fathom - 7:03 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)
What I think most people talk about [when they ask about whitelists], “Is there is some type of overriding, you are golden, you can never be touch, either philosophy or list.” And to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing like that.
Sullivan: So there is no overall, let’s call it the “Wikipedia list,” there is no overall, “This site should always be fine for everything.” But if you have a particular signal that you are implementing and you think, this signal is working well to deal with with 99% of the sites out there but “Wow, it is really hurting this other site for completely unrelated reasons, then let’s exempt them from that” type of thing?
Cutts: Well, I think if you were in charge of Google. Like suppose we all got hit by a bus and you guys had to come into the Googleplex and run the search engine yourselves, right? After you ate all the free food, then the next thing you would do, is you’d think of what is the philosophy, how do we make it work? And I think the right instinct is to try to do as much as you can algorithmically,
It is the same thing as spam. You try to solve hidden text or hacked site algorithmically, and then the stuff you can’t catch you are willing to take manual action on to remove because that is abuse and it is a bad user experience. And then you use that data to try do it the next round, so it is completely algorithmic, or it is algorithmic for more languages.
And I think that is the philosophy like almost anybody would come to, you want to be as scalable as you can.
Sullivan: So that is yes?
Cutts: I think that is a yes.
I could not find your case studies maybe you could post a thread on them.