Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
According to some [slashdot.org] sites [searchbistro.com],
It's one of the best kept secrets of Google. It's a mystery on Webmasterworld. Also in Europe (France) they don't know what to expect from that odd URL [eval.google.com....] Click it and you get ...nothing. The site reveals itself only if you have the proper login and if you use a network known by Google. Residues of Eval.google are found on the web, but the full content of the mystery site has never been published before. Here it is: the real story about Eval.Google. They use... humans!
The site claims it is some kind of the secret google evaluation lab!
I find it fairly fascinating and eye popping. I am going to try to remain open minded about this and see more in the near future.
No!
I would have thought (even betted money) that this is just an ongoing process. GG was talking about data movements/updates - whatever - not this.
>>>>While I don't find it too surprising that Google would use some sort of human aspect to fine-tune it's algorithms.
Where can you apply if you only speak English ;)
"Develop content, add value to affiliates" is not SEO, argue at will. When google endorses EFV it means he's given them so much free info and good publicity that he deserved that endorsement.
Anyway congratulations to EFV, you've realised every SEO's dream, which is to get such a big publicity out of Google.
>Where can you apply if you only speak English ;) <
And work for $10 to $20 per hour? No way :-)
"The Google testers are paid $10 - $20 for each hour they filter the results of Google. "
judging from posts on the Bourbon update, this could explain the fall from grace of several established sites that are affiliate driven, with varying levels of value add content depending on the page.
Shame, I would love to work for the big G helping to clear the muck off the web :)
That is not a bad rate of pay Reseller. (For the Job)
Having said that I suppose from your point of view not so good. Beer etc costs a lot in Denmark. :)
>>>Shame, I would love to work for the big G helping to clear the muck off the web
Me too. However I already do for free (5 out of 5 Spam Reports acted on in the last 2 weeks:))
BTW, I havenīt noticed Bourbon hitting affiliate pages covering quality reviews. I have run few searches and they are still there.
I have a (bad) feeling it's per page. But, the good news would be that they won't necessarily nuke the entire site, assuming the remaining pages are not "thin Affs."
-cheers not worth the read.
I have serious reservations about Henk van Ess taking information from one of his own students (who presumably signed a non-disclosure agreement when the student agreed to help rate the quality of our results) and posting that information online. I also believe these web pages said things like "Google Proprietary and Confidential," but it appears that the screenshots have been cropped to exclude that information. Those are the two things that really made me sad, not the "breaking news" the Google evaluates its own results quality. It shouldn't be a surprise that Google evaluates the quality of its results in lots of ways--the fact is that every major search engine evaluates its relevance in many ways.
You had mentioned before (and it makes sense) that G tests the index for quality before & after a major update. Thanks for clarifying it more.
As far as the non-disclosure thing, it sucks (from G's point of view), but sadly it's not the first, and it will not be the last. If someone did it to me, I would want to choke them with my hands, but even suing could backfire on Google. Imagine the "Google vs poor college student" headlines.
It shouldn't matter if your a geek with money or some football star, everyone has the right to be found on the net and if you part of the mechanisms at play delivering that information you have responsiblities to live up to. Otherwise you leave it open for your competition to just send someone a check at google and bribe someone to delist a site I mean gmail is a good example of spook town usa making its way into google for good. If your going to run a search engine and pull this sort of singling out the little guy you have to make sure that you don't do it to those ie. stronger than you, people that know where you live, people that are immune to certain departments since they have signed contracts etc. It just comes down to geeks trying to flex their money muscles.
P.S. I hate avatars with mud on peoples faces makes me want to rip their heads off too. But when the small guy is taken out like from some " one " persons vote or groups of votes your creating a system based on mere webdesign visual looks and who is google to say that now seos have to create a more clean site just to rank higer.I feel that the little guy should be able to return the favor. I mean when a large corporation can intimidate individual webmasters and cut off their main supply of funds with a hit like this I mean its frustrating. God help us what has the world come to. When egos go at play and sway decisions to pull websites merely by looks or ethics of link placement you have got yourself in a sticky situation.
[edited by: lawman at 1:57 pm (utc) on June 6, 2005]
not the "breaking news" the Google evaluates its own results quality.
When Google scratches Google's nose, it's "breaking news". Really, how was this different from any other post on GOOG?
But when Henk van Ess submitted his own blog to Slashdot, he asserted "Real people, from all over the world, are paid to finetune the index of Google," and that made it sound like people were reaching in via this console to tweak results directly, which just isn't true at all.
Google Guy, do I read between the lines that you think my postings are irrelevant and misleading? That would be a shame.
Let's go along with your reasoning. If you say agents don't have any influence on the index, I have a question for you. Why pay them for something if it has no effect om the index? Must be charity then.
GOOGLEGUY
I have serious reservations about Henk van Ess taking information from one of his own students (who presumably signed a non-disclosure agreement when the student agreed to help rate the quality of our results) and posting that information online.
I like your posts, but I guess you don't like mine. I'm not aware of restrictions. The pages were shown in a public class. I'm a professional reporter for 20 years. If Google thinks the information is classified, why Debbie (Frost) didn't tell me? I asked her for a comment...
Let's go back to the content. Check the discussions on Search Engine Watch or many other professional SE-boards. Google Guy, do you really think it's irrelevant to talk about Google's Human Quality Evaluation?
oh my god!....GOOGLE.....is....PEOPLE!
Think of all the crappy keyword-stuffed sites crowding the SERPS, just for one abusive example.
Did the famous algorithms find them out? Apparently not. Some of them at least found ways to
game the system. One half-awake English major would spot such a site in an instant.
Suppose a highly rated site has 100s or 1000s of outgoing links, all 302 redirects, and no real
original content of its own. The engines may smile on it, but the kids could catch it.
Lets say the kids find thousands of crap sites (that shouldn't take terribly long (chuckle!) )
Each stinkeroo gets tagged into a junk-pile. THEN the algorithm writers can find out what factors
the junk sites have in common, and refine their tools. The rest happens with electronic speed ..
Possible collateral damage aside for now, if there is a downside to this, I don't see it yet. -Larry
<snip>
[edited by: lawman at 1:58 pm (utc) on June 6, 2005]
[edit reason] No Blog Links Please [/edit]
I find it fairly fascinating and eye popping.
I don't find this eye popping at all. Everyone knows that Google has spam reports, and presumably, several in house methods of gauging quality control.
We also knew that Google was hiring Quality Raters [google.com] ... they've never made that a secret.
some of the implications such as the whitelisting of sites ...
Also no secret ... Combating Web Spam with Trust Rank [dbpubs.stanford.edu]
But when Henk van Ess submitted his own blog to Slashdot, he asserted "Real people, from all over the world, are paid to finetune the index of Google," and that made it sound like people were reaching in via this console to tweak results directly, which just isn't true at all.
The keyword in Google Guy's post being "passive" versus "active".
>Speculation<
Presumably, these are just reports which Google will then work with, comparing several reports to their own findings and then work on it in house to determine how to come to the same conclusion via their algo.
I have serious reservations about Henk van Ess taking information from one of his own students (who presumably signed a non-disclosure agreement when the student agreed to help rate the quality of our results) and posting that information online.
I would too! I imagine the lawyers at the plex are abuzz with their newest project.
God help us what has the world come to. When egos go at play and sway decisions to pull websites merely by looks or ethics of link placement you have got yourself in a sticky situation.
Apparently, you didn't see the same pages I did. On the page titled "Goggle Secret Lab, Prelude" on searchbistro, I saw nothing there to indicate that sites would be pulled based on "looks", "link placement" or anything else for that matter. Nor did I see anything to indicate such a thing in Mr. Ess's flash movie.
From what I can tell, it appears Google has supplied the raters with a Spam Guide, allowing them to use the guide and rate the sites in question via this form. So what? Isn't Google entitled to have quality control systems? Isn't Google permitted to hire people to evaluate sites based on a set of guidelines they have outlined?
DMOZ and Yahoo editors review and rate sites all the time for their directories! What's so different about this?
I think its great! "Humans do it better" is a well know saying and one I agree with. I think its a good thing that Google is employing people to help achieve better quality in the search results. I do believe that Yahoo still has human editors ... do they not?
I don't get what the big deal is here?
I'm not aware of restrictions.
I get the feeling you will become more aware of "restrictions" relatively soon!
Both you and your student, Debbie (Frost) ... whom you so readily outed, might want to contact a lawyer regarding non-disclosure agreements. You might also want to look up the meaning of "Google Proprietary and Confidential" and what leagal ramifications you might expect as a result of displaying this information on your website! ;)
Google Guy, do you really think it's irrelevant to talk about Google's Human Quality Evaluation?
"Talking" about Google's Human Quality Evaluation is one thing, disclosing proprietary and confidential information is quite another!
But I didn't see the word "irrelevant" in Google Guy's post and I don't think he implied as much either. What he said was that your assertion ...
"Real people, from all over the world, are paid to finetune the index of Google"
... made it sound like people were reaching in via this console to tweak results directly, which Google Guy stated:
... just isn't true at all.
Good luck Mr. Ess!
[edited by: Liane at 9:30 am (utc) on June 6, 2005]
Or I guess maybe google might just let yahoo keep that niche since their a more secure network government owned and operated and not just a a weenie peenie little search engine set up in some kids basment
Gov owned?
Mack.
Humans are more corruptible than algorithms (there corruption can be considered bugs...).
I'm assuming there is a well thought out peer / meta review process.
Overall, congrats.... to both Google and the person who unearthed this and a lot more.
I'm sure one member here would be proud to have seen his site white-labeled. :)
Both you and your student, Debbie (Frost) ... whom you so readily outed
Please reread my entry. Debbie Frost [google.com] is not a student, but Google's official spokeswoman. Do you understand it now? I mailed Frost for a comment, as published on my <snip>. That's the normal thing to do, but anyway, thanks for wishing me succes with lawyers.
[edited by: lawman at 1:59 pm (utc) on June 6, 2005]
[edit reason] No Blog Links Please [/edit]
These posts have been only educational
