Reverse Contextual Aural Discrimination: Did You Mean Ass Burger or Asperger?
A while ago, I did a Google search for “ass burger” — and while I can’t remember the why or wherefore, I do remember grabbing this screenshot of the event so we could discuss this later — meaning now. I wonder how “Asperger” feels being included in a Google search return for “ass burger?” Is this search return an example of “searching by sound” and not by rational context? I can’t imagine “ass burger” is a common misspelling for “Asperger.”
Do you think “ass burger” for “Asperger” is some kind of new Google “aural search” sound-alike results return?
If so, I’m sort of impressed with the result, because sometimes people do spells words by how they sound, and not always as they are properly spelled — but if we’re going with the sound-alike theory, what, then, do you make of this Google search I just performed for “asperger” —
Why isn’t “ass burger” listed anywhere in that result return?
Is it aurally fair to search for “ass burger” and get back “Asperger” — but when you conversely search for “asperger” — you don’t get back any bites on “ass burger?”
Have we discovered the first example of “Reverse Contextual Aural Discrimination” — or is something even more unseemly, and unpronounceable, at play behind the golden Google curtain?
I wonder if it’s a good thing that Google offers this sort of keen listening skill when it comes to text searching — we already know Google are still struggling to figure out the hoary difference between CUNT and CUNY — and we should all take heed that sometimes what sounds alike is never something we’d actually want contextually linked back for distribution and discussion.