Google Trends Beta

[K]

I think that I have detected a relationship between News Reference
Volume and Search Volume. My initial observation indicates that the
relation is too small to be statistically significant and that the
relation is inversely proportional!

[hoy...@telus.net]

Does this suggest that people search less for terms when they are being
talked about in other media?

[K]

Well, you would expect that more news coverage (particularly on the
web) will result in increased search, but my initial (unscientific)
observation indicate the opposite. The main thing, however, is to
establish that there is a significant relationship between search
volume and news volume!

[Barbiere di Siviglia]

Is it possible that the news media have been reporting on topics
people are not actually interested in?

Take say 'Global Warming, Terrorism'
This graph clearly shows that people (in the U.S.) are more
interested in global warming than terrorism. It also shows
that the corporate news media is clearly more interested
in terrorism.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=global+warming%2C+terrorism&ctab=0&geo=US&date=all

Does this indicate a democratic deficit between the corporate
news media and the informational desires of U.S. Citizens?

[Lizzi...@gmail.com]

I think maybe why the relation between News Reference Volume and Search
Volume is inversely proportional to some extent is due to the news
media.
That is to say, if the report of media is sufficient, thorough enough
as we, the readers want, we therefore needn't to search so much.

[john...@naturalhealthperspective.com]

The relationship between the two trends is clearly parallel because
"Search Volume" obviously includes "News Reference Volume."

See:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=hurricanes&ctab=1&geo=US&date=2005

Just about the only things posted on hurricanes are news stories and
when there is breaking news on them that motivates the public to search
on "hurricanes" in general.

[Barbiere di Siviglia]

> The relationship between the two trends is clearly parallel because
> "Search Volume" obviously includes "News Reference Volume."

> http://www.google.com/trends?q=hurricanes&ctab=1&geo=US&date=2005

I'm not sure this is the case: Isn't "News Reference Volume" the
ammount the word occurs in the Associated Press?

Take say Terrorism, Medicare.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=terrorism%2C+medicare&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all
What is the relationship between the top graph and the bottom graph?

[john...@naturalhealthperspective.com]

I will answer both THREADs in this reply.

"News Reference Volume" comes from searches in:
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=
Which is another way of saying from searches from Google's News
category.

"Search Volume" comes from searches in:
http://www.google.com/
Which is another way of saying from searches from Google's Web
category.

A web page is a web page. So, all 'NEWS' searches can just as well be
accessed when searched for under Google's Web category because a web
page is a web page.

So, why is a web page classified as a 'NEWS' web page? I would wager
that the criteria is frequency of update. Google updates some web
pages in their search engine by these update frequencies: immediately,
hourly, daily, and weekly. You can get this update information from
Google's Sitemap links.

Look at these 'NEWS' items:

Hurricanes, Storms Now A National Story
Bayou Buzz, LA - 13 hours ago

Weeks powers Hurricanes onslaught
Vicksburg Post, MS - 4 hours ago

Hurricanes 2001 draft evaluation
Hockey's Future - 1 hour ago

Notice how they point out how old the web page update is. The Yahoo and
MSN 'NEWS' search categories at their home page works basically the
same way.

How the 'Corporate News Media' manages to get Google to update their
web sites immediately and hourly, while the average web site has to
wait a month is another issue and is perhaps the question that you
should be asking.

[Barbiere di Siviglia]

You have some good points there, but you might check Google's
explanation again.

john...@naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:

> "News Reference Volume" comes from searches in:
> http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=
> Which is another way of saying from searches from Google's News
> category.

Here's what Google has to say:

http://www.google.com/trends/about.html#1
> Located just beneath our search-volume graph is our news-reference-volume graph.
> This graph shows you the number of times your topic appeared in Google News
> stories.

Back to the original question then: If "Big News" is really based
on democratic interest, shouldn't the search graph match up a
little better with the news-reference graph? How does a story
become "Big News"?

[john...@naturalhealthperspective.com]

???

Again, who is claiming that "Big News" is really based on democratic
interest?

"shouldn't the search graph match up a little better with the
news-reference graph?"

It does match up. News stories promotes searches in general on the
same general topic areas, because a lot of people are bored.

"How does a story become "Big News"?"

More people search on that news story than other stories. Notice how
stories are nothing but fairy tales?

[Barbiere di Siviglia]

So again, we agree: The media is not democratically controlled. We
agree
also that corporations control the media. We agree that advertisers
fund
the media.

I'd like to know then: Where does the corporate
media get the information for their news stories?

[elcalama...@gmail.com]

>...use a lot of people are bored.

>
> "How does a story become "Big News"?"
>
> More people search on that news story than other stories. Notice how
> stories are nothing but fairy tales?

it's called agenda setting. it should be learned at the primary school.
hi, btw.

[john...@naturalhealthperspective.com]

The only agenda that a business has is to make money (for their
stockholders). They don't have time for hidden agendas.

The ONLY people capable of hidden agenda's are not-for profit
organizations and academic institutions. These organizations exist for
the benefit of the their employees. For instance, these organizations
appear on the surface to benefit charities, but all that they are
ultimately interested in is making enough money to pay their employees
very well. The list of these organizations goes on for ever, from
Goodwill, to food banks, and to blood banks. Thus, the biggest hidden
agenda for not for profit agencies is doing what ever it takes to make
money for their upper level employees. They will use any excuse to
collect money from the public.

Academics once they have achieved tenure no longer worry about making
money. They eventually get bored. And, to keep from going crazy or
perhaps in the process of going crazy they push a liberal agenda. They
also like to play power games.

Unfortunately, really big commercial companies like ENRON are now
taking on the characteristics of NOT-for-profit organizations. These
people want to make money for their CEOs and the highest levels of
management and to hell with the shareholders.

[elcalama...@gmail.com]

i agree with you [sic] in the point that (upon a certain size) NGOs
assume a corporation logic. Okay, academics and charity volunteers are
ALSO to blame. But that won't exonerate big corporations. They play a
dirty game.

But please: what a about public opinion and voters? Media corporations
have also their shareholders, and those shareholders have businesess,
and the profits of some bushnesess depend on how voters (i.e.,
consumers) behave.

I'm not talking ONLY about advertisement, i'm speaking of PROPAGANDA.
There are not only news and facts. It is a also a question of values
and attitudes. Of shaping flock behavior. Of telling people what and
how to think. Of doing terrible things in the name of that things
alledgelly in the mind of people (and maybe we are worried about XYZ,
but would be if someone previously hadn't told us to think about it?)

[john...@naturalhealthperspective.com]

elcalama...@gmail.com wrote:

In the states, there is a late night radio show called coast-to-coast.
And, its most famous radio talk show host is Art Bell. Coast-to-coast
talks about UFO's, Ghosts, Remote Viewing, Astrology, and conspiracy
theories.

According to popular opinion, Art Bell is on the same level as God.
Personally, I think Bell is a total fraud who gives me the creeps.
IMHO, Art Bell is in on it only for the money. Bell uses everybody,
especially coast-to-coast who appears more than willing to put up with
all of Bell's disruptive antics. Bell is basically a lazy good for
nothing who wants to work as little as possible. He was supposedly in
love with his late wife. But, immediately upon her death he runs off.
Marries a new wife. And, moves to the Philippines.

Art Bell previously totally destroyed the career of a female radio talk
show host that replaced him, when he had quit coast-to-coast. She was
the genuine article. She believed in what she was talking about. When
Art Bell came back to work, the network let the female host go. This
actually happened twice!!! First, Art claimed that people were trying
to kill him. The second time, he only wanted to work on the weekends.
Bell is nothing but a fraud, with an impressive radio voice. Art has
been jerking the public and coast-to-coast around for years, all to see
just how much abuse these people will put up with.

So, it has been months and months without any Art Bell on the air,
because they had to build a radio station in Bell's new home in the
Philippines. They just played some of his old broadcasts on the
weekends. Mark my words, it will only be a matter of time before Bell
finds another reason not to show up for work. The idiot will probably
end up getting divorced from his new honey. And, coast-to-coast will
only be too glad to build another radio station for Art, all for his
ratings and making money.

Anybody, who takes remote viewing seriously is a total fool. The
public is fickled. And, as somebody once said: Are nothing but
suckers waiting to taken advantage of.

There is no need for your above conspiracy theory. The problem is a
lot more simple than you have suggested.

[Barbiere di Siviglia]

Are we to assume then that business is incapable of having an agenda
and that they only have benign intentions?

[john...@naturalhealthperspective.com]

Barbiere di Siviglia wrote:
> Are we to assume then that business is incapable of having an agenda
> and that they only have benign intentions?

agenda = make money

benign intentions = For the 3rd time, first tell who says that they
have benign intentions?

[James Nichole]

Hello John,

Hope you can help me out.

Say, the search query is seo, ppc, seo, seo. Obviously, the search volume for all the seo should be same.. But what I find is the search volume for seo, seo is same but not for seo. Why is this???

Besides this, I have got one more doubt. Lets take SEO as the search query and the result obtained is someting like this.

Shibuya, Japan
Delhi, India
New Delhi, India
Chennai, India
Prague, Czech Republic
Chiyoda, Japan
Osaka, Japan
Tokyo, Japan
Mumbai, India
San Diego, CA, USA

The report is for all regions. If the region is selected as Japan, then obviously
Shibuya, Japan
Chiyoda , Japan
Osaka, Japan
Tokyo, Japan
should take the place.

But what here happens is

Shibuya
Meguro instead Chiyoda
Hodogaya instead Osaka
Kita instead Tokyo
Chiyoda
Kobe and ..

Awaiting your reply.

Thanks and Regards,
James

[James Nichole]

Hello John,

Hope you can help me out.

Say, the search query is seo, ppc, seo, seo. Obviously, the search volume for all the seo should be same.. But what I find is, the search volume for seo, seo is same but not for seo. Why is this???

[Barbiere di Siviglia]

> Say, the search query is seo, ppc, seo, seo. Obviously, the search volume
> for all the seo should be same..

Please explain for those reading at home who may not know: What is
"seo, ppc, seo, seo" and why should they all have the same query volume?

[Barbiere di Siviglia]

john...@naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:
> agenda = make money
>
> benign intentions = For the 3rd time, first tell who says that they
> have benign intentions?

Excellent -- so again we agree -- The six media giants (who own and
control virtually every other media company) have one primary intent --
to extract money -- an intent that is not benign. It seems we also
agree that this intent manifests itself in quite a bit less than "fair
and balanced" reporting -- what you called "propaganda" (in a rather
well constructed post, I might add).

http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Labs-Trends/tree/browse_frm/thread/f481d937b693b351/e07bc044fd44e6c3?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2FGoogle-Labs-Trends%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Ff481d937b693b351%2F%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_e07bc044fd44e6c3

The real question is this: Should citizens of a democratic society be
at all concerned with this issue?