Search engines and SEO spam

He’s just describing Webrings, except in a reactive tense (“filter out spam sites”) rather than a proactive tense (“associate your site with other worthwhile sites”). Google’s ranking algorithm only works when someone is proactively curating, and only SEO spammers do so these days. Reactive curation is not a viable way to manage information.

The simplest way to compete with Google is to create a DIY Webrings site that disallows harvesting of data by Google. Charge curators to create a webring, and let curators select three hashtags and a description that represent their list of fifty or fewer sites. Use the revenue to pay a human to curate the list of hashtags, and let users tip a webring curator in gratitude with an Apple Pay button.

This is how to make a million dollars, Pinboard-style, out of the ashes of the original curated Yahoo idea and the information structures of hashtagging. It doesn’t work if you allow free-for-all infinite-sized lists, it doesn’t work if you allow free-for-all hashtags, but with clear limits and moderation of tags (instead of webrings), it would thrive. By moderating tags, users can keep the webring they paid for, and SEO rings will be stick out for having no shared network with any other rings, which allows for easier detection and culling of malicious non-participatory actors. Plus, with the curation networks in place, it becomes possible to bubble up rings that have unusual content for positive human moderation activity.

I tried to find some good podcast lists yesterday and each site I visited had a really interesting cross-section, but there were so many duplicates. I wish the ring site existed, so that it could remember what it had shown me already, and I could say “show me rings that intersect with this podcast and have something new I haven’t seen before”.

That’s where the theory of pagerank and the practice of curation and the capabilities of search align, and given that moderation of hashtags scales very cheaply, is a billion dollar opportunity that Google and Amazon cannot compete with if handled properly. It’s not about trying to get a cut of every visit’s revenue potential. It’s about giving human beings a directory that respects their time and remembers what they’ve seen.

And makes me think that StumbleUpon had a similar curation ability, in that the value qualifier is how often [hopefully] real people interact with content - tracked by who's using SU and agreed to allow tracking; can't remember if sharing that was optional or not?

The gamification of the system then would have to come through onboarding fake users, pretending/mimicking real user behaviour to send that signal into the system; not sure if SU ever ran into that problem or was actively paying attention to trying to identify and removing fake or suspicious signals from their output?

I feel a much better system is easily within reach, it's simply getting the right structure to it, the right foundation, and then it will quickly take off due to the quality difference. I've already figured out a design pattern that Twitter and Facebook has indoctrinated us with, making us think it is normal - and keeping us blind to an actual normal way or organizing or communicating, but that isn't conducive to control or ad revenues - and so extending my future plans to include a better search-directory system would fit snugly into my efforts.

He's right as often as he's wrong

I agree with this and the grandparent comment wholeheartedly. That said, there's a kind of institutional blindness that can build up in companies—especially ones that dominate their sector. It may have roots in intransigent upper management, ossified and inflexible process, wide-scale burnout, a culture of passing the buck, or any number of other pathologies.

I don't claim that Google has any of these and certainly have no insight into their search group. But I've personally been at powerful companies with best-of-the-best talent that were blind to the decay in their own living room, so I would caution against immediate dismissal of PG's take.

> But they aren't free to talk about it, because if they did it would just give more assistance to the spammers, and make the problem worse.

The reality is more that some Google engineer will come up with an algorithm change that makes the result 40% better, but it will come at the expense of making that search 3ms slower so the change won't get merged. Or it will make the results worse for some niche set of queries that the business team really cares about, so again it won't get merged.

There are lots of consumers who would gladly pay $1 a month or whatever in order to use a couple extra milliseconds of compute power per per search in exchange for drastically better results, so there is lots of room for a startup to compete.