51–60 of 217 posts
That will never happen, if they ever did that it would be an admission that there is something inherently wrong with their algorithm. They won't do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jeff Atwood discusses this in his most recent Coding Horror blog post ( http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/01/trouble-in-the-hous... ), in which he states that he doesn't really mind people copying StackOverflow questions (and answers), but that he does mind that the copies get a higher Google ranking than the original.
How does that happen though? efreedom must be doing something special with SEO to get higher than SO given that SO must have huge page rank score.
Nobody links to an SO question, except perhaps mentioning it in a blog post. Scrapping sites create lots of links to the question, even if they are low quality ones
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 .
I'm not sure how this would be implemented. Where would the blacklist be held and how would it influence the search results? I know that they already do a lot of search customization but most of it is just aggregate statistical computations. It's not that they return results specifically tailored to you but more like results tailored to a very fuzzy average version of you. A blacklist seems way too specific to each u…
I can even do that already with Google's Custom Search, all that's missing is a little 'block this site' button. Instead I have to go and configure Custom Search manually for each URL mask.
How many gmail accounts do we need to band together to lower the rank of stack overflow against our super-duper question-and-answer site QandAdsWithMe.annoying.com?
I think the worst culprits are the ones that skim StackOverflow questions and rehash them into their own supposed original "question and answer" site
What do you think most StackOverflow answers are? It's a karma-paid labor pool where you can post questions and a lot of under-employed people will rush out and do the necessary Google searches, collating and slightly rewriting the results to yield the most votes. Everyone is ripping off someone's content. And just to be accurate here, SO content is creative commons (created by the community). Are those just cheap wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like every few months, EE tries to cloak its site in a new way ... then Google catches them and they revert to merely misleading people (by putting the answers several page-scrolls down) into thinking that they need to pay to see the answers. 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…
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. I have no sympathy at all for them. All the answers are community-generated for free, aren't they? So they're trying to charge for other people's generosity. And plenty of sites on the web give away bett…
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.