Google Web spam - Gabriel Weinberg's Blog
gabrielweinberg.com
Google Web spam - Gabriel Weinberg's Blog
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: Google Web spam - Gabriel Weinberg's Blog
#2On an tangential note, it's a shame that Google don't offer a service like BOSS (though BOSS could be enhanced by offering revenue sharing, as an alternative to charging per query).
It seems the Google search APIs have actually gone backwards over the last few years.
Re: Google Web spam - Gabriel Weinberg's Blog
#3The writer states himself that the results of "site:" don't mean anything: "Of course this says nothing about how much they appear in the rankings." So what's the point of this article?
Re: Google Web spam - Gabriel Weinberg's Blog
#4The writer states himself that the results of "site:" don't mean anything: "Of course this says nothing about how much they appear in the rankings." So what's the point of this article?
They mean something, i.e. that they "are in their index in some form." I've been blacklisted before, and when you're blacklisted, you don't show up in site: queries.
That said, I wanted to acknowledge that this isn't ranking data. However, perhaps as a result of this post, I'll be able to get some and re-post those results.
Re: Google Web spam - Gabriel Weinberg's Blog
#5On an tangential note, it's a shame that Google don't offer a service like BOSS (though BOSS could be enhanced by offering revenue sharing, as an alternative to charging per query). It seems the Google search APIs have actually gone backwards over the last few years.
Yahoo's goal with BOSS is to fragment the search market; Google is so far ahead that Yahoo knows they can't compete head-on.
Google doesn't want the search market to be fragmented; they want to dominate the market. I think that's why Google doesn't have a good search API offering.
Re: Google Web spam - Gabriel Weinberg's Blog
#6On an tangential note, it's a shame that Google don't offer a service like BOSS (though BOSS could be enhanced by offering revenue sharing, as an alternative to charging per query). It seems the Google search APIs have actually gone backwards over the last few years.
Yahoo's goal with BOSS is to fragment the search market; Google is so far ahead that Yahoo knows they can't compete head-on. Google doesn't want the search market to be fragmented; they want to dominate the market. I think that's why Google doesn't have a good search API offering.
I think DDG is a great example of why Google doesn't have a BOSS-like API. It seems pretty clear that DDG is violating the TOS of the Yahoo API by mixing search results. Yahoo seems to be looking the other way (for now), but you can bet that Google would be less forgiving.
There's not a search engine out there that wants to allow you to muck with their relevance algorithm by changing the results, and Google has more to lose from DDG-like activity than it might gain.
Re: Google Web spam - Gabriel Weinberg's Blog
#7[deleted]
Re: Google Web spam - Gabriel Weinberg's Blog
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yahoo's goal with BOSS is to fragment the search market; Google is so far ahead that Yahoo knows they can't compete head-on. Google doesn't want the search market to be fragmented; they want to dominate the market. I think that's why Google doesn't have a good search API offering.
I think DDG is a great example of why Google doesn't have a BOSS-like API. It seems pretty clear that DDG is violating the TOS of the Yahoo API by mixing search results. Yahoo seems to be looking the other way (for now), but you can bet that Google would be less forgiving. There's not a search engine out there that wants to allow you to muck with their relevance algorithm by changing the results, and Google has more…
Re: Google Web spam - Gabriel Weinberg's Blog
#9Being in the index isn't very meaningful. Very little of our spam-fighting/ranking prevents sites from showing up for "site:" queries, because in general we think that if someone is intending on going to a domain directly, the only reasonable thing to do is to show that domain.
Unfortunately I don't have a better way of assessing it to offer. Internally, we often look at impression-weighted precision as a metric, but I don't think there's an easy way we could expose that to you.
A more reasonable thing to do would be to take a sample of DDG's query logs, scrape the results from Google, then see what percentage of Google's results come from your spam domains, but that requires sending a lot more queries to get any useful data.
Re: Google Web spam - Gabriel Weinberg's Blog
#10Being in the index isn't very meaningful. Very little of our spam-fighting/ranking prevents sites from showing up for "site:" queries, because in general we think that if someone is intending on going to a domain directly, the only reasonable thing to do is to show that domain. Unfortunately I don't have a better way of assessing it to offer. Internally, we often look at impression-weighted precision as a metric, but…
I think this method would violate (at least the spirit of) my privacy policy: http://duckduckgo.com/privacy.html
That said, if anyone has a meaningful sample query set, I'm certainly interested in running it against my spam index. I see a lot of hits on it via other search APIs.