Sunday, December 6, 2009

You're Not Searching For These, Either

To recap, yesterday was the Top Ten Searches on Google for 2009. I don't know who was searching for these things, but apparently people were. Hence, the list. But I noticed that the Yahoo! list of their top searches for the year was a little different than the Google list. Not much, but a little. Both lists accentuate my theory that the Internet is not so much of a tool as it is a toy. And that's fine, I'm all for toys. But let's just stop pretending that we're all doing such important work when we're online, all right? We're either on Facebook or looking for porn. The end.

Just for the sake of memory refreshing (as I can't remember what I had for breakfast, let alone what I read yesterday), the Google list was as follows:

10. Torpedo Gratis (free text messaging, not free self propelled, aquatic weaponry)

8. Windows 7
7. Lady Gaga
6. New Moon (the movie, not the lunar rotation cycle)

5. Sanalika
4. Twitter
3. Tuenti
2. Facebook (2, 3, and 4 are due to the laziness of the Turkish Internet users, apparently)

1. Michael Jackson

That's what people are searching for on Google most frequently. Now, onto the Yahoo! list.

While text messaging for free was a priority for Google searchers, for Yahoo! searchers, their Number Ten search was Runescape, the popular (duh) free online role playing game which, according to the description, involves "...monsters to kill, quests to complete, and treasure to win." OK, then. You now know as much as I do.

Number Nine was NASCAR. NASCAR has been really popular in the recent past, but it's popularity has been waning. I attribute that to folks figuring out that no matter how long they watch, those folks ain't never going to turn right.

Number Eight, for reasons that are inexplicable to me, is Kim Kardashian. You must really know how to work...something if your father was technically a lawyer for OJ Simpson during his first trial (you know, the one where he was acquitted of the killing that he did of his wife and her friend) and that's all you've got. Well, that and, apparently, a pretty nice ass. OH, wait! AND a sex tape! It seems that everyone except for me has made a sex tape! If you haven't made yours, you'd better get on it because from what I can figure, it's becoming some sort of a requirement for all human beings that are or will be fornicating at some point. But other than that, you're dumb as a post and haven't accomplished a thing in your life. Amazing.

Number Seven was American Idol. I'm a little surprised that it didn't rank higher than 7. What with the be-makeup-ed and tongue wagging Adam Lambert turning in his spectacle of a performance week after week and all.

Number Six is something called Naruto. According to Wikipedia, Naruto is " ongoing Japanese manga series....(which)...tells the story of Naruto Uzumaki, an adolescent ninja who constantly searches for recognition and aspires to become a Hokage, the ninja in his village that is acknowledged as the leader and the strongest of all." Ninja aspirations. Sixth most popular search on Yahoo! Huh. More popular than NASCAR, but less popular than Britney Spears. That sounds about right.

Number Five is the aforementioned Ms. Spears. I think that's because she was doing her whole comeback thing this past year. I can't think of any other antics that would warrant her ranking fifth. No divorces, head shavings, seat belt-less driving, beating down vehicles with umbrellas, pregnancies, births, et cetera. She is hot again, though. But not hot enough to rank #1, which is where she has spent the past FOUR years. Good Lord, Yahoo! searchers. Get a grip on yourself. Oh. Wait. That's probably why she's ranked so high. All of the gripping. Never mind. (But just so you know, God sees everything!)

Clocking in at Number Four is Megan Fox. Look, I'll give you that she's attractive. But what in the hell has she done? Anything? Other than look hot? That's it? Huh. All right then. Number Four it is, but you people stay the hell away from me.

Number Three gives us WWE. Remember that Number Nine was NASCAR. Are you kind of getting a feel for the type of person who is using Yahoo! search as opposed to Google? Yeah, I think we are...and it scares me. (Somehow though, they've figured out how to operate their computers, so maybe it's not all that bad. Who am I kidding? It's that bad. We all know it.)

Want to not be shocked? Then how about if I tell you that the Number Two search was Twilight. Sparkly vampires? Very popular with the Yahoo! search crowd. The only part that I find slightly shocking about this is that the new movie was New Moon. Last year's sparkly vampire movie was Twilight. What's up with that Yahoo! searchers?

And the one thing that searchers far and wide can agree upon, Michael Jackson! Sadly, the King of Pop's death propelled him to the top of many, many lists this year. It's odd. When you're alive, people shun you because you were accused of child molestation and might have been a pedophile. But when you're dead and you've still been accused of child molestation and still might have been a pedophile, no one cares and thinks you're the greatest thing since sliced bread. Go figure.

I just wanted to point out the differences between the Google searches and the Yahoo! searches. The Google searches were mostly social networking sites, with a single technology site, the obligatory sparkly vampires, a freakazoid singer and Jacko. Meanwhile, over at The Yahoo!, you've got three hotties, two redneck pastimes, a role playing game with monsters, some anime with ninjas, a little American Idol, the obligatory sparkly vampires and Jacko. Yahoo! searchers don't seem all that interested in social networking at all. They don't give a fat rat's ass about anyone else unless it's a hottie or a sparkly vampire. They don't need anyone else to talk to. All they need is good looking chicks to look at and cars that turn left. Screw everyone else, so sayeth the Yahoo! searchers.

Should we take a look at the Top Ten searches on Bing tomorrow? I think we're going to because I've looked through them and (Spoiler Alert!) while Jacko is Number One on Bing as well, it's a very, very different list from The Yahoo! and from The Google. (By the way, Twitter made it to #2 on Bing, but I don't know if it's because of lazy Turks like it was on Google.)

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content


gerard said...

Kim Kardashian has a 'pretty nice ass'?
Mare,take that back at once! ;-)
She has,to my opinion,and clearly the opinion of many men (I would estimate around 90% of those searches were by men.) an AMAZING ass,shapely and round.
I think it's a great time to be living in for both sexes,we clearly see from these statistics that we appreciate all ass shapes and sizes (apart from just big ol' fat asses) more than many other periods in history.
It's less pressure for women,no?
Curvy women and slim women have fallen in and out of fashion,but when curvier girls like Beyonce,Kim,etc. started appearing it switched the game up.
Now we have Kim,a curvy girl,Britney,a girl who was slim,then curvy,then fat,then slim/fit again,and Megan who is fit/slim.
and yes,certainly all three are hotties well worth 'getting a grip over'!

Mare said...

It's a pretty nice ass! I can't take that back. Maybe you're an ass man and you have more authority in this department than I do (I'm guessing you DO!), but I'm giving it a 'pretty nice'. Two thumbs up, of course, but still 'pretty nice'.

Tell me this: Tell me when sporting a larger rear quarter became fashionable and desireable. I mean, there's always been a call for some sort of curvage on a woman's assage. I get that. But when did the requirement become that it has to look like some sort of amusement park ride?

From what I can tell, there's a fine line between a big ass and a fat ass and that line is composed of attractiveness. The more attractive a woman is, the more OK it is for her ass to be larger. If one starts sliding down on the looks scale, suddenly she's a beached whale.

Your comments never fail to enlighten and amuse me, Gerard. Thanks!

~ Mare

Gerard said...

Hi Mare,well yes,I am most definitely an ass man,it is way more important than a rack on a girl for me.
If a girl I like has a flat chest but a great ass,I still want her like crazy,but if she has a great rack and just an okay ass,then I am not too bothered.
I like a tight ass on a girl almost as much as a curvy ass,but many girls and guys have said I am far easier to please in determining what is an acceptable ass size,but it's not really the size,that determines a 'fat ass',it's more complicated than that-its the proportion,to her hips/thighs/waist.
This has actually been scientifically proven.
its whether there is any gluteal muscle tone under there,or it is just hanging,looking flabby.
A little genetics or gym work can go a long way.
And I have worked in many gyms,trust me,you may not think it,but from where a guys looking,black 3/4 length Lycra tights are EXTREMELY are 'Lululemon' Yoga Pants.
Ladies,you need no other reason to join a gym,your ass will get an instant facelift,and look 10 years younger!
Whisper it,but,technically,Kim,Beyonce,Jenny Lopez? all have 'fat' asses,but they did a little work and turned them into 'phat' asses.
Any girls reading this who think their ass is too big-
As long as your not,like,40 pounds overweight,here's the inside scoop-
As long as you have a decent waist/hip/thigh/ratio,we are weak.
Proportion is key.
I have seen so many who seriously needed to lose a good 30 pounds,but they had the curves in all the right places,the proportion was good,hourglass almost.
And I would lose it over them,and ignore a slimmer chick.
But then a slim chick can have good ratios/proprtion too,its all relative.
To those concerned women-you don't have to look like those celebrities,all perfect and superfit,but damnit,don't get all anorexic,hit the gym,do some squats and reverse lunges,and grab a subway and diet soda instead of a cheeseburger and fries,do what you can.
And trust me the Lycra.

Guys will be throwing themselves at you.