| 9:10 am on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think that some form of manual editing would be a very positive move. I suggested something along these lines in this thread but no one showed any interest [webmasterworld.com...]
| 9:51 am on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Getting into any diologue with Jo public or (even worse) with webmasters is something to be avoided. Firstly it makes little financial sense. The money required to service 'site reviews' could either be spent improving automative systems or better still, paid to the employees. The amount of ranting they would have to deal with would be enormous, and inevitably you cannot help many people, who will then go to the press and complain... its better to keep as many doors shut as possible.
| 11:42 am on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
They will never do this, its hard enough to get a human response with issues let alone this type of thing. They do use DMOZ however as their base which as we all know is hand edited and reviewd in its own kind of way.
| 8:24 pm on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If the review requests met criterion set by Google I believe quite a few people here would pay a fee for a review for re-inclusion. No dialog has to be established between the developer and reviewer either unless a unique situation requires such.
By no means am I suggesting a simplistic form - like DMOZ for example. A well-planned and complex review program with strict submission requirements would control the trash that might “be let in the door” at Google. Language used in the review process would be designed to attract professionals.
When I speak of re-inclusion, I am not suggesting positioning a site back to where they were in the SERPS. A reviewer for example could lift a ban, or filter allowing a site to reenter the SERPS period and ‘naturally’ be repositioned as it normally would.
Again … just thinking.
| 8:56 pm on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This idea is certainly being considered by one of the Big 3 SEs. I know a VP at one of the Big 3, and he suggested that a similar idea was being considered by their engineering geniuses when we spoke about this a year and a half ago.
He mentioned to me as an example epinions, a consumer review website.
Alexa has user reviews, though hardly anyone uses this feature.
Frankly, it seems extremely difficult to put into practice. And inherently spammable (as the Alexa reviews already are).
| 9:31 pm on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Manual editing would be wonderful for those of us who have suffered dup penalites because of people stealing our content or for hijacking/redirects. Obviously, their alg isn't smart enough to discern an original site that is 4 years old from a spammy redirect url or and spammy scraper sites that are less than a year old and stealing content.
| 11:24 pm on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Some kind of paid review/ appeal would be a good move.
The current issues where a company is listed in Dmoz - but no longer ranks in Google for a search on its own unique name (unique name - not 'keyword1-keyword2.com') - however suggests that Google isn't even using the human reviewed data it already has at its disposal to determine relevancy.