Live data from Hacker News

Google algorithm change launched

news.ycombinator.com

191–200 of 203 posts

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, in fact I wrote the change we're talking about in this thread. :)

Hah. Good to know. I guess I'm your 'enemy' then since if there was a label for me it'd probably be blackhatter. Though my 'spam' tends to be of much greater quality than what most of the stuff BHW sort of people produce (I have some original content written and excluding my bottom of the barrel sites, the others have their automated parts like scraping edited/checked by a hired person).

die die die.

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#192
I run an letting agency (estate agency) I put the property's on my low ranking website. The content is not scraped, but re-published to several property portals, some big names.

Who'm gets penalised? The higher ranking, more frequently indexed property portals or my local website.

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tex is a hard one. And [latex decorative rules] is even trickier--most people wouldn't expect technical documentation if they just saw that as a random query. That's more of an issue to pass on to the synonyms team and not in the scope of this change, but I'll pass this one on to the right folks

Would it be feasible to introduce a search customization setting: "lower the estimated probability that I mistyped"? I assume google uses something like two cut-offs: A A, it suggests but doesn't search for the correction, while if P(mistype)> B, it displays auto-corrected results. Simply an user option to nudge P(mistype) lower would probably suffice, or an option to increase B. A major usability problem for me with…

Personally, I think this would be a good idea. You could learn how tech/Google-savvy different users are and adjust the search results accordingly. Someone who has done a site: search is probably more likely to know their way around Google, for example.

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#194
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&#3...

for me, the 10th result is:

www.questionhub.com/StackOverflow/3910933 - Cached

I think it is safe to say they are scraping, and, while there are some SO answers, that particular answer does correctly interpret what my intention was.

In fact, the SO page scraped shows up as the 12th entry.

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#195

Is this change restricted to programming-related queries only? I noticed today that a search for "mubarrek london" returns a page of results where every result on the first page, besides the top one, is spam from www.88searchengines.com, www.30searchengines.com, www.70searchengines.com, etc. I know this might not be related to topic of scraper sites directly, but not sure how else one can easily report these types of…

Google doesn't link to search engines in its results, that's their policy, so I would think those sites will be removed from their index at some point.

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#196

I imagine theres not much you can be specific about when talking about google's algorithm, but can you at least disclose if the identification of "original" content providers is "determined" (by some automatic process) or is it "specified" (manual intervention)? Stack overflow is an obvious benefactor of this new change, I'm just wondering if smaller content providers might benefit as well?

There's nothing manual about this. Everybody who authors their own content should be helped. :)

Please take care of the wikipedia scrapping trolls?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Live_mirrors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks

http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=Copies_of_W...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Websites_which_use_Wik...

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#197

Not exactly a scraper site, but if you do a search for "learn to hack" the top result is just a list of SEO keywords: http://www.learn-to-hack.com/ Several of the other results are rather dubious as well. The reason I bring it up is because the Squidoo lens that comes up is something I made, and while certainly not perfect it's still a much better than many of the SEO spam sites and fake eBooks that rank above it. (A…

>Anyway sorry if it's a faux pas to complain about my own stuff, but I feel like it's a legitimate problem with the way Google works. Definitely not a faux pas. Thanks for the example. My biggest annoyance in threads like these is people who write essays about their site losing traffic but then aren't willing to provide an url for people to check out.

The guilty don't want google to know what they are doing .

Keep up the good work squelching the trolls!

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#198
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the best way to get these to you (after this article has dropped off the front page)?

I'll still circle back to this page for quite a while, or you can tweet them to me. If it's long feedback, you can blog it and tweet a link to the blog post.

As the guy in charge of fighting webspam, maybe this will help you find or improve upon some algorithmic means of detecting when lots of unrelated wikis start to get exploited to feed up advertisements.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=73045.0

Apparently, for a short time (until the admins fixed it), a wiki for a game I play was hijacked to spam Google. Actually, said wiki (magmawiki.com) is under attack right now from spam user accounts. I don't run the place, but I thought I'd pass the information along because it might give you something to examine and because I have to imagine that anything that helps Google identify spam-hijacked wikis would be helpful to everyone.

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully - Sites like yours ruin the internet. You admit it yourself: you produce no content of your own. I do NOT want to see results from pages of that ilk when I google for things. Google made the right choice to de-index it.

Google (in the context of search) produce no content of their own, are they ruining the internet?

From looking at some Google Places I would say they are the king of scrapping content and definitely help contribute to the ruining of the Internet.

Example would be my wife's company, which is a large non-profit science center that helps educate kids and adults about science and has a wonderful website that they pay a lot of money to maintain and support. However, Google doesn't see any problem with the fact that they've scrapped my wife's company website to get their contact data, hours, and a few other points that they then put on their own page (Google Places - whatever that is), along with their own Google ads, as well as link to my wife's company competitors all for the purpose of keeping visitors on their site so that they can get the ad dollars while adding no additional value of their own.

To me this is the biggest scam in the world and makes them look like giant lying crooks on the web because they steal content from others, while banning competitors that do the same thing and all the while telling people that they doing it for the good of the web.

Yeah right?!? Google is doing it for the good of your pocket books. Here's a thought, why doesn't Google start paying sites, or splitting profits with the sites that they scrap data from and then make money off of. They are stealing visitors, traffic, and ad dollars while providing no additional content or benefit to the reader. I believe Google is getting really close to anti-trust issues and should be looked at very closely by the US Gov. They broke Ma Bell up in the 80's because they got too big and I see something like this coming down the line for Google.

People are starting to get concerned that their hands are dappling into many areas that cross-support each other, putting a lot of control and power into one company's hands. Google is not the Internet, they make no original content of their own, they regularly police the web and try to tell us what is relevant or not, similar to a dictator in a closed society, and they make money off all of this so of course it's in their best interest to keep it going and make us think we need them to show us the web. Truth be told, I can find anything I'm looking for on any engine, and often I find good and bad results on all of them so to me Google is just another search engine and if they keep going down their slippery slope they will wind up like Alta Vista.

Here's a suggestion. Drop your bunk PR and link structured algo and develop a new tool that doesn't support spamming the web with paid links. Google created this monster when they put so much emphasis on links and people all over the web buy and sell links to push their rankings up. This model is so old and out-dated that it doesn't make sense. Now Google is putting band-aids all over their old bunk algo trying to keep their out-dated ways going instead of putting in the time, dollars, and effort on making a new model that will actually produced good nature results instead of manipulated results that have to be regularly policed and manipulated to keep it going. The fact that Google has to regular update their algo shows that they know there are problems with it, but they just keep sticking more patches and band-aids on it instead of building a new model that will not support the spam techniques on the web.

All I can say is CONGRATS on putting another band-aid on the OLD ALGO. Maybe this one will only effect a small number of legit sites and, heck, those are casualties of the war on spam, right?

Good luck to all the legit sites that are trying to jump through Google's hoops! Just remember, if you don't make it through today you will be gone tomorrow.

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, in fact I wrote the change we're talking about in this thread. :)

Hah. Good to know. I guess I'm your 'enemy' then since if there was a label for me it'd probably be blackhatter. Though my 'spam' tends to be of much greater quality than what most of the stuff BHW sort of people produce (I have some original content written and excluding my bottom of the barrel sites, the others have their automated parts like scraping edited/checked by a hired person).

Though my 'spam' tends to be of much greater quality than what most of the stuff BHW sort of people produce

You threw a vitamin pill into a bucket of mud?

Post reply on HN