"Show Me Your Work," Filthy-Mouthed Liberals Politely Demand

So that thing about filthy-mouthed liberals?  Something seemed—I don't know—off about those numbers.  Quick exercise: I'm from the South.  I know what patriotic Americans sound like after church on Sundays when, for example, someone scores on 'dem Saints.  I also know many people in the service.  I've driven hours into the desert to hang out with them as they passed through Fort Irwin.  And you know what?  Those guys who used "fucking" as an adverb in high school?  They're still fucking awesome. 

So I re-ran Patrick Ishmael's experiment using his instructions:

How did I get this result? I searched Google using the following format and recorded the page results that were returned:

site:xyz.com "search term 1" OR "search term 2" OR "search term 3"...

Nine search terms total—the seven profanities as single words, and two of those as their own two-word variations. I then added the individual site results together and compared them.

Some of his results are, shall we say, a little misleading.  Just so you don't think I'm inventing this, I'm going to link to the very searches he claimed to do.  Here's his entry for Daily Kos:

Daily Kos 146,000

I'm not sure where that number came from, because when you do the search he claimed he had, these are the results:

Daily Kos 9,960

Don't believe me?  Click on the link.  Where did those other 136,000 or so instances come from?  I'm not sure.  But I think I've figured out why the Huffington Post came across so salty.  His number's on top; mine, complete with link to his search, on the bottom:

Huffington Post 109,000
Huffington Post 10,600

Throw in a little Google invariability, and what you have here is a simple transcription error.  Wonkette, on the other hand:

Wonkette 78,200
Wonkette 3,960

The only major error of this sort I found on his list of conservative sites was Ace of Spades,  who ain't quite as profane as Ishmael estimated:

Ace of Spades 9,730
Ace of Spades 7,480

Now,  I don't necessarily believe my numbers are correct.  But I do know that his numbers should be similar (considering the inevitable Google waggle) to mine, since I used his methodology.  But some of them aren't even close.  I wonder why that is?

[Those interested in witnessing counter-counter-methodology slams are encouraged to check the comments.  Also, I'm more than willing to be wrong about this, as Ishmael's numbers jibe with my intuitive sense on the matter.]

Comments

[Rich Puchalsky]

"suddenly, it occurs to her to speak to this "Resident" Bush in a language he can understand."

Funny -- to my knowledge, I made up (or independently re-made-up) -- the "Resident" Bush slur. It was right after the 2000 election, and I decided to make a deliberate attempt to use my vituperation powers in the cause of good. I used it in some comment boxes or other, and people started repeating it.

For a few months in 2000, it was new.

[Tyler]

Your way off, man. Way off.

[Tyler]

Your way off, man. Way off.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Maybe, but at least I can spell. Snap!

[David R. Block]

Sometimes Google will also show a page multiple times if someone goes off on a screed and uses the same word a lot.

There is a search algorithm at the office that does matching on addresses (we track escrow and property taxes). Sometimes the results are downright strange. It's not an exact science, and folks shouldn't get all worked up about it.

That being said, there's more heat than light made in doing this.