Skip to main content

Google roulette

I don't think I should be too embarrassed to say that I have occasionally put "Brian Clegg" into Google. I think most people have tried searching for themselves occasionally. (I seem to remember Russell Brand (who?) saying that his name was the only thing he'd ever put into Google.)

When I do, I usually respond with a gentle sigh. Because once again I've missed the top spot. There's another Brian Clegg from my home town of Rochdale who sells art products for schools, and he always seems to beat me. A less generous person might suspect that he pays for this privilege, but I have to believe that one day I will beat him in the Google race. I can dream, can't I?

Phew. Made it through the post without mentioning Barack Obama's victory.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous5 November 2008 at 14:38

    I am beaten by a footballer, who i think I will now claim I am.

    In fact unless I put in my profession, I don't appear at all. This may be because I am not remotely well known.

    It may also be an oversight on Google's part. Mr Obamha I think would probably come up if he Googled himself

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5 November 2008 at 15:06

    If Obama can do it, so can you Brian. Oops, another Obama mention. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sabine Hossenfelder5 November 2008 at 17:52

    Yay, I Google myself every other month just to make sure there's nothing weird going on. It happened to me once that somebody in a forum without user subscription commented (lots of nonsense) under my name. I had to ask the admin to delete this crap. Also, it's sometimes really odd what pieces of information catch on.

    As things are, I don't know of anybody else with my name (and that doesn't even include middle names), meaning my blog/website shows up first hit. You decide whether that's good or bad (I'm writing applications right now, gives me second thoughts as to my online presence).

    I had a post on that sometime... ah, here it is: The Name Game.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sabine Hossenfelder5 November 2008 at 18:04

    *lol*, look at this, here is what today's search brought up: somebody used one of my paintings as an illustration for an article on Tequila. It's a crazy world we're living in :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous21 November 2008 at 19:30

    Brian - There might be a day when I'm beating you both. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brian Clegg21 November 2008 at 20:49

    That sounds like a challenge Brian - I'll race you.

    (For anyone out there, I'm not talking to myself - that's another Brian Clegg, I think from sunny Canada. But I'm me.)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more