Google Wipes 'Spreading Santorum' from Top Search Results

After eight years, Rick Santorum may be getting rid of the 'Google problem' started as a prank by Dan Savage in 2003 which linked Santorum's name to a website offering a definition:

Splat_santorum"the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

The webpage, which appeared as the top search result when one Googled "Santorum", no longer appears in the top search results (although the blog, connected to the site currently ranks sixth), according to Savage.

This, of course, is what Rick Santorum asked Google to do months ago. Google told Santorum they couldn't, they told Santorum they wouldn't, because www.spreadingsantorum.com was the legit #1 search result when you Googled his last name. It wasn't a Google bomb, we weren't gaming Google's algoribbons or whatever. We were legit.

But tonight we're gone. I'm not too sad about it—hey, we had a good run!—but I am a little mystified. Why now? Was it intentional? Did Google cave to the pressure?

Unfortunately for Rick, the new top-ranking result is the Urban Dictionary's definition of the term, which Savage notes is even cruder. Savage launched the site after Santorum made remarks comparing homosexuality to "man on dog" sex.

It's unclear why the ranking has changed, and could be because of recent changes to Google's search algorithms. 'Spreading Santorum' still ranks in the top spots on Bing and Yahoo!

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Hey MIC you might learn to read. Not only am I not a shill for Santorum but have always voted against him. I am a lifelong liberal democrat who participated in civil rights demonstrations as far back as 1965. However, I do not abandon reason when I am discussing the important issues of the day. You seem to mistake civility for weakness. You really like calling people names: Pig, Moron, Shill, Troll Bitches. All in one little paragraph. Get a hold of yourself. Your bloodpressure is probably going through the roof.

    Posted by: jack | Feb 29, 2012 10:37:37 PM


  2. For the record: Dan Savage DID NOT come up with the fitting definition of santorum, His readers did. He, rightfully incensed by the frothy one's assertion that gay men are the equivalent of pedophiles, deviants, and men who have sex with dogs, put forth an invitation to his readers, many of whom are wait for it...straight, to redefine ricky's last name. The winning submission, by an overwhelming number of votes from the same readers, defines santorum as "the frothy mix..." which shall follow the scum bucket until the end of his days.
    Incidentally, Mary, you are delusional if you think swing voters a: would vote for the oh so extreme frothy and b: you think they don't already know about frothy"s "google problem." If they didn't know, it wouldn't be a problem!

    Posted by: Kenneth | Feb 29, 2012 11:02:44 PM


  3. I still see spreading Santorum on the first page if a little further down the page. The second item is the urban dictionary Santorum.

    Posted by: sara | Feb 29, 2012 11:24:29 PM


  4. Folks Keep "Goggling" Santorum, earlier this eve the Urban Dictionary was in 3rd Place it is now in Second place the first place is a chart of "presidential primary results" Whatever!!! KEEP GOGGLING!!!

    Posted by: aj | Feb 29, 2012 11:28:31 PM


  5. Oh, the things you miss by not looking at a post!

    I don't know if anyone has done an actual study on this particular issue, but I think a great many people think Santorum is a dangerous nut job. I don't think that many people who think he is a nut job have any problem with the definition of Santorum. Certainly, most of my straight friends think it's pretty funny. I just don't understand how this works as a negative and will produce a backlash, but then, I don't know anyone who doesn't think he is a nut job. Or who can't separate a juicy insult from from a deserving object. It's not the insult, it's the man, that shapes opinion.

    Posted by: TJ | Mar 1, 2012 1:07:28 AM


  6. TJ, I think Santorum is a "nut job". However, I think the whole discussion of the "frothy mix of lube and fecal matter as sometimes being the by-product of anal sex" makes all male gay sex seem disgusting.Because whether correct or not anal sex is associated almost exclusively with gay men. I wonder, if your straight friends think that some gay men are humping around in that "frothy mix" if they don't privately say to each other: thats disgusting.

    Posted by: jack | Mar 1, 2012 1:31:41 AM


  7. Dear JACK - there is ALWAYS the problem of the wet spot. Doesn't matter which sort of sex one is having. And if one has sex, no matter what sort of sex one has, some sort of mess is involved. People who have sex get the humor. In this case, the delight comes in making Rick sleep in a wet spot of his own making. He demonizes gay people. Therefore, the wet spot of gay anal sex gets to be his albatross.

    Posted by: TJ | Mar 1, 2012 1:50:18 AM


  8. Hey TJ my partner and I have been having all kind of sex for more years than I will admit. We always prepped for anal sex and in all our years of some pretty hot sex, we never have had a "frothy mix of lube and fecal matter". Just sayin.

    Posted by: jack | Mar 1, 2012 2:28:03 AM


  9. If we google spreadingsantorum.com we can bring it back.

    Posted by: Markus | Mar 1, 2012 3:09:39 AM


  10. You lose Markus. The adults are in charge now.You may want to go out and glitter him. You will be just as effective. Or you may want to do what adults do and register to vote and register all your neighbors, volunteer in a democratic candidates race and if you have a job contribute to a pac that supports democrats.

    Posted by: jack | Mar 1, 2012 3:30:49 AM


  11. Is my Google broken, or am I late to the party? The SpreadSantorum campaign is number one when I search for him? Hmm...

    Posted by: Cole | Mar 1, 2012 4:17:30 AM


  12. @Jason (aka mr seo) can you contact me please. oliveralexander at yahoo

    Posted by: Oliver | Mar 1, 2012 7:18:29 AM


  13. Not sure why any of you are wasting your keystrokes (and brain power) on Rick Santorum, he has about as much chance of becoming POTUS as I do.

    Posted by: Geoffrey | Mar 1, 2012 7:22:07 AM


  14. I just Googled it (3/1/12 4:22 a.m. Pacific) and spreading santorum was 2nd.

    Posted by: Gene | Mar 1, 2012 7:24:11 AM


  15. Mary: if Santorum becomes your President, then the rest of the world will gladly turns its collective back on you. We aren't interested in dealing with a bigoted religious crank. Sort it out yourselves and when you are ready to rejoin the human family of nations get back to us.

    Posted by: Perkin Warbeck | Mar 1, 2012 7:46:16 AM


  16. I'm in France and when you google "santorum," the Spreading Santorum site is the top site on the page. Oui!!!!!

    Posted by: michael | Mar 1, 2012 8:00:38 AM


  17. But JACK, it's just not as funny if it's too hygienic. But even if one doesn't get a wee bit of debris (and for some, achieving the clean wet spot involves a learning curve), sex is messy (if you do it right). For everyone, gay or straight. Not all girls swallow. And douching isn't just to get that "oh so fresh" feeling (see the great Joanne Woodward movie, "Rachel,Rachel"). Given Santorum's position on all sorts of sexual morality, one might consider also identifying him with the mess made during "period" sex.

    Okay, now I've gone too far.

    Posted by: TJ | Mar 1, 2012 3:02:53 PM


  18. Mary, you "love" santorum Politically?

    you love a man who is against higher-education, because it's easier to control uneducated dolts and keep them in lower-level positions so his Upper Class Cronies can continue to benefit?

    you love a man whose approach to his religion is truly no different than that Ayatollah Ks approach to Islam?

    What Savage did did not hurt the Gay Community, nor will it. What Santorum has done for close to 20 years has been devastating to the LGBT Communities.

    SpreadingSantorum? pointing out how disgusting it is that this grown man has spent nearly two decades vilifying, demonizing and spreading bigoted lies about LGBT people?

    you're more concerned about the SpreadingSantorum website than the sheer reality that Santorum wants to run a Catholic Country, and is clearly so committe to bigotry that he's willfully misunderstood JFK's landmark speech?

    you're a complete idiot.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Mar 1, 2012 3:15:18 PM


  19. "santorum" is not a problem for gay men. gay men know this.
    "santorum" is a problem for self-hating closeted men who dont' know how to prep because they only get their action in a CPAC washroom

    fact.

    :D

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Mar 1, 2012 3:18:41 PM


  20. Kiwi, as you can see I'm someone who started out anti-gay politically and has moved to a more pro-gay position politically. Although I'd still be called "homophobic" by most gay people's standards my views have "evolved" somewhat (I mean, I'm on Towleroad, aren't I?) So don't you think I know what it would take to make a neutral or anti-gay voter less hostile? I'm almost 51 and have been a poliitcal activist for 30 years. Also, the community I was raised in contains a lot of the former-urban ethnic Democrats turned independents who are just the type of swing voter Obama will need to win in November. A lot of these people are Catholic (not religious, but nominally Catholic.) Knowledge of the "spreading Santorum" website will cause Rick to get sympathy from them. You say this website hasn't hurt the gay community? Well Santorum hasn't run for president before, so there's no way to know. But take my word for it, most swing voters won't find this funny. Santorum will become, to them, a victim of the arrogant cultural Left. Dan Savage will be seen as the Jerry Rubin of 2012. This is not what the gay community needs. These voters are already dealing with the emotional change of seeing two men put rings on each other's fingers and take wedding vows publicly. Don't overwhelm them with unnnecessary attacks on their sensibilities.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again - Obama will need all the culture war tranquility you can give him if he's to get reelected. The political establishments of Washington state, Maryland, and New Jersey should have left marriage equality for next year and given public opinion another year to "catch up." But now all they'll do is assure a larger vote for whoever the Republicans nominate.

    Kiwi, you always say "fact." Well, here's a fact. In the past 50 years we have never seen a Republican presidential candidate defeated for being too far to the right culturally. Not one. Even Goldwater's loss, which occured nearly 50 years ago, was due to his economic views.

    Your best bet for neutralizing the opposition is to take the Jonathan Rauch approach. He's the one most responsible for the changes in my attitude toward gays, so I know what works and what doesn't. What people will tell pollsters isn't what they will necessarily do in the voting booth. Take my word for it, folks. Santorum is electable.

    Posted by: Mary | Mar 1, 2012 7:51:37 PM


  21. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #1073« «