I'm not necessarily jumping on board the Google conspiracy... but can someone else check this out?

[AnotherVoter]

Recently, I watched an old Daily Show clip that talks about the Clinton Foundation and their tax troubles. (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/sx65zl/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-hillary-s-democratic-opponent---dirty-donating ) This was with Jon Stewart, before his departure. I thought, hey, maybe I'll read some articles about that.

Try this out, just to confirm this for me?

Google news search for: "Clinton foundation" "tax returns". Third link down, it says "Explore in depth (115 more articles)".
But try clicking on that... Or the 5th link down that has 77 articles.

Nothing to see there...

Personally, I can't say I've seen this problem before. But maybe I just don't search old news.

Can someone else think of a good control search from that time period to see if that is a normal occurrence?

I actually like Google... I don't want to believe it. Seriously. Thanks for your help.

[Lil Missy]

1. Thanks for your *concern*. And welcome to DU. n/t

[AnotherVoter]

2. You are confusing.

I am actually concerned. I somehow sense you don't think I am a serious person, simply because of the content of my message?

But if I have misread your *, and you are actually being an open-minded human who thinks it is possible that people who don't share her view points might have valid points as well, thanks for the welcome.

[elleng]

3. Correct,

'No articles related to "Clinton foundation" "tax returns" were found.'

However,

Clinton Foundation refiles tax returns
Politico-Nov 16, 2015
The Clinton Foundation filed three years of revised tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service on Monday, correcting errors which came to ...

Clinton Charities Refile 6 Years Of Tax Returns To Amend Errors
In-Depth-Huffington Post-Nov 17, 2015

[AnotherVoter]

5. Hmm..

At first, I was thinking maybe this was the answer... that I had misunderstood what it was doing.

I guess it seems odd that if there are 100 and something articles about "clinton foundation" "tax returns", which all are vaguely related to this exact topic as the first "Clinton Foundation refiles tax returns" which my search found, nearly all of them would contain those phrases which are exactly what I am exploring in depth. These phrases would be hard to avoid in such articles.

If you click on the link "Explore in depth (982 more articles)" that is listed under "Trump hedges on releasing tax returns" which also came up in the initial search, there are plenty of stories. Of course - one caveat is that this is a much more recent story.

Anyways, thanks for taking me seriously and checking. I hadn't really come across this type of Google weirdness before, so just wanted to verify.

[Skittles]

4. I said to myself, "25 posts or less"

yes INDEED

[AnotherVoter]

6. You are confusing too.

So basically what you are saying is that I haven't said enough on here yet to have valid opinions? With regard to this post, honestly, this was an open question and I am looking for others opinions.

Do you think I don't actually like democracy? Oh please.

[Orrex]

7. I look forward to many years of positive, insightful posts from you.

Welcome to DU.

[AnotherVoter]

8. I think it's funny...

I am sitting here, as a person with a brain, and trying to work through how to check this. I initially thought perhaps I would request the help of others on the internet. Because you know, it's this amazing tool. People like you have been so helpful.

I thought of some other political stories from the past to look up... and now I see that apparently one can't explore things in depth from the past sometimes (although the link to do still shows up). I don't know what the algorithm is. I have used Google news a long time, and I honestly don't ever remember having trouble doing that before. Plus, if there aren't articles, one would think the link wouldn't come up.

I typed in: Biden won't run for president. The fifth link down is a CNN article, Oct 21, 2015 - you can click on Explore in depth (5,457 more articles) and you get lots of articles. But I also searched for Jindal quits race, first link is from Nov 17, 2015. If you click on Explore in depth (946 more articles), nothing comes up.


As a side note, I tried the Jindal article first, and I couldn't find any in depth. So I tried to private message the previous posters to let them know I had figured it out and would be deleting this thread. Since I actually do want to have a real discussion. But I don't have enough posts yet to private message. Ironic isn't it? I guess if I left really helpful feedback like you guys on all the posts I would have enough by now. Geez, why haven't I been doing that?

Now that I see it does work for some stories, I am curious why. It's interesting. This is a media question. That's why I posted it here.

[Wilms]

9. FWIW, I've seen google news results do that.

Not to say that they didn't/don't scrub results and rankings.

But, what is your point? Is there information on the subject that is no longer available?

[AnotherVoter]

12. Well, I guess it's hard to know what's not available...

It's good to know that you've seen this before.

I just find it odd that so often, there is such a specific number of nonexistent articles that then aren't available.

After I did a few other searches late last night on other random political topics, I couldn't exactly find a theme as to when articles weren't available. This morning.. now that I am more awake.. I thought of searching online for other conversations about this topic. Not much. A couple of conversations here for example, but not one really offers any answers: https://www.reddit.com/search?q=%22google+news%22+%22explore+in+depth%22


I guess my lame conclusion is that there must be some algorithm I don't understand.

The point of bringing it up is that I was hoping one to verify whether this happens. Get peoples input whether this disconnect was something they recall happening in the past. One would hope this might generate some conversation about the importance of media and information access.


Thank you also for answering with a sincere post in this Democratic Underground.

[Orrex]

10. It hurts me that you doubt the sincerity of my welcome

You would have us take you at your word that you're not, for instance, a conspiracy theory troll but rather that you're honestly interested in the exchange of information and sharing of knowledge, yet you immediately infer mockery in my post.

[sharp_stick]

11. Shocking, absolutely shocking n/t

[AnotherVoter]

13. Well, if you *were* being sincere...

then I offer an apology. Perhaps I overreacted. I had several other more obvious, less well-intentioned posts that did not seem to address my topic and it was late.

I may be new at posting here, but I am not new to critical thought or political pondering. I'm not too young or too old, but had previously avoided diving into internet debate. I started coming here awhile back, but have always been a lurker. Posting was something my ex-boyfriend would spend hours doing. But, yes... somehow now my online persona has emerged!