I used Google Trends to compare search volume for John McCain and a rash.
Here is what I found.
Apparently, rashes are almost as popular as McCain in Austin, Texas. And Australians are much more concerned about rashes than McCain.
Now, please note that what I have done is really stupid. This graph shows nothing. It means nothing.
I wonder whether analyzing search term popularity means anything at all. After all, today Luther Campbell of 2 Live Crew got a bit bump in searches. Why? He got married. Yawn.
Apparently, lawyers are trying to introduce Google Trends data into trial evidence and political campaigns are trying to analyze it to capture some sort of "zeitgeist."
Would anyone try to convince me that Google Trends is anything but stupid? Does it really offer insight into our concerns, curiosities, and values? Can someone out there construct a responsible and interesting table using Google Trends?
Here are some other stupid searches:
I am nowhere close to being "bigger than Jesus."
And if you ever wondered about that eternal question the kids asked in Stand by Me: "Who would win, Superman or Mighty Mouse?" Superman. Big time.
And, if you are fan of Broadway musicals, I am sure you have always wondered:
Comments (3)
Apparently, lawyers are trying to introduce Google Trends data into trial evidence
do you have any citations/links to illustrate this? I find it to be totally insane and would love to know more details.
Yeah. See here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080624-orgies-and-apple-pie-google-trends-used-in-obscenity-case.html
It should be a commonplace already for the analysis of any word or name frequency: The most used words are the least meaningful. So of course the most popular searches are the most trivial.