Fairla
msg:719499 | 2:48 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Hey, it's great that they're hiring remote workers. I worked remote (full time) for several years. It was 100 percent remote -- I never met ANY of my supervisors or coworkers, except via phone -- and the arrangement worked very well for me and my employers. I've always wondered why the big Internet companies don't do more of this.
|
pontifex
msg:719500 | 3:09 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Now they can not afford it anymore to do anything with programs... they must look at the pages closely, there are a lot of valuable pages still go down the drain just because of some mouse-pusher with an ill-working WYSIWYG editor creating spam filter triggers... Pure programmed filter logic can be tricked, always! P!
|
webhound
msg:719501 | 3:26 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Maybe someone at G was reading this thread: [webmasterworld.com...] Hand editing for spam. Interesting. Google would be brilliant to introduce this and would again put them at the forefront of search.
|
shri
msg:719502 | 4:33 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Hmm.. suspect this is is leading into India or Pakistan. Follow the chain of for payrolling.com whois and dns.
|
subotai
msg:719503 | 5:14 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
They have had this offer for a few months, so I imagine there have already been a few hires...
|
bcc1234
msg:719504 | 6:09 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| I wonder what these remote workers would be looking for |
|
They would be looking for the fastest way to collect bribes, what else?
|
europeforvisitors
msg:719505 | 6:26 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| They have had this offer for a few months, so I imagine there have already been a few hires... |
|
Yes, and the quality raters aren't necessarily being used to apply manual penalties--I'd guess their real role is to identify high-quality sites (and maybe low-quality sites) for testing and refining of Google's algorithms and filters.
|
Chico_Loco
msg:719506 | 6:37 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| I'd guess their real role is to identify high-quality sites (and maybe low-quality sites) for testing and refining of Google's algorithms and filters |
|
Wouldn't Google already (or have the ability to) track such information with their "Vote" buttons in the toolbar. Page-Voting could catch one. Pages could be assigned a "Popularity Rank (Pop-Rank)" or something like that. The higher the positive/negative vote ratio, the higher your site ranks! Idea Copyright Me! :)
|
larryhatch
msg:719507 | 7:43 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Does anyone have a rough idea what a job like that would pay?
|
tenerifejim
msg:719508 | 11:18 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
I may be wrong to suppose people will be hand editing the "natural serps". These people could easily be required to run the adwords and adsense programs only.
|
bether2
msg:719509 | 2:19 pm on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| Does anyone have a rough idea what a job like that would pay? |
|
Hard to say without knowing exactly what tasks would be involved with "search quality evaluation." They may be looking for what we call Quality Assurance Engineers (or software testers). I did this type of work - as a consultant - for about 12 years. In the late '90s, my hourly rate (in a major metropolitan area) was above $60. After a lot of jobs had been outsourced overseas - and I'd found a different source of income :), the rates went down to around $40/hr for people with my level of experience. If this job comes with benefits - ie, not a contract job, the rate would be less. And if the skills required are less technical than those required for software testing, the rate would naturally be less also. So, my guess is that we're talking about anywhere from $20-40/hr on a contract basis.
|
Trax
msg:719510 | 2:22 pm on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
quality rater.... very interesting. thanks for the info
|
bether2
msg:719511 | 2:33 pm on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Ok. I just looked at the other jobs Google has listed on craigslist and revise my guess to the lower end of the range I mentioned.
|
europeforvisitors
msg:719512 | 3:45 pm on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| Wouldn't Google already (or have the ability to) track such information with their "Vote" buttons in the toolbar. |
|
Results from Google's "vote" buttons are about as meaningful as results from online polls. I can't imagine using them to create reference points for doing QC checks on a search algorithm and filters. As for the other poster's suggestion that these quality raters may be used by AdWords or AdSense, Google does hire people for that kind of work, but the jobs are advertised separately. BTW, Google has a lot of jobs listed on its Web site (especially in the advertising area). See: [google.com...]
|
HughMungus
msg:719513 | 3:51 pm on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| These people could easily be required to run the adwords and adsense programs only. |
|
Great point. Google likes relying on machine ingelligence and this is one area where they can't (technically and from a PR standpoint).
|
stevenb 1959
msg:719514 | 7:13 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0) |
I see this as the first step in taking DMOZ acquisition or another directory purchase to the next level of search, total intergration/starting point for serp evaluation.
|
Livenomadic
msg:719515 | 7:22 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| I see this as the first step in taking DMOZ acquisition or another directory purchase to the next level of search, total intergration/starting point for serp evaluation. |
|
I agree. The best way for Google to have the most relevent results would be to hire some quality raters. Imagine for a second a DMOZ where 200 people worked full time choosing the best sites to be added. A mix of human and automatic quality rating could concievable beat any algoithim.
|
walkman
msg:719516 | 8:01 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0) |
"Imagine for a second a DMOZ where 200 people worked full time choosing the best sites to be added." I imagine it differently: 100 people removing sites that spam, cloak or use other means. All they have to do is pay attention to the spam report. This way innocent sites don't have to get caught on G's wide algo net. Adding sites manually is a game Google will lose. Removing them is hard too, but 100 people could make a huge difference since many of those sites are networked.
|
markd
msg:719517 | 8:25 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Why 'only USA or Canada'? Isn't 'remote working' supposed to allow for working outside the country of origin? A bonus I would have thought, if you were looking at 'local' searches.
|
Import Export
msg:719518 | 8:49 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0) |
If it was my company, I would eventually need starting points for the evaluators. Perhaps I would start in known spammy sectors, or maybe I would start in areas that generate the largest number of "suspicious queries". Based on different criteria, by identifying suspicious behavior I might find bread crumbs leading to sites or networks of sites. Either way, I would be not focus on using the sites found as a way to manually weed out sites and networks of spam, but more importantly use the sites in question to start reverse enginnering an automated way to locate such.
|
Liane
msg:719519 | 9:52 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Whatever the intent and what ever the quality raters will be looking at specifically, this is a very positive step by Google in recognizing that there are problems their algo is not presently able to identify. I'm very impressed and hope this experiment works for the betterment of us all. :)
|
europeforvisitors
msg:719520 | 10:16 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| Why 'only USA or Canada'? |
|
Not long ago, they were advertising for quality raters (or search evaluators, or whatever the term might have been) in Ireland and India, too.
|
larryhatch
msg:719521 | 10:22 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Hi Liane: I agree, a good sign, and I hope it works. Offhand, I'd say its a lot easier for human reviewers to find the
1000 worst sites, than it would be to find the 1000 best ones.
I'm guessing they will look for the worst, most abusive ones. Having identified the stinkers in one particular category, Hotels in Antarctica say,
they could look for similarities of form and method, and of course linking patterns. Using those findings, they could whomp up a set of filters or algorithms and test it. If it works as intended, with little collateral damage,
they could try it out in other searches .. widgets maybe. If not, they can re-evaluate their criteria, tweek the algorithms and try try again. It all depends on what the human reviewers find.
No machine can do that alone. - Larry
|
bether2
msg:719522 | 3:53 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Having identified the stinkers in one particular category, Hotels in Antarctica say,
they could look for similarities of form and method, and of course linking patterns. Using those findings, they could whomp up a set of filters or algorithms and test it. |
|
My guess is that they've already been doing this. Maybe partly based on hand-checking results and partly based on what they seen in abuse reports. Looks to me like they may just be expanding on what they've alreay been doing informally.
|
|
