Everyone But You

Now, I don't want to say, "I told you so," but sometimes I like to. I'm not going to harp on this one, as this blog isn't supposed to be an ode to Howard Stern, but in case you missed my last post about this same topic, I'm just using today's post to basically write into law one of my long running theories.  Here's the theory once more and I promise not to speak about it again: “Guests on Howard Stern's show, especially if they are a more “B-list” celebrity, ALWAYS appear in Hot Trends at some point on the day of their appearance.” Write it down and take it to the bank. Need more proof? How about today? Natalie Maines and Diana Degarmo are both in Google Hot Trends. Diana Degarmo is the hottest search out there. What gives? A dream duet for pop/country radio? (PS: to all my fans from the Phish post a while back, it's not my dream, so spare the comments. Just a figure of speech. You had your moment. Get your own blog.)    Are we witnessing the creation of an uber-talent to stand up to that Carrie Underwood girl? Nope, they were both part of Howard's show today. Plain and simple. I've create a new law. I'm practically Sir Isaac Newton. Sir Jonathan...yeah, that's it...I like it.

Showing up on Google Trends today are three celebrities that would leave even an expert at the Kevin Bacon game hard pressed to figure out the connection. But, only here, will you find out the answer. So, what's the connection between Paul Mooney, Tracy Morgan, and Artie Lange. Why are they all showing up now? Simple, and I've talked about this before, so you should all know better by now. The connection is Howard Stern. I've written a few times in the past about the Howard Stern Connection including posts about Lisa Rinna and Nicky Barnes, Buddy Hackett, and Richard Lewis. My regular readers should be familiar with my theory about Howard that I've mentioned a few times: "After carefully watching Google Hot Trends for months, I’ve noticed that guests on Howard’s show, especially if they are a more “B-list” celebrity, ALWAYS appear in Hot Trends at some point in the day.” In fact, this became was such a common thing that I stopped writing about it because it was so predictable. I could have written about this every day.  So, why am I writing about it today? Well, it seems a few weeks ago someone from the LA Times wrote an article about how Stern had basically lost all his influence in the media since moving to satellite radio and that no one really paid much attention to anything he's up to. The author says that this means he's been getting fewer, if any, "A-list" celebrities and has far fewer listeners than ever. It all amounts to, so says the author, the waining career and influence of Stern. I'll challenge this simple based on Google Trends activity. Obviously, Stern has quite a bit of influence since guests from his show frequently become the top search terms that pop up in Hot Trends. Just for a recap, here's how Google Trends works according to Google themselves: "Rather than showing the most popular searches overall, which would always be generic terms like 'weather,' Hot Trends highlights searches that experience sudden surges in popularity, and updates that information hourly. Our algorithm analyzes millions of web searches performed on Google and displays those searches that deviate the most from their historic traffic pattern." What you can take from this then is that Howard Stern's activities (namely his show) are what drive the largest jumps in search traffic. These jumps are on par with the Today Show, which also frequently has items from its segments pop up in Google Trends (like this one I wrote about). Which is more culturally relevant then? The Today Show or Stern? Both have about the same number of weekly listeners/viewers, as best I can figure, and both influence Google Trends, but who'd argue that the Today Show has no influence on Americans or the media? It's a little hard for some to believe that Stern is still popular. The Howard Stern Connection even tripped up normally reliable TechCrunch who was reporting on the flaws of Google Trends without considering Howard only to be corrected by a reader. So before counting out the self-proclaimed King of All Media, show me someone else who can impact Internet search volume so dramatically and so quickly. Next time Howard's got a guest, check out Google Trends so you can witness my theory in action (perhaps it's now a law and not a theory).

Great news for all you Phish fans out there. Apparently, the band's getting back together. This news has dominated Google Trends, including the top 3 searches. Nevermind the financial crisis, so long as

 

 

 

Phish are getting back together everything's fine. 

Yep, a Phish reunion has to tell you that all is right in the world. When there's a band that can "jam" for 30 to 45 minutes on a single part of a single song and it doesn't cause the audience to walk out, you know everything's good and the world's judgment is sound. For the record, their longest single-song jam was 59 minutes. An hour listening to the same song. My question? Did anyone there even notice? For my part, I don't get it. I hate Phish, the Grateful Dead (hey, if they want it so bad, who's stopping them?), and, Dave Matthews, Pink Floyd. Not that they are all the same (except Phish and Grateful Dead...if they were around at the same time, you'd have to wonder why you never saw them in the same place at the same time), but they have one thing in common. When I mention that I can't stand these bands I am greeted with utter confusion from a lot of people. I appreciate this, it allows me to immediately discount them as having any rational thought from that point forward. It's a useful screening tool. The Pink Floyd hatred is the one that the most people have trouble with. How can I not like Pink Floyd? Well, I just have a problem with any band that has to have a bunch of completely unrelated sound effects seemingly in  every song. The thing that kills me most about Pink Floyd fans is their obsession with telling everyone who will listen that Dark Side of the Moon album was completely done as a soundtrack to the Wizard of Oz. Clearly. I mean just look at this second by second review for the song "Money" by one Floyd fan: 20:46: "Money, get back" is heard as Dorothy turns her back to the camera and the munchkins peer out from the bushes and hide as Dorothy turns again. 21:02: The bubble carrying Glinda the Good Witch appears during the line "Don't give me that do goody good bullshit." She materializes just after the line "I'm in the hi-fidelity first-class travelling set". 22:04: Glinda appears to be playing air guitar with her wand. She moves her fingers on the wand as though it were a fretboard. Now, if that's not definitive, I don't know what is. See for yourself.

I still don't get it. If you doubt for a single second that someone came up with concept this while completely sober and not on any drugs (including, but not limited to: pot, LSD, hashish, peyote, shrooms, meth, heroin, crack, Ecstasy, rohypnol, anything in the glue family, or just good old booze), you need to reexamine your life. So, congrats to Phish on their reunion. I guess they checked all the places they keep their weed and figured out that it's all gone and they need some cash. For my part, this is still a fish:

Sadly, actor Paul Newman passed away today at the age of 83, but this post isn't about him because apparently, there's something more important on people's minds. The Presidential debates, you ask? Nope. Worldwide financial crisis? Sorry, no. Everyone's really worried about and needs to know more about the Death of a Cheerleader. That's right...that's what everyone's searching for...a Lifetime made for TV movie. Is it any wonder that a bunch of people just realized in the past year that they can't pay their $4,000 a month mortgage on their $25,000 a year salary? Death of a Cheerleader, folks. That's all I'm saying. In Google Hot Trends are "Death of a Cheerleader," "Angela Delvecchio," and "Bernadette Protti." All are related to this Lifetime movie. And, to be sure, I'm talking about a movie from 1994 that was made for TV and, wait for it...stars Tori Spelling. The best part of this Google Trends showing is that Tori didn't make it into the top 10. Perhaps people don't care about her as much as she thinks. Imagine that. Why people would care about the ugly girl on Beverly Hills 90210 is beyond me, so she shouldn't be shocked. I mean, just look at her in that promo photo...what talent. What talent. What bothers me most about this all being on Google Trends is that there is more interest in this absurd movie (having never seen it, but applying a small amount of basic common sense and past knowledge) than there is interest in Paul Newman dying. "Paul Newman Cancer" is, of course related, and so is "Joanne Woodward," Paul's widow. No one searching just for Paul Newman. What's wrong with you people? I mean just consider for a minute every movie he's been a part of. Why write this post? I'm really concerned. Really people. Death of a Cheerleader? You're searching for Death of a Cheerleader? Anything better to do? You just burned 2 hours of your life watching the movie, but now you want to spend even more time by searching for more information about it. Was Tori not educational enough? Was the script about a real-life story somehow not true enough to the facts to simply allow you to change the channel and never think about it again? Lifetime...the History Channel it ain't.

I know a conspiracy when I see one. Curious that today, "Google Browser Download Chrome" in all its grammatical horror is one of the top searched terms today on Google Trends. Interesting that Google is releasing the new browser today and, get this, they also control Google Trends. Could this possibly all be on the up and up or another manipulation of Google Trends this time from the inside? True, Google is releasing their new browser today. But, shockingly, people care and people that search on Google are looking for it. It's all a bit too "cozy" for my taste. You can get the new browser here, but just know that it's not available until at least 2pm EDT. Until then, you can be annoyed by following the link and finding yourself right back at the Google homepage (as I did 8 times). Good fun. Assuming this isn't a conspiracy, and I'll give Google the benefit of the doubt for a minute, let's look at their true intentions. If they're releasing a new product, then they must not be making enough money with search. So, in an effort to save Google, please download Chrome today. Think of it like this past weekend's Jerry Lewis telethon. Surely, Google needs all the help it can get. So, get online and save the search behemoth before it has to buy another YouTube for $1.65 B just to make ends meet and we risk losing our favorite search engine.

UPDATE: February 5, 2009: If you have found this site as part of work you are doing in school, welcome. As you can see from the comments, you are not alone. To show my appreciation for your visit, simply leave me a comment with the name of your school and I'll proudly display it right on this blog's homepage. If you've got a link to an image of a school logo, leave that too. Won't that blow your teachers' minds?

Fair readers, we are facing another mystery of Google Trends today that I'll need your help to solve again. The same mystery presented itself yesterday, but I was too lazy to attempt to find a solution so I just hoped that it would all go away. The ostrich approach...it's gotten me this far in life. However, when the same things showed up again today, I had to act. So, I'm looking for someone to explain to me why the following terms are on Google Trends today (and yesterday): "jam or jelly," "movies and advertising," "president clinton and foreign policy," and "orchids and growing or planting." Yes, they all have something in common. I've at least figured that part out. This website goes through a long (and simple) description of how Boolean Operators work. It uses a number of example to explain how different search terms might yield different results and what the different between "and" and "or" is for a search engine. All of the terms I listed are included as examples on this site. Mysteriously, a few others that are used on the site are not included in Google Trends. I can find nothing that indicates why people would be searching for different types of Boolean searches. No one seems to have answer or they're choosing to ignore it like I did yesterday. Like many things in my life, I can't just let it go. My one theory...the Google "machine" is still fuzzy on how all these search term operators work and so it is searching itself to figure out what its supposed to return for results. It's possible. Unfortunately, it's not likely, so I'll extend my usual offer. If you can solve the mystery, I'll donate $5 to the charity of your choice. Just leave a comment with the answer. We recently handed out some money when someone solved the French Vanilla and Wigeon mystery.  So, I'm good for the money. This one is killing me. Speak up, oh great keepers of the Internets. UPDATE: August 28, 12:45 PM These terms are still mocking me. After disappearing from the Google Trends Top 100 yesterday evening, they've all come back. "Movies and Advertising" is back up to number 15. This is what the search volume chart that Google supplies looks like. You can see it being popular yestday, disappearing, and now showing up again.

Well, I thought I'd seen it all on Google Trends. I also counted on the Olympics to give me some quality material to work with, but it's been pretty boring and predictable...until today. I looked up what all the excitement was about Spain's Synchronized Swimmers and found out their almost unbelievable plan. You might assume that there's nothing funny about synchronized swimming. Let's review... And this...

Nothing yet? How about this? See what I mean? Now, picture this. The Spanish synchronized swimming team has devised a way to stand out from the competition that no one's considered before. Yes, they're doing far more than corpse-like pancake makeup and enough sequins to choke Liberace. Child's play. Their brilliant idea is to use illuminated costumes for their next routine. I don't mean illuminated as in helping someone understand. I mean as in to decorate with lights. Not things like lights, actual lights. Now, for those paying attention, what do lights traditionally need to work? Correct! Electricity. Wait, I've got one more for you. What doesn't mix well with electricity and is somewhat critical to the sport of swimming? By now, you've put it all together. They are planning to wear costumes with actual lights. Relax though, they are battery-powered. What's more amazing besides the complete lack of understanding of basic electric safety is that someone has to investigate to see if this is legal. And, get this, there's actually a governing body for just this purpose: FINA (Fédération Internationale de Natation...cool accents). FINA: Water is Our World...as long as you aren't living in the Northern Hemisphere, Europe or Asia. What's with the position of the stars anyway? Andrea Fuentes is one of the Spanish Swimmers who wants to wear the costumes. She explained the situation with FINA: "Their excuse is that you cannot use accessories, but this is not an accessory because otherwise sequins would be an accessory too." So, heaven knows that without sequins, this sport is basically doomed, so they really have to approve of the lights. She added (seriously, I'm not making these up): "It is too innovative for such a conservative sport." Who knew synchronized swimming was so conservative? Incidentally, several other innovative ideas in other sports were proposed by forward-thinking athletes this week at the Olympics. Each is still under consideration:

• Live human targets for the javelin
• Rabid Grizzly Bears "motivating" marathon runners
• Combining Archery and Soccer at a single location at the same time
• Concrete "landing zones" for platform diving
• Obstacles (tiger pits, swinging wrecking balls, etc.) for the floor exercise

No word one when these might be approved.

After this week's revelation that Bigfoot has been found, the men who found him decided to push their luck with a press conference. At that press conference, they promised to show DNA evidence and other pictures that prove they've got the real thing. The conference is happening right now (how's that for up to date journalism?). So, everyone is searching for "Bigfoot Press Conference" to see if they can find out what happened. For my part, I'm amused by the mere thought of this and glad that someone has used the power of Photoshop and the magical distribution network that is the Internet to ensure that I got to see this picture. Hats off to these guys for supplying. Yep, gotta love the Internet. Once this conference is over, I'll be sure to post what they had to say. It ought to be good. Double take on that press conference picture above and now I notice that the Montauk Monster is waiting for his turn too.

Good news, there's not one, but two Bigfoot references on Google Hot Trends. It's been a busy month for monster rumor on Google. More of that in a minute. Naturally, I picked the "Bigfoot Georgia" term for this article because it's just got to be funnier to include stuff about Georgia. So, bottom line is that Bigfoot has been found. No word on Jimmy Hoffa or Emilia Earhart though. Sadly, Bigfoot wasn't found alive. He'd likely make a great dinner guest, but it's not to be this time. If you're a skeptic like me, then you probably want to see a convincing photograph. Well, here it is.

Oh yes, the image is copyrighted in case you didn't notice. Thanks for the subtlety. In any event, there he is. No wonder these things are scarce. How long could they possibly live with their insides on the outside? Now, I know what you're thinking...this might, just might, be a gorilla suit. To that, I say you're crazy. The Bigfoot in the freezer doesn't at all have the exact face that you've seen in every single movie that uses a Gorilla suit as a plot device (all classics I might add). Clearly, it can't be a Gorilla suit because the fur is reddish-brown. Apparently, this particular found Bigfoot was the red-bodied stepchild. They are frighteningly similar to us...even their social norms match ours. They must be gentle creatures. There have to be some jokes about why Bigfoot would be found in Georgia. There are far too many to list here and the vast selection is making it hard for me to commit to one. So, if you've got a joke feel free to post it. It's been a busy month for Google Trends and monsters. Last week it was the Montauk Monster, which may or may not be a raccoon, animal research project gone awry, a turtle without a shell, or a viral marketing campaign for a movie I won't mention here so as to stop the virus one blog at a time. Yesterday, it was the chupucabra, which was featured on CNN (so it must be true). To me, it's a really ugly dog, but what do I know? You can decide for yourself. And since when wouldn't a Texas deputy shoot any mysterious animal like this? What's this world coming to? Of note, Wikipedia, showing off the "wisdom of crowds" once again, has this as the image for a chupacabra. Hmmm, seems like there's a little discrepancy as to what these things are. Of course, since they aren't real, don't lose any sleep over it. So, what monster is next on Google Trends? I think they come in threes like celebrity deaths, so this Bigfoot sighting would round out the three leaving us with nothing for a while. Too bad. I was just getting used to the idea that I shared the earth with several Hell creatures.

One of the remarkable things I've noticed about Google Hot Trends over the past few months is its ability to tell you everything about a breaking story without the need to look elsewhere. Take a look at what's in there right now and see if you can piece it together: Morgan Freeman, Morgan Freeman Car Accident, Ground Zero Blues Club, 1997 Nissan Maxima, and Jaws of Life. Figure it out, Sherlock? This goes to my theory that people have to search for related terms when trying to figure something out. They can't just read one article and feel like they've got the whole picture. Instead, they have to look up each of the things they read in the article. It's a free Internet, so I suppose they're entitled, but come on...do you really have to search for "1997 Nissan Maxima?" Is knowing what this looks like or what it is really helping your understanding of the story? In case it does, here you go...I hope you can follow what I'm saying better now. Yep...that helped me. At least when "1967 Fiat BTM" was in Google Trends after Jerry Seinfeld's accident, there was a reason why people might search for it. You've likely never seen one and you probably have never even heard of it, but a 1997 Nissan Maxima? They made 5 million of these things...how come you're the only one who hasn't seen one? Getting back to our blog...watch me tell the story of what happened to some person in some situation using only Google Trends and these terms: Morgan Freeman, Morgan Freeman Car Accident, Ground Zero Blues Club, 1997 Nissan Maxima, and Jaws of Life. Morgan Freeman, who happens to own Ground Zero Blues Club, was in a car accident, requiring the use of the Jaws of Life to extract him, while driving in a 1997 Nissan Maxima. Ta dah! No reason to read TMZ's story...it's all right here. If you can only look at one site in the world and figure out what's happening, go to Google Trends. It ought to have its own TV show (and people ought to have a limited number of searches they are allowed to make each day). Update: 3:43 PM It should come as a relief to many of you that Morgan Freeman is now "lucid." What shouldn't come as a relief is how many people don't know what "lucid" means.