - 1/1/2010 = 112,000,000
1/1/2009 - 20/04/2011 = 163,000,000

I think the real question here is, what happened in 2009? Did no new people suddenly decide they wanted to research cheese?

As studiorat said, the reason is simply because more and more people now have access to the internet. I'd be more surprised if you found something where the results didn't dramatically increase

PirateShampoo

3,560,000
3,100,000
40,600,000
47,800,000
116,000,000

Paris Hilton for the past 5 years. What did she do in 2006 for that massive result jump.


Oh wait...........