To much oppurtunity for abuse.
You already have a vote for page on the toolbar.
Happy Face / Sad Face
Although, I don't think it really does anything.
Its virtually impossible to abuse.
1 vote per IP...
The problem is that few people really recognize what spam is. For example, if I sell widgets and through spamming get all 10 positions on page 1, if they click on the link, find I sell widgets and buy one from me, this is a relevant result. Likely pnly competitors will spot it as spam.
Woah, one vote per IP?
First off, if that's one vote EVER for ANY site per IP anyone that has a dynamic address would potentially be shut out.
At the same time that dynamic IP user could go and vote up to several hundred times. (Most cable modem subnets are divided into /23's -- and some dial-up providers have even larger allocations in 'superpops')
And what about AOL? They've got a few hundred proxy servers (guesstimate) for how many million members?
But we can require a unique cookie... That I can delete and get a new one... But one cookie per IP... (see above) per day!
I hope you see my point. You have to have enough of a chance to vote without someone 'stealing' your vote, at the same time limiting the ability to vote, and doing it all annonymously.
The only way something like that could work would be a RANDOM 'vote'. (How relivant was this page to your search? 1-10. Was there sufficient content on the page? 1-10) After enough inqueries about a URL have been received then action can be taken.
... But even that idea I think is far fetched for Google. They're more likely to prawl over SPAM reports and tweak the algo.
How are we going to define spam? Is spam an irrelevant result, or is it simply someone pushing every limit in optimizing their design?
I might consider it spam because it beats me out, but the end user might find it to be a relevant return to their search.
So, is it spam or not?
Now, on the other hand, I have come across a fair number of sites that are truly ugly as far as asthetics go, but clearly were designed with the SE's in mind. Very un-user friendly, but strictly by the rules as far as Google is concerned. Spam?
Guess its in the eye of the beholder. I have only turned in one spam report. It was acted on. It was before I even knew of Webmaster World. It was obviously spam because of its total irrelevance for the terms it was showing up for. 14 year old son was looking for information on cloning for a school project when up came a take over your computer, full screen, full frontal, full action porn site.
Never have figured out what it had to do with cloning...
I think the toolbar has something like this already. Under the toolbar options, you will see the voting buttons option.
Click away on the "vote against this page" button if you find something questionable.
Nobody really knows what these buttons actually do, but it's a good theory anyways.
daroz it really doesn't matter if your vote is counted or not. If all pages on the internet where to be voted on, the percentage of people voting yes this is spam would result in a poison distribution.
All that google would need to do is take a random sampling of 300 votes for any domain. If less then 1 percent of the sites on the internet recieve more then 230 "spam votes" then google would flag these domains/sites to be looked at.
(Regardless if this page fits your or my definition of spam, this is a page the majority of google users do not wish to see)
How do they know it is coming from a "user", and not a jealous competitor?
Think of pollings for elections etc. If you could break the system i just mentioned above a good part of the marketing world would cease to exist as well as polling.
10,000 votes coming from 10,000 distinct IP's are submited to google for domain abc. 5000 of them are marked as spam.
If i at randomly pick 500 votes out of the total of 10,000 i can expect on average that 250 votes will be marked as spam.
>Now, on the other hand, I have come across a fair number of sites that are truly ugly as far as asthetics go, but clearly were designed with the SE's in mind. Very un-user friendly, but strictly by the rules as far as Google is concerned. Spam?
This is something Google wouldn't even want to consider. Those looking for information are looking for good information, not nice looking sites. Lots of academic sites are ugly, but very useful.
What about a SPAM forum out here in WW. I am sure this must have been thought before, but yes i agree it's very difficult to take action against spam sites.
|This is something Google wouldn't even want to consider. Those looking for information are looking for good information, not nice looking sites. Lots of academic sites are ugly, but very useful. |
We definitely don't want to turn the web into a beauty contest.
>We definitely don't want to turn the web into a beauty contest.
Right. Top priority for any search engine should be relevance. If a site on the SERP for "purple penguins" is a porn one, the users will not be pleased. And, if beauty were an issue, what is beauty? My main complaint about websites I find is that they were designed more with aesthetics in mind, which means bloated graphics that take too long to download on dial up. Is beauty in the eye of a dial up user, or a DSL one?
Ya I could see potential for abuse with that. I haven't looked ooOh too much into the toolbar yet but think if someone wrote a program to emulate the good/bad smiley effects on a domain or site generating the information and submitting it through a list of open proxies with time delays and everything. :/
--What about a SPAM forum out here in WW. I am sure this must have been thought before, but yes i agree it's very difficult to take action against spam sites.--
I don't think you will see a spam forum on this site simply because a great deal of the spammers use this site to try and get ahead of the game.
It is in all our interest to keep the spammers guessing so that when their sites get banned, they come here and cry about why their site got banned!