Google search and search engine spam • Hacker News Board

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#81

Post by bradly » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 7:34 PM UTC

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #24

jonpaul wrote: post #20

You know, sometimes it really makes me mad that it's difficult to get into contact with a person at Google for support of their products. But, I've got to hand it to them. They could have issued a non-personal public statement like most companies and signed it with "Google Search Team" But instead there is a personal touch. It's public statements like these that add just a bit of personal touch that makes people love…

It's safe to say that many Googlers read what people write on the web and talk about it internally, even if we don't always respond. We're power users too, so if a search result bothers you, it almost certainly bothers us too. :)

Matt,

Can you speak about the possibility for personal domain blacklists for Google accounts? I know giving users the option to remove sites from their own search results is talked about a lot in these HN threads. Is there any talk internally about implementing something like this?

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#82

Post by jpalomaki » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 7:34 PM UTC

I believe it is very hard to implement algorithms that can make a difference between stackoverflow.com and a rip-off, or a legitimate Apache mailing list archive and a rip-off.

Why not allow the community to sort this out. "Google Custom Search" already exist. Google could extend that to the direction where people could customize the Google search to exclude certain sites from the results (right now it is only possible to specify a list of sites to include in the search).

Blacklists for at least specific "fields of searching" would emerge very quickly. People could select what blacklists to use, if any.

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#83

Post by timmaah » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 7:34 PM UTC

gregable wrote: post #76

timmaah wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.google.com/search?q=delayed_job+delay+priority&#3... Stackoverflow comes in at number 8 while clones are 6 and 10

Assuming we are looking at the same results, the pages at position #6 and #10 are not copies of the stackoverflow content at position #8. They are copies of http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1399293/test-priorities-o... . Unfortunately, the only place that the word "delay" (which is in your query) sometimes appears on that stackoverflow page is in the "related" links in the right column. At the time Google last craw…

Yeah.. it might not be the best example, as what I was searching for is not current possible, so there are no correct results for it.

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#84

Post by jacoblyles » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 7:37 PM UTC

In other industries, the government regulates that there must be a "Chinese Wall" (no communication or shared personel) between segments of a company that have conflicts of interest. In this case, search and advertising qualify. I expect to see proposals for this kind of regulation in the next 10 years as the FCC begins regulating the internet.

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#85

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 7:40 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#86

Post by storborg » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 7:41 PM UTC

rfergie wrote: post #75

abrahamsen wrote: post #61

Google have two strong incentives to weed out AdSense drivel sites in the search results. 1. They diminish the value of Google Search as an advertising platform. And Google Search is likely the most valuable virtual estate on the net. I more often click on ads in Google Search than I click on ads on all other sites combined. This is because when I'm on Google Search I'm actually searching for something, so I might cl…

I agree with you on point 1; if Google's search quality is not the best than people will (eventually) go elsewhere. I disagree on point 2. Users on low quality AdSense sites almost certainly arrived there from a search engine so if I can display my adverts on a users landing page it will be almost as good as if they arrived on my site straight from Google.

In fact, AdSense ads on sites with shitty content are even more likely to be effective, because users won't find what they're looking for in the page content.

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#87

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 7:41 PM UTC

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #31

eps wrote: post #3

Metrics-shmetrics. Once I stop seeing StackOverflow clones listed above StackOverflow's original pages I will gladly believe that Google's search quality is "better than ever before."

I've been tracking how often this happens over the last month. It's gotten much, much better, and one additional algorithmic change coming soon should help even more. I'm not saying that a clone will never be listed above SO, but it definitely happens less often compared to a several weeks ago.

Is google ever going to go on the record about companies like demand media and whether or not they get special treatment from google?

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#88

Post by kloc » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 7:45 PM UTC

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #31

eps wrote: post #3

Metrics-shmetrics. Once I stop seeing StackOverflow clones listed above StackOverflow's original pages I will gladly believe that Google's search quality is "better than ever before."

I've been tracking how often this happens over the last month. It's gotten much, much better, and one additional algorithmic change coming soon should help even more. I'm not saying that a clone will never be listed above SO, but it definitely happens less often compared to a several weeks ago.

While searching for a pdf file, I hardly find the pdf through the top results. The top results are often kind off pdf, ebook search engines themselves and they clearly appear on top by gaming Google. I hope this gets fixed too.

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#89

Post by mmaunder » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 7:46 PM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #74

seunpy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with eHow?

I guess if you find it helpful, nothing. I always skip their results because they're always really shallow. The kind of article you'd expect if you were paying someone $4 to research and write an article on a topic they know nothing about.

Exactly, and there are a huge number of $4 sites out there and a large number of companies providing that kind of outsourced content generation. If you've got $100k in funding to blow, it's really easy to get your first 10,000 pages of content and a stream of SEO traffic within a few months.

I agree with Ryan that these kinds of sites are worse than scrapers because they're just as useless but algorithmically much harder to detect.

Re: Google search and search engine spam

#90

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 7:47 PM UTC

roc wrote: post #79

fname wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm not a fan of that site either, it's not true -- scroll to the bottom of the page. Sneaky? Absolutely, but the content and solution is there.

It's no longer true. Short version is: they used to, and got busted for, serving answers to the spiders and ads and pitches to the surfers. So now they show the answer at the bottom of a pile of ads and pitches. But they still suck. Horribly. And are the number one example I hear when people say "I wish Google would let me blacklist domains".

[deleted]