c4countdown

If you Google your name, then how far do you come up as?

Searches for your name do not count.

I am ninth with a Tweet to Martin Brundle... of which I got no reply.
I am also tenth with my endless comments on the top 4 large players on Apterous.

Where are you?

I also clicked "images" and my Twitter profile picture came up third and 23rd.
My Facebook image came up 24th.

As Jennifer Steadman: 3rd (Facebook), 4th (Google+) and 7th (Twitter). Imageswise, 6th (old Twitter picture) and 14th (blog).
As Jen Steadman: 3rd (Google+), 4th (Google+ again), 5th (Formspring, even though I deleted my account on there), 6th (Twitter). Images: 8th (my Apterous ratings graph ), 12th (blog), 13th (from the Facebook group 'I have bantered with Jen Steadman and survived'), 14th (old Twitter picture), 17th (another Apto graph) and 18th (LinkedIn). Lots of other ones further down but I think that's enough for now.

Some other Jennifer Steadman is clearly a massive fan of Michael Bolton as her account on his official forum shows up in search. But it's not me.

45th! My countdown wiki page, fwiw. That's what I get for having a common name. I'm nowhere in the top 500 on google images, though I did stumble across this guy who looks suspiciously familiar...

Searching for Benjemin Wilson is even worse, I'm outside the top 100 in google, but when I whack some quotation marks around it (and confirm that I'm not looking for "Benjamin Wilson") my facebook page comes up 2nd, my old creative writing portfolio comes up 4th and some scrabble forum posts come in the top 10. On images, my facebook logo comes up 18th.

Ben Wilson wrote:Searching for Benjemin Wilson is even worse, I'm outside the top 100 in google, but when I whack some quotation marks around it (and confirm that I'm not looking for "Benjamin Wilson") my facebook page comes up 2nd, my old creative writing portfolio comes up 4th and some scrabble forum posts come in the top 10. On images, my facebook logo comes up 18th.

This is an important point. I would put quotes round as the default, whereas some people (wrong people) wouldn't, so people are going to get different answers. I partly blame Google for this because when you're typing something, any clickable suggestion comes up without quotes.

I get different answers from some of you anyway. When I tried Jennifer Steadman, for example, I found the Michael Bolton one came third with or without quotes. Does Google personalise searches rendering this unworkable? On Internet Explorer you can use private browsing, and presumably other browsers have this, so this should lead to a "purer" search.

I'm top Gevin Chapwell third Gavin Chipper. As for any other name I might have, I'm top. (The results are the same if you incorrectly remove quotes.)

As far as Google knows, I'm the only Innis Carson in existence. Win.

25th on list, 60th on images. Rather more famous namesakes get in the way: the football commentator, the Irish author, and the rugby player. Oh, and the Brian Moore who was on death row.

Innis Carson wrote:As far as Google knows, I'm the only Innis Carson in existence. Win.

What's all this then?

Adam Gillard wrote:

Innis Carson wrote:As far as Google knows, I'm the only Innis Carson in existence. Win.

What's all this then?

I could be wrong, but I think that's just the Gaelic words 'innis' and 'carson' appearing next to each other in a sentence, rather than somebody's name. Perhaps someone on here who knows Gaelic will be able to clarify.

Adam Gillard wrote:

Innis Carson wrote:As far as Google knows, I'm the only Innis Carson in existence. Win.

What's all this then?

Gibberish?

Innis Carson wrote:

Adam Gillard wrote:

Innis Carson wrote:As far as Google knows, I'm the only Innis Carson in existence. Win.

What's all this then?

I could be wrong, but I think that's just the Gaelic words 'innis' and 'carson' appearing next to each other in a sentence, rather than somebody's name. Perhaps someone on here who knows Gaelic will be able to clarify.

Actually I think you're right. Another of the search results was some sort of teacher's guidelines in Gaelic and "innis carson" appeared 3 times as the answer to questions.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:If you Google your name, then how far do you come up as?

Searches for your name do not count.

I'm probably being thick as usual, but surely Googling your name is searching for your name?

Anyway, Googling my name/searching for my name on Google I come up third and fourth. I used to be first, then I got overtaken for a while by a club DJ with my name, and now he seems to have slipped from favour to be replaced by some costume designer.

2nd, 3rd and 10th.

An image search for my name reveals the 27th result to be a picture of Jen Steadman.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:If you Google your name, then how far do you come up as?

Searches for your name do not count.

I'm probably being thick as usual, but surely Googling your name is searching for your name?

I think he means not to count results that are "search results for Andrew Feist on linkedin.com" or similar, which I used to see a lot of but didn't when I did it again just now.

Over here, I come in 1st and 4th and 10th (at least on the first page). Switching to images gives three on the top row and three in the third row. I'm a bit surprised that all these pictures of me playing mahjongg are still on the net.

I have no idea whether the British Culture Minister (or some such) with my name would overtake me on that side of the ocean.

4th for me, my practically unused Google+ account.

I worded that extremely badly. What I meant was that you cannot say "this is me" to a search on Facebook, pour example, that has you in it, as it does me.

Searches show various newspaper articles for me at the top and then two images of me and one of Jack.

And yeah, coincidence that innis and carson are beside each other, not a name.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:If you Google your name, then how far do you come up as?

Searches for your name do not count.

I'm probably being thick as usual, but surely Googling your name is searching for your name?

Thanks Phil, I was going to ask the same thing.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:I worded that extremely badly. What I meant was that you cannot say "this is me" to a search on Facebook, pour example, that has you in it, as it does me.

What? I still don't understand.

I'm 18 of the top 19 hits for my name.

The other person is a Filipino girl, amusingly.

I gave up searching after 15 pages!

Julie Taylor appears to be a very common name, and I'm not on Facebook, Twitter or other social networks, don't do blogs, and I'm not a professional with a profile anywhere. This is the only forum I belong to that you don't need to log into to read.

So, not surprising, really, and quite reassuring, as I can't stand the stalky nature of the internet, and even disable cookies.

Youngsters have grown up with all knowing almost everything about each other, but most of the older generations still value their privacy.

Mark James wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:I worded that extremely badly. What I meant was that you cannot say "this is me" to a search on Facebook, pour example, that has you in it, as it does me.

What? I still don't understand.

Sometimes a search result is a link to yet another search result.

First, I'll answer the question.
I'm 3rd with my now distinctly outdated website under Matt Morrison, which, sharing my name with a 'star' of Glee, is pretty impressive.... until...

Second, I'll shit on the question, to some extent.
Google skews search results these days, in order to show results it thinks are more relevant to you. If you've ever Googled your name before, or perhaps even if not, and certainly if you have a Google+ account or possibly any other social network account (I don't know the exact rules) you are likely to appear higher up your own list than you would on any other. For example, if you guys search for Matt Morrison (I didn't use quotes in the above example), then does my website appear 3rd as well? If not, where?

Matt Morrison wrote:For example, if you guys search for Matt Morrison (I didn't use quotes in the above example), then does my website appear 3rd as well? If not, where?

4th for me, if you're the "Affordable, stylish Apterite with a personal touch."

Brian Moore wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:For example, if you guys search for Matt Morrison (I didn't use quotes in the above example), then does my website appear 3rd as well? If not, where?

4th for me, if you're the "Affordable, stylish Apterite with a personal touch."

4th for me too (with and without quotes). You should use quotes, Matt, or you're just searching for the terms "Matt" and "Morrison" anywhere in the article. It might bias the results towards them being together, but you're not actually searching for your name by doing that. You do come lower down if you swap the Matt and the Morrison, so clearly does consider the possibility that you are trying to search for your name, but that's Google deciding that you are searching for your name rather than you actually doing so.

Gavin Chipper wrote:You should use quotes, Matt, or you're just searching for the terms "Matt" and "Morrison" anywhere in the article. It might bias the results towards them being together, but you're not actually searching for your name by doing that.

There are only 226,000 results for "Matt Morrison" but 2,760,000 for "Brian Moore". This must be 'ubiquitous' in Lexplorer terms. "Innis Carson" comes in with just 5,180, which would put him in 'rare', I think. So who's got the rarest?

Brian Moore wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:You should use quotes, Matt, or you're just searching for the terms "Matt" and "Morrison" anywhere in the article. It might bias the results towards them being together, but you're not actually searching for your name by doing that.

There are only 226,000 results for "Matt Morrison" but 2,760,000 for "Brian Moore". This must be 'ubiquitous' in Lexplorer terms. "Innis Carson" comes in with just 5,180, which would put him in 'rare', I think. So who's got the rarest?

"Gevin Chapwell" has 977 and "Gavin Chipper has just 143. The other name that I sometimes go by has 2100 - still less than Innis Carson.

There are 123 million James Robinsons on Google's pages.

My wiki page is #48.

Before that though, there are some cool ones including a curator at the British Museum, an orthopaedic expert, a guy working for the Guardian and involved in the Leveson Inquiry and a professor at Harvard University.

There is also another one who is a film producer who was involved in a bust-up with Lindsay Lohan too.

But, I must be the coolest, surely

Brian Moore wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:For example, if you guys search for Matt Morrison (I didn't use quotes in the above example), then does my website appear 3rd as well? If not, where?

4th for me, if you're the "Affordable, stylish Apterite with a personal touch."

4th here too.

Not in the first 500, fail.

James Robinson wrote:There are 123 million James Robinsons on Google's pages.

Come on James - keep up. Put quotes around "James Robinson" (to omit the pages that mention "James" or "Robinson" by themselves), and you're chopped down to a mere 3,120,000. Still more of you than me though.

1st, 2nd and 3rd, all to do with Countdown. 8) (And that's from Google Chrome Incognito - MWM your page is 4th for me too)

2nd from 192.com, then 5th 6th(from Countdown) 7th 8th 12, 13, 18-20 etc.
(1st 3rd & 4th are an Australian car dealer.)

I don't think hits from 192.com really count, as they just trawl electoral registers and such

I come up 14th, which you may find quite surprising. However, there is a gay, black American porn star that shares my name (yeh I know - American ). I found this out the hard way at school, whilst doing an image search

Let me quote "Adam Dexter's a real stunner with his muscular physique and curved 9-inch cock."

EDIT: to include quote

Adam Dexter wrote:Let me quote "Adam Dexter's a real stunner with his muscular physique and curved 9-inch cock."

But what was the quote for the porn star?

I'm all 12 of the first 12, before eventually giving way to some boring ancestral lists. Not bad.

(For Charles Reams I'm 2nd and 3rd, which is quite surprising to me considering I almost never use that name.)

Charlie Reams wrote:I'm all 12 of the first 12, before eventually giving way to some boring ancestral lists. Not bad.

I bet you spent your time at Google deleting the hundreds of Charlie Reamses who came before you in the list. Oh no, hang on, Google don't skew their search results, do they.

Incidentally, I see you're coming soon. That's nice to know. Do you take sugar with your tea?

Are curved penises really better to have than straight ones? Because mine's arrow straight and I always thought that was a good thing. Guess not. Maybe I should start shoving it into industrial strength bending equipment.

Mark Deeks wrote:Maybe I should start shoving it into industrial strength bending equipment.

I think I've actually got that video somewhere.

Mine's arrow straight even when flaccid.

Should I curve it upwards or downwards?

No, wait, what about sideways? Or maybe a full chicane?

Mark Deeks wrote:Are curved penises really better to have than straight ones? Because mine's arrow straight and I always thought that was a good thing. Guess not. Maybe I should start shoving it into industrial strength bending equipment.

LOL

Mark Deeks wrote:Should I curve it upwards or downwards?

No, wait, what about sideways? Or maybe a full chicane?

I remember hearing that pigs have curly penises (like their tails) but I'm not sure if that's true. Could you check it out for me please? I would, but I'm at work.

I've done the searching for you, and yeah, it's true, they do. They're kind of inside the body most of the time, but then they're long and straight when erect, with a corkscrew shape at the end, almost like an artistic flourish. It's actually quite beautiful. So much so that I'm going to avoid making the obvious screwing pun.

Also, the female apparently has a corkscrew cervix, so it all totally checks out. I had a drink once in The Corkscrew Cervix, I think. Pretty sure it was one of those local only places near Hereford. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong. Either way, here's some more pig boning information:

VWe know that the penis does not make several rotations during copulation. We also know that the boar does not spin like a propeller around the sow's hind end either. Thus, there is no way that the penis actually penetrates in a corkscrew fashion. What it likely does is go straight in, crossing each of the cervical ridges one at a time until it assumes the position in which it completely fits inside the groove.

Bandicoot males have two-tipped penises and the females have two-holed vaginas. Not from experience.

Joseph Krol wrote:Bandicoot males have two-tipped penises and the females have two-holed vaginas. Not from experience.

I will never be able to play any Crash game in the same way.

Mark Deeks wrote:Also, the female apparently has a corkscrew cervix, so it all totally checks out. I had a drink once in The Corkscrew Cervix, I think. Pretty sure it was one of those local only places near Hereford. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong. Either way, here's some more pig boning information:

VWe know that the penis does not make several rotations during copulation. We also know that the boar does not spin like a propeller around the sow's hind end either. Thus, there is no way that the penis actually penetrates in a corkscrew fashion. What it likely does is go straight in, crossing each of the cervical ridges one at a time until it assumes the position in which it completely fits inside the groove.

Almost snorted baked beans over my desk.