Santorum's Google Problem About Relevance, Not Homosexuality

COMMENTARY | Remove the vulgarity and anti- and pro-gay agenda out of the mix and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's ″Google problem″ shows itself to be what it really is: our problem.

To recap, the Republican presidential candidate made ultra-right-wing statements in 2003 about homosexuality, sex acts and government regulation during an Associated Press interview that were so extreme it caused an AP reporter to say, ″I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.″

Enter LGBT activist and columnist Dan Savage, who in response formed a lewd definition for the senator's last name: one that currently tops the search listing on Google and one which Santorum has asked the company to remove, to no avail, according to CNN.

Many new media outlets have curated the narrative of Santorum versus Google, with most references defending the latter. Even search engine expert Danny Sullivan has joined the fray, deeming Savage's definition ″relevant,″ per the Huffington Post.

Why Google is wrong

It is ironic to see Sullivan and others come to Google's defense quite so readily. Remember the Google Panda update? It was embraced by the Silicon Valley elite as a way not only to stomp on Demand Media (i.e. remove top-ranked eHow listings) but to improve the search experience and penalize low-quality, marginally relevant results.

Does anyone in mainstream America really believe that Savage's offensive neologism -- complete with illustration and including the word ″frothy″ as adjective to a sexual byproduct -- is relevant to voters in this political season, beyond a mere five minutes of consideration, if that?

Santorum, the senator, has enough name recognition with the general public that a last name search warrants mutual respect seen with other politicians; that of favoring usable information.

In defense of search

Google search engine listings are based on algorithms, as we know. Santorum, the politician, hasn't been particularly viral beyond certain niches nor as engaged in social media as Savage. In this respect, the columnist earned his website ranking by its popularity and savvy optimization methods.

If and when Santorum, who struggles with name identification, drops out of mainstream politics, then the search engine ranking cards should fall where they may.

Google, not sex, needs regulation

Mark Tatge, a professor of journalism at DePauw University in Indiana, tells The Christian Science Monitor that "Google has gotten too big" and "the playing field needs to be leveled in some way."

He is not alone in his beliefs that regulation, akin to that implemented for public utilities, for example, is warranted concerning the search leader.

Meanwhile, maybe it is time for a Santorum Spring to deal with the Google problem. For starters, one can use froth-free Blekko, the one search engine that seems to understand the meaning of the word relevance.