21–30 of 217 posts
Also there is this form for reporting spam sites: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/spamreport
Integrating the above into standard search results would be difficult unless it was restricted to users with a good "karma". That might be possible in our increasingly socially networked world
Can't this be done with a browser plugin?
In the interim, you can do your searches by adding -wareseeker -efreedom to the search string.
I've discovered you can also set up a Custom Search Engine, with no included sites (default to everything), and specifically exclude the sites you don't want. Then do all your searches through this. http://www.google.com/cse/ Usability-wise, though, it's not nearly as much use as a 'ban' button next to each result would be. But it shows Google already have the infrastructure and code that would allow this -- they jus…
Yes that would be good. They could then look at the number of people blocking certain domains and de-weight them in the global results. Traditionally google seem against human powered editing (as this would be), but I think as the black hat SEOs run rings around them, its needed badly .
Anyone have any ideas why the clone sites like efreedom are ranking above Stack Overflow when SO's inbound links and reputation values are likely far better than efreedom's in Google's algorithm? I'm surprised that search engine optimization could do THAT much to a site's ranking. Also it's not like SO isn't doing the same kind of SEO themselves. What I'm trying to get at is, with all things equal, let's say Stack Ov…
And no more bloody experts-exchange...
I honestly don't mind that site - about half the time I search for an issue, I find it's been resolved by someone over at Experts Exchange. Do people realise that if Google is your referrer, you can scroll all the way down and see the solutions to the question?
Actually, I sort of sympathize with the predicament EE faces. They want to show up high on Google search results, because that's how they get new customers ... but they don't want to give away their content for free.
Here's an opportunity for a search engine start-up: Allow users to search (by default) for only free content -- but also allow them to search, if they so choose, for content that's behind a paywall. Pay-for-access sites would love something like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have always known that, but I don't think a lot of people do. A while back I was working with a high dollar consultant who really thought he knew it all, but he seemed really surprised that I didn't need to use his Experts Exchange account to see the answer.
It didn't used to be like that -- you used to have to 'view source' to see it Then I think they went through a stage of not revealing it at all. But in any case, it's far less useful than SO/SF etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone have any ideas why the clone sites like efreedom are ranking above Stack Overflow when SO's inbound links and reputation values are likely far better than efreedom's in Google's algorithm? I'm surprised that search engine optimization could do THAT much to a site's ranking. Also it's not like SO isn't doing the same kind of SEO themselves. What I'm trying to get at is, with all things equal, let's say Stack Ov…
Efreedom is deliberately manufacturing links, whereas SO may be just hoping for the best.
I think the worst culprits are the ones that skim StackOverflow questions and rehash them into their own supposed original "question and answer" site