Yahoo Replaces Sex as the #1 Seach Query on Google

According to the Dailey Domainer, “Yahoo” has recently replaced “Sex” as the most popular search term on Google. Very odd, isn’t it? The most popular search term on Google is now the name of its biggest search competitor, Yahoo, more popular even than sex.

Sex is, by the way, very popular as a search term in all languages and countries, but according to Google Trends, which monitors (and saves) every Google search ever made (but does not track or identify the persons or computers who make searches), “sex” as a search term is most popular in cities in India and Turkey. The city of Chennai, India (aka Madras) today holds the record for the city making the most search requests for “sex.” In fact, all of the top ten cities for this term are in Turkey and India. The United States does not even make the top ten of countries. According to Google Trends, the top countries for this search are:

1. Pakistan
2. Egypt
3. India
4. Iran
5. Morocco
6. Turkey
7. Viet Nam
8. Saudi Arabia
9. Croatia
10. Indonesia

There is a global cultural message here to be sure; but enough about sex, how about about the new favorite, Yahoo? Google Trends says that the city where you most find this search is Bogota, Columbia, with three cities in Japan after that. Only two cities in the U.S. make the top ten list, Pleasanton and Irvine, California. The top ten countries to search for Yahoo on Google are:

1. El Salvador
2. Japan
3. Romania
4. Colombia
5. Malaysia
6. Bolivia
7. Venezuela
8. Peru
9. France
10. Mexico

Why are so many people worldwide now searching for Yahoo on Google? Obviously it shows the dominance of Google’s Internet presence. But this curious phenomena also reveals a new trend in Internet computer usage. It seems that fewer people are bothering to type in the domain addresses of the webs they want to go to. Instead, they are typing the name into the Google search box. So instead of typing www.yahoo.com into the top address bar on your web browser, and hitting the enter button, people are starting from Google, entering Yahoo, then clicking on the Google display of Yahoo after the search. This is the speculation of the Dailey Domainer, and I am inclined to agree. They have further research and information to back that up if you are interested.

Finally, to bring this all back home, what are the top cities for “e-discovery” search? Google says they are:

1. Washington
2. New York
3. San Francisco
4. Chicago

After that, the other U.S. cities making up the top ten list have too few results to be significant. A search of the terms “electronic discovery” brings a more reliable result, with the top ten cities reported to be:

1. Seattle
2. Washington
3. New York
4. Portland
5. Houston
6. San Francisco
7. Chicago
8. Boston
9. Minneapolis
10. Dallas

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 1st, 2007 at 9:54 pm and is filed under Search, Technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

One Response to Yahoo Replaces Sex as the #1 Seach Query on Google

What the World Was Searching for in 2007? « e-Discovery Team says:

December 29, 2007 at 2:36 pm

[…] you get a slightly different result where Toronto is 8th and Los Angeles is 9th. I reported on this same search in 2006 with essentially the same results, but the overall volume of these searches is way […]

Loading...

Ralph’s eDiscovery Books

e-Discovery for Everyone, (ABA, 2017). Also see Ralph's video on this book.
Perspectives on Predictive Coding and Other Advanced Search Methods for the Legal Practitioner, Contributor and co-editor with Jason Baron and Michael Berman, (ABA 2017)
Adventures in Electronic Discovery (West Thomson Reuters, 2011).
Electronic Discovery: New Ideas, Trends, Case Law, and Practices (West Thomson Reuters, 2010).
Introduction to E-Discovery: New Cases, Ideas, and Techniques (ABA 2009).
e-Discovery: Current Trends and Cases (ABA 2008).

About the Blogger

Ralph Losey is a Friend of AIs, Writer, Commentator, Journalist, Lawyer, Arbitrator, Special Master, and Practicing Attorney as a partner in LOSEY PLLC. Losey is a high tech law firm with three Loseys and a bunch of other skilled attorneys. We handle major "bet the company" type litigation, special tech projects, deals, IP of all kinds all over the world, plus other tricky litigation problems all over the U.S. For more details of Ralph's background, Click Here

All opinions expressed here are his own, and not those of his firm or clients. No legal advice is provided on this web and should not be construed as such.

Ralph has long been a leader of the world's tech lawyers. He has presented at hundreds of legal conferences and CLEs around the world. Ralph has written over two million words on e-discovery and tech-law subjects, including seven books.

Ralph has been involved with computers, software, legal hacking and the law since 1980. Ralph has the highest peer AV rating as a lawyer and was selected as a Best Lawyer in America in four categories: Commercial Litigation; E-Discovery and Information Management Law; Information Technology Law; and, Employment Law - Management.

Ralph is the proud father of two children, Eva Losey Grossman, and Adam Losey, a lawyer with incredible litigation and cyber expertise (married to another cyber expert lawyer, Catherine Losey), and best of all, husband since 1973 to Molly Friedman Losey, a mental health counselor in Winter Park.

Sedona Principles 3rd Ed

1. Electronically stored information is generally subject to the same preservation and discovery requirements as other relevant information.

2. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

3. As soon as practicable, parties should confer and seek to reach agreement regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information.

4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as specific as possible; responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.

5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that is expected to be relevant to claims or defenses in reasonably anticipated or pending litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step or disproportionate steps to preserve each instance of relevant electronically stored information.

6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.

7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding party’s steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.

8. The primary source of electronically stored information to be preserved and produced should be those readily accessible in the ordinary course. Only when electronically stored information is not available through such primary sources should parties move down a continuum of less accessible sources until the information requested to be preserved or produced is no longer proportional.

9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.

10. Parties should take reasonable steps to safeguard electronically stored information, the disclosure or dissemination of which is subject to privileges, work product protections, privacy obligations, or other legally enforceable restrictions.

11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using technology and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria.

12. The production of electronically stored information should be made in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a that is reasonably usable given the nature of the electronically stored information and the proportional needs of the case.

13. The costs of preserving and producing relevant and proportionate electronically stored information ordinarily should be borne by the responding party.

14. The breach of a duty to preserve electronically stored information may be addressed by remedial measures, sanctions, or both: remedial measures are appropriate to cure prejudice; sanctions are appropriate only if a party acted with intent to deprive another party of the use of relevant electronically stored information.

Reprinted courtesy of The Sedona Conference®.

Go to www.thesedonaconference.org to download a free copy of the complete document for your personal use only.

e-Discovery Team ®