Quantcast

«

»

Jan 07 2009

Page One?

I had, long ago, noted that when one googles “cuttlefish”, among the top returns is the creationist apologetics site “answers in genitals” (or something close to that, anyway). This loathsome bit of tripe is on the very first page, while at the time of my original writing, I think yours truly was on page 6, if that.

A couple of weeks ago, I noticed that “The Digital Cuttlefish” had managed to claw… er, jet… its way to the bottom of page one! Very nice indeed, even if still below AIG. Thought I, “probably not that easy to just… move up a google page so quickly.”

Then came XKCD.

One cuttlefish comic, and XKCD is the third cuttlefish link (not counting image results), and your humble correspondent is back on page two.

Now, I have no problems with XKCD being way up there. What I have a problem with is Answers In Genitals being on page one still! And now, I know that there is a way (at least in theory) of getting a site bumped up in a relatively short time. Mind you, I don’t know what that way is, other than to be XKCD, but perhaps one or more of you do know. Do I ask PZ to ask his hordes to pharyngulink The Digital Cuttlefish? Do I offer a fatted calf to the people at Google? Do I start drawing stick-figure comics on romance, sarcasm, math, and language?

I really, really, really don’t like the idea of someone looking for information on cuttlefish, and coming up with the “fact” that they were intelligently designed to be a delicious “seafood delicacy”. Despite, apparently, not being kosher. There are many sites (not just mine) that are much better answers for google to return (I am happy to see that the NOVA program and TONMO are both ahead of AIG).

Anyway, a reposting of my first reaction to AIG’s silly creationism…

Similarity shows that a common designer
With similar blueprints and parts
Constructed the human and cuttlefish forms—
I swear by all three of your hearts.

The God who created the heavens and earth
And killed dinosaurs off in The Flood
Used the same old ideas again and again
You can tell by your copper-green blood.

But the clearest, most obvious clue to His Touch
Is the similar form to our eye
(They are really quite different, in various ways,
But if you won’t tell, neither will I).

Color-blind cuttlefish never see red
But they can see polarized light;
This common designer gets different effects
Out of human and cuttlefish sight.

Anatomically, too, these are two different eyes
They have retinas frontward-to-back,
And cuttlefish reshape the whole of their eye
Because shapeable lenses they lack.

The shape of the pupil allows them to see
To the front and the rear all at once
So similar, clearly, to what we can do—
If you dare disagree, you’re a dunce!

When Answers in Genesis says it’s design
And not just a matter of fitness
I know they’re not fibbing—right there, number nine—
Thou shalt not bear false witness.

I only have one little, lingering doubt
Though I really, I promise, am trying—
If it’s perfectly clear they see common design
It’s even more clear that they’re lying.

6 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    The Man Version

    Hi DC,When you get a minute, check out skeptools.com. The owner of that site, Tim Farley, was instrumental when the original Stop Sylvia Browne web site got snatched by a muffinhead, while the original owner was recovering from a stroke.Since then, the original site switched to StopSylvia.com and is back up to #3 on page 1 when you Google Sylvia Browne.Anyway, everything you need to know is on skeptools.com. Your loyal cuttlephiles will help any way we can. (Hell, I’d do anything to attack AnswersInGarbage regardless of other bonuses :) )

  2. 2
    Cuttlefish

    Thanks, TMV!Just started reading, and already am very impressed at the amount, and the pragmatic usefulness, of the information at that site!(e.g., the "long tail"… I do see that I already come up fairly high on searches for estro-blaster and enzyte, just because my verses on those two happen to have enjoyed their 15 minutes of popularity.)So, I guess I want (among other things) to simply ask people to make sure they link my site to the word "cuttlefish", and to get their friends and other sites to do the same. {a href="http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com"}cuttlefish{/a}, but with angle brackets instead of { }.I must say, it is quite strange, being simultaneously an anonymous entity and now a self-publicizing one. But AIG being an apparent source of legitimate information? That cannot stand.Thanks again, TMV, and thanks for the word "cuttlephiles"… it warmed all three of my hearts. Let's just hope you are right!

  3. 3
    Cuttlefish

    great. The end of the html gets cut off and can't be read. after "cuttlefish", there is an additional {/a} (again, though, with angle brackets instead of { }.

  4. 4
    Eric Jones

    If you want to keep track of your Google ratings, but don’t want to obsessively Google yourself you can set up a Google Alert that will email you any updates on a particular search, as it happens, daily or weekly. I’ll link to you right now on my blog if that helps any.

  5. 5
    sinned34

    Well, Google Canada makes me little prouder to be north of the 49th! When I searched “cuttlefish” on it, the main page is all science sites like Nova and The Nature Of Things (topped off, of course, by Wikipedia). AIG doesn’t show up until page three, and only manages two spots above The Digital One!All is not lost!

  6. 6
    Johnny Vector

    Well I’ve had you on my blogroll for a long time, for whatever good that does (approximately none). I’m sure my site rank would go way up if I put a link from my work site to my home site (work being a certain well-known space agency that shall remain nameless). But they kinda frown on that. Work I mean, not Google. BTW, once again your prose equals your verse in greatness. Are you sure you’re not Joss Whedon?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>