homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 107.21.163.227
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Website
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 56 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 56 ( 1 [2]     
Giveme Back My Google
Brett_Tabke




msg:3132825
 10:58 am on Oct 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

A Google search string producer that removes affiliate and selected ad sites from the Google results: [GiveMeBackMyGoogle.com...]
That has some pretty heavy duty backlinks out there - so I thought it was an interesting topic. It is also nice example usage of the -url operator.

Now if they could just:

- increase the size of the snippet by atleast two fold (when did they cut that thing in half!?)
- strip the over blown JS and CSS, (Like I really need my cursor focused on the search field - which does nothing but mess up scrolling).
- remove the those tricky adwords/premium ads that you accidentally click on. (funny how that click width is the entire page eh?)
- remove or expand the supplemental junk that obfuscates results.
- get rid of the indented system to twelve layers (if I want a directory - I'll go to Yahoo)

Do that and heck - we'd almost be back to the G we fell in love with seven years ago again. aka: a usable search engine.

I think services like "GiveMeBackMyGoogle" are a red flag that Google has moved too far away from the core search engine that built them. I think the lesson for google is to, quit trying to fix what aint broke.

 

Reno




msg:3134535
 4:20 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

To pay back all those good folk who invested their savings in Google

Since I too am engaged in the (too often futile) effort of making some $$ via the WWW, I am the last to criticize another for doing the same.

And as I said, I believe the Google of our dreams from yesteryear is precisely that -- the Google of our dreams.

But having said all that, surely there is a middle ground that gives the most relevant results AND allows the company a reasonable return on its investment.

So I'm with jtara -- give the user a clean and simple interface to filter out what they don't want, and everyone comes out ahead. For a $455 BILLION company with nearly 50% of marketshare, I find it a little hard to believe that is an impossible task.

.............................

vite_rts




msg:3134538
 4:23 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Nice idea jtara, for the user,

But , would it not be a bit simmilar to like giving TV watchers a button to eliminate TV adverts,,

Great! some would say, but would any new TV programs get made after that,,

How would you solve that concern, I curious cos it a nice idea,,

appi2




msg:3134542
 4:25 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

You can add this to the search for firefox
Go to the firefox folder look for search plugins folder Open the google file inside that folder.
Look for this string

<Param name="q" value="{searchTerms}"/>

Replace with

<Param name="q" value="{searchTerms} -inurl:kelkoo¦bizrate¦pixmania¦dealtime¦pricerunner"/>

Don't forget the space before -inurl
Remember WW makes the pipe symbol into ¦

europeforvisitors




msg:3134603
 5:11 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Nice idea jtara, for the user, But , would it not be a bit simmilar to like giving TV watchers a button to eliminate TV adverts, Great! some would say, but would any new TV programs get made after that

I don't think the two are comparable. If users are given the ability to, say, filter out price-comparison sites or autogenerated made-for-AdSense sites, and if that leads to a decline in such sites, how is the public being hurt?

Even in the TV world, programming isn't dependent entirely on viewers watching commercials. If everybody started skipping commercials with a TIVO tomorrow, the traditional networks and/or their programming would move to cable and satellite channels, and users would pay for programming with their cable or satellite subscriptions (as they do in many cases right now).

To continue with your TV analogy, what jtara is suggesting is comparable to being able to skip infomercial and shopping channels when tuning your cable or satellite TV. It isn't forcing those channels out of business; it's just preventing them from forcing themselves on viewers.

Mind you, I don't think jtara's suggestion is practical, because not all sites lend themselves to easy categorization. But a Google "set search filters" option that would let users block certain domains or sites that fit certain characteristics would have a positive effect in two ways:

1) It would improve the quality of search;

2) Web entrepreneurs might create fewer junk sites if they knew that search users had "junk site" blockers along with their popup blockers.

And here's another idea: What if Google and other search engines created user-optional junk filters that worked with the Web equivalent of e-mail spam blacklists? Think "search meets Spamhaus."

Brett_Tabke




msg:3134703
 6:39 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

> But , would it not be a bit simmilar to like
> giving TV watchers a button to eliminate TV adverts,,

No - that would be zapping adWords and this does not. This is like getting rid of the coke commercial in the middle of the movie. Or like Firefox and Operas Ad Blockers.

jetteroheller




msg:3134729
 6:57 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Great!

When I enter one of my major search terms, even my book written 1993 appears on top of all as book search result!

jtara




msg:3134788
 7:47 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

A few more thoughts on restricting searches by category...

It seems to me that the technology for this is already well-developed for the case of blocking adult websites.

First, there is self-rating (and/or self-rating according to third-party criteria) using PICS codes that are embedded in website HTML.

Then there are schemes to rate sites using: automatic techniques (AI and non-AI) paid staff, volunteers, the public, various combinations of the above with or without a concensus of multiple participants. (Also AI and non-AI. Human ratings can be used to drive AI recognition - so that an AI system can automatically classify sites or pages that have not been rated, but appear "similar".)

In most cases, users can choose between multiple rating criteras, ratings organizations, etc.

There is no reason why such rating has to be confined to recognizing adult material.

It wouldn't be hard to throw together a mash-up or a local application to do this, and perhaps it has already been done. It could probably be done with existing content-filtering plugins, simply by using a different block list/block list server.

But in order to be adopted widely, this needs to be implemented by the search engine vendor themselves.

Google and others need to stop fooling themselves that they can deliver what users want, without users telling them what they want.

Until/unless search engines actually understand human language (and not "keyword speak") in all it nuances, I believe that such a classification system is needed to deliver what searches truly are looking for.

And, even then - perhaps it is needed. Even if search engines truly understood language... do you want to have to keep repeating that you don't want to see Nextag?

How about typing "don't ever show me Nextag!"? "Don't ever show me MFA sites!" And having Google remember it?

You could have sets of classification filters that could be applied to sets of searches.

"I'm looking for manufacturers now".

"kitchen sinks"

"kitchen cabinets"

"OK, now I'm looking for local dealers..."

What we have today in search, vs. what could be possible even with existing technology is mindlessly simplistic and disappointing - throwing keywords at a brick wall.

reseller




msg:3134800
 8:00 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi Folks!

A Google search string producer that removes affiliate and selected ad sites from the Google results: [GiveMeBackMyGoogle.com...]

Ok. So some of you are against showing affiliate program related sites on the serps.

But I haven't seen yet on this thread any reasonable reason for removing those sites from the serps. Lets talk "thick" affiliate sites ;-)

Ok. Maybe I need to start a new thread:

Should Affiliate Program Related Sites Be Removed of Google Index? WHY? :-)

jtara




msg:3134825
 8:20 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

But I haven't seen yet on this thread any reasonable reason for removing those sites from the serps.

I don't think anybody wants them removes from the SERPS.

Just MY SERPS.

BECAUSE I WANT IT THAT WAY!

There is no other reason needed. I don't need a justification. I don't want to remove them from everybody's SERPs. Just the ones that the search engine shows ME, thank you!

The first search engine to recognize this obvious truism - that the way to give users what they want is to give users what THEY want - will be the next big search-engine winner.

ashear




msg:3134866
 8:53 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

The interesting thing here is that this site is calling all of these sites Affiliates. Especially since it only addresses a small portion of this population, some of these sites contain user generated reviews that are considered high quality.

If you are looking for a washing machine would you rather find a site that had.

1).User reviews of the product?
2).Sears trying to up sell you on the highest GM product?
3).A site that un-covers smaller mom and pop stores that provide better prices?

Removing affiliates is great in my mind, but very few of the words listed scream affiliate to me.

I would instead suggest using true “affiliate” terms, Commission Junction, aff?=, etc.

vite_rts




msg:3134867
 8:55 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

I've been thinking long an hard about this,,,,

Okay, i exagerate :-)

But I know the answer!

Dmoz version 2

Yes, thats the one that comes after the present one
1, Non profit making directory, classifys websites for SE's
2, perhaps funded by all SE's jointly
3, perhaps charges a processing fee to discourage frivolous submissions (no more than $50)
4, Classifications used by SE's
5, All submission results notified to submitting webmasters, ye or nay
6, Status change algo/spider to detec sites that change their stripes
7, Site submission status query function,,

And finally, if Dmoz version 2 ain't possible, then Google , Yahoo or msn can implement above using their own muscle

reseller




msg:3134878
 9:00 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

jtara

Just MY SERPS.

BECAUSE I WANT IT THAT WAY!

There is no other reason needed. I don't need a justification. I don't want to remove them from everybody's SERPs. Just the ones that the search engine shows ME, thank you!

Fair enough.

But why only removing affiliate program related sites. Why not also for example sites related to childe porn too?

In fact we are talking here about a Google search string producer [GiveMeBackMyGoogle.com...] that removes affiliate and selected ad sites, but not sites related to childe porn!

europeforvisitors




msg:3134894
 9:10 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't recall running across any child porn sites while searching on "Widgetco laptops" or "Elbonia travel."

I have run across a lot of "thin affiliate" clutter (along with plenty of autogenerated, keyword-driven, made-for-AdSense pages that I'd be happy to filter out en masse).

I think most of us would regard the filtered-site list in Give Me Back My Google as a starting point, not as a finished product.

[edited by: europeforvisitors at 9:15 pm (utc) on Oct. 25, 2006]

appi2




msg:3134898
 9:12 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Never seen any sites related to child thang... what you searchin for.
However try searching for any product code for any electrical items.
Affiliate hell.

jtara




msg:3134917
 9:23 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

If you are looking for a washing machine would you rather find a site that had.

1).User reviews of the product?
2).Sears trying to up sell you on the highest GM product?
3).A site that un-covers smaller mom and pop stores that provide better prices?

Depends on my mindset and just where I am in the selection process.

Give me the choice. I may not want to see any of the above - perhaps just manufacturer's sites. Perhaps just local dealers. Perhaps just mentions by happy consumers in their personal blogs.

Give ME the choice. Don't make it for me.

P.S. the DMOZ2 idea appeals to me. They'd have to expand to include such categories as "MFA", "spammy", etc. ;) And categories that represent not only what a site is ABOUT, but viewpoint, authorship, business type (if a business), etc. But, yes, it seems a directory could be used as a basis for filtering of SERPs.

I do think to be practical, though, you need a "learning" search engine that could use such a directory as "guidance" and look for "similar" pages/sites.

[edited by: jtara at 9:28 pm (utc) on Oct. 25, 2006]

reseller




msg:3134926
 9:26 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

EFV

I think most of us would regard the filtered-site list in Give Me Back My Google as a starting point, not as a finished product.

Fair enough and acceptable as long as you are building up your own "private-filter".

However, if such "private-filter" become a default for [GiveMeBackMyGoogle.com,...] then we are talking about something else, I guess.

reseller




msg:3134930
 9:30 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

jtara

Give ME the choice. Don't make it for me.

But you have no choice here, because [GiveMeBackMyGoogle.com...] has already made it for you!

ashear




msg:3134934
 9:35 pm on Oct 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Depends on my mindset and just where I am in the selection process.

Give me the choice. I may not want to see any of the above - perhaps just manufacturer's sites. Perhaps just local dealers. Perhaps just mentions by happy consumers in their personal blogs.

Give ME the choice. Don't make it for me.

P.S. the DMOZ2 idea appeals to me. They'd have to expand to include such categories as "MFA", "spammy", etc. ;)

I do think to be practical, though, you need a "learning" search engine that could use such a directory as "guidance" and look for "similar" pages/sites.

In my opinion you are totally right! Let us have the say of what we want to see. My only point is let’s use real internet terms, this site says it’s removing affiliates. All I see is the removal of places to read other opinions on products and a place to compare prices. In fact by removing buy, you are taking out buy.com, a site that I personally think has some of the best prices on the net.

photopassjapan




msg:3135469
 12:06 pm on Oct 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Can i ask why G wouldn't start to "downgrade" the ranking of domains in its general SERPs that are being constantly and consistently filtered out by most Co-Op custom search engines?

Or if that's too much, why wouldn't it start favoring the ones that are constantly included.

And if it will, and why wouldn't it... isn't that a "give me back my google" movement... launched by google... with niche sites participating as the "filters" just as people are labeling photos in the image labeler, and Co-Ops are labeling websites for generic terms as we speak? ( The last three are facts we know of. Whether G will make use of that data or not, well, we can only guess ;) )

You know i think it's G that needs its search engine to be good - G needs it the most out of all parties. Every product and every single cent it earns is strongly tied to that sinking ship. And no, i don't think they can do it with algos only. And finally they seem to passively admint this. No, those people didn't build the first AI of the human race. They can't. No one can. Human society/marketing is an AI with 6.000.000.000 processors linked together. Get the annexes of this system to work for you and you've successfully reached and won over the rest.

This year... make it this fall... google literally opened channels to isolated back-end features with which it can see how well informed / well trusted / most enthusiastic users would like to see their search results. Pretty impressive move.

So... What are we talking about right now? :)

[joke] off to add unique meta keywords -.- [/joke... or was it?]

europeforvisitors




msg:3135622
 2:40 pm on Oct 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Can i ask why G wouldn't start to "downgrade" the ranking of domains in its general SERPs that are being constantly and consistently filtered out by most Co-Op custom search engines?

Or if that's too much, why wouldn't it start favoring the ones that are constantly included.

That would make perfect sense if Google had a way to identify and ignore "custom search engine spam."

Brett_Tabke




msg:3135635
 2:58 pm on Oct 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Actually the url in question, is more a topic starter to point to the quality (or lack thereof) Google search results in product areas that shopping and comparison sites saturate.

The claim for years has been that Google has been top heavy in commercial sites. You have the paid ads on the right, and you have the paid optimization on the left. The above util shows that in spades.

That single group of sites is a perfect example of paid "over optimization" to the point of contaminating otherwise perfectly good SERPs. It points out the fallacy that PageRank can hold up in the real world were everyone knows and practices 75% of it's secrets.

> not affiliate sites

Well - they are but they aren't affiliate sites. It is no big leap of faith to realize those sites make the majority of their money from affiliate relationships with manufactuers. Most of them provide nothing but cut-n-paste adcopy direct from those manufacturers as delivered to affiliate programs. Yes, they are value added affiliate sites that do add a search and comparison services, but at the end of the day, if you earn the majority of your money from affiliate referral fees, you are an affiliate site.

europeforvisitors




msg:3135649
 3:18 pm on Oct 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

at the end of the day, if you earn the majority of your money from affiliate referral fees, you are an affiliate site.

I'd disagree with that; you might as well say that, because Webmaster World makes most of its money from conferences, it's a conference site. Still, that's beside the point, because GoogleGuy has told us that Google doesn't have a problem with affiliates per se: Google has a problem with "thin affiliates." What constitutes a "thin affiliate" is obviously in the eye of the beholder, and it appears that Google is more charitable than some of us are.

wingslevel




msg:3135717
 4:09 pm on Oct 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

I ran 10 sample commercial queries - stunning improvement in serp quality! what a joy for the user! google take note, this is a BIG improvement

all of those excluded inurls have the same client base of ppc and aff customers, so the redundancy is huge!

Iguana




msg:3136176
 11:00 pm on Oct 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

This has ruined my business idea. I was going to write a Sidebar for Firefox that just searched Amazon, buy, dooyoo, epinions (and all the other sites in the Giveme Back url filter). That way no-one would ever need to go to Google again.

Back to the drawing board...

Craig_F




msg:3136249
 12:47 am on Oct 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

google is still there, it's just a mess because they need the adwords bucks.

give them a diff big rev stream and you heard it here first -- sweet ass google serps will appear again.

[edited by: Craig_F at 12:48 am (utc) on Oct. 27, 2006]

europeforvisitors




msg:3136292
 1:55 am on Oct 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Sour grapes make sour wine.

BTW, I've never understood the argument that goes, "Google is corrupting its search results to sell more AdWords." If Site A moves up while Site B moves down in the rankings, Site B may have an incentive to spend more on AdWords, but won't Site A have less incentive to buy ads?

Also, Google isn't the only search engine in town, and AdWords--its cash cow--depends on attracting searchers. Just getting advertisers to sign up for AdWords isn't enough: Google needs to deliver clicks to earn money from those advertisers, and driving away users by intentionally screwing up its earch results is no way to grow (or even to maintain) an audience.

Google.com isn't a disposable domain, and unless Google's honchos are a lot stupider than most of us believe, they aren't likely to treat it like one.

This 56 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 56 ( 1 [2]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved