"Block all listing from this site" - message in the SERPs

[JonW]

why is G offering this. Other listings show the "see more results from this site" link, my site get option to Block all listing.

Has google determine my site to be lower quality. How can I fix this?

[tedster]

I believe this option appears when you've clicked on a search result and then used the back button to return to the SERPs. That sequence of actions can be a sign of being dissatisfied with the result you clicked on - it doesn't mean anything about your site specifically.

Is that what's happening in your case?

[walkman]

I noticed that it shows only if you return too fast, it didn't show after 30 seconds when I tried. At least it was initially, maybe they changed it now

This, I think, will effect your serps if enough people do it.

[dibbern2]

it doesn't mean anything about your site specifically.

Don't you think this could be (become) a component in the user metrics that are getting folded into ranking as a quality factor?

[tedster]

Oh, yes - but the fact that the option to block the site appears doesn't mean Google ALREADY made a negative evaluation of the site. It just means that the user's action might mean they don't want to see that site again.

[JonW]

Ok. I see. Even quality sites show that option.

I'd guess that the UI data is separate from the algorithm, though the algorithm likely includes info on the distribution of time on page. I'm less worried then because the algorithim used lots the information to make a determination, a increase PR by one, could well ofset even a poor time on page factor....

[londrum]

maybe it only applies for that particular search term, and not for all other search terms.

imagine if you were searching for a news story, and you went to the BBC site and came back quickly. google might suppress BBC news stories in the SERPs for you next time. but it wouldn't make much sense to suppress all the TV stuff, history stuff, radio stuff, and everything else that's there.

[wanderingmind]

I saw it once for one of my sites; but could not reproduce it for any site afterwards.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

It's not only on chrome anymore, anyone signed into their google account will see the block all results link if they use the back button.

Does it block the site entirely or just for that particular search term?

[smithaa02]

As long as your press back quick enough and you are logged in, you should get this option.

Big questions are...is google monitoring quick bounces and figuring these into the rankings? What also about these block requests...is google keeping score with these too and figuring them into their SERP calculations?

Hope so...I've blocked my main competitor :)

[aristotle]

I'm worried that this site blocking feature could cause some websites to be unjustly demoted in Google's rankungs.

For example, if a site takes an unpopular position on some controversial political or social issue, then many of its visitors could get angry about what they read, and decide to block it from their future searches. The algorithm could take this as a sign of low quality content and lower the site's rankings. The final result would be a kind of censorship of websites that take minority positions on controversial issues.

The blocking feature also provides opportunities for organized efforts to hurt a site's rankings. This could be done in the same way that hate mail campaigns are organized, as when certain political and social organizations mobilize their members to sent hate emails to the owner of a particular website. In the same way, members of these organizations could be mobilized to block certain websites for the purpose of hurting their rankings.

For these reasons, in my opinion it is a serious mistake for Google to incorporate this site blocking feature into its ranking algorithm.

[Simsi]

But Google is adept at spotting different signals in different verticals and makes allowances depending on topic. My guess is that in the case of the political arguments these signals wouldn't be used to affect the rankings while perhaps retail sites might see more impact.

The days of generalising over how a specific signal will affect rankings are long gone IMO. Chances are one signal could be used in different ways in different niches. Even links and content quality will impact differently depending on the niche I am sure.

[rlange]

aristotle wrote:
I'm worried that this site blocking feature could cause some websites to be unjustly demoted in Google's rankungs.

For example, if a site takes an unpopular position on some controversial political or social issue, then many of its visitors could get angry about what they read, and decide to block it from their future searches. The algorithm could take this as a sign of low quality content and lower the site's rankings. The final result would be a kind of censorship of websites that take minority positions on controversial issues.

The blocking feature also provides opportunities for organized efforts to hurt a site's rankings. This could be done in the same way that hate mail campaigns are organized, as when certain political and social organizations mobilize their members to sent hate emails to the owner of a particular website. In the same way, members of these organizations could be mobilized to block certain websites for the purpose of hurting their rankings.

For these reasons, in my opinion it is a serious mistake for Google to incorporate this site blocking feature into its ranking algorithm.

I'd guess that the +1 Button gets put up against this sort of thing. Maybe. The "block site" option applies to the entire site, but the +1 is per-page, so I don't know...

--
Ryan

[g1smd]

I believe this option appears when you've clicked on a search result and then used the back button to return to the SERPs.

I wonder how they cope with people who open half a dozen results, each in a new tab, in just a few seconds, and then close tabs as they are no longer needed, minutes or hours later?

[walkman]

You hear a lot of tech savvy people lamenting the fact the Wikipedia is always #1 for a lot and lot of searches: 'If I wanted a Wikipedia page, I know how to go there blah blah'. No doubt many will block it, but it doesn't mean it isn't a useful site. My point is that Google must have another mechanism in addition to this.

Will that mechanism help small sites with a handful of blocks? Who knows.

[aristotle]

I'd guess that the +1 Button gets put up against this sort of thing. Maybe. The "block site" option applies to the entire site, but the +1 is per-page, so I don't know...

Most likely the +1 Button will create the same bias in the SERPs as the Block Site Feature. That is, it will tend to hurt the rankings of websites that express minority views. This is because, being in the minority, these sites won't receive as many +1s as sites that express majority views, but will get more Blocks.

But Google is adept at spotting different signals in different verticals and makes allowances depending on topic. My guess is that in the case of the political arguments these signals wouldn't be used to affect the rankings while perhaps retail sites might see more impact.

I have doubts that Google can consistently make these "allowances", assuming that Google even tries. There are controversial issues relating to politics, religion, healthcare, drug use, abortion, the environment, corporate policies, etc, and for each of these issues there are numerous relevant keywords and key phrases. I think it would be extremely difficult for an algorithm to sort out when to make "allowances".

[mrmobility]

I doubt Google take any signal in isolation any more. If someone was running a 'hate mail' campaign there would be some pretty obvious pointers that it should be discounted from affecting the SERPS.

Some examples off the top of my head: a large proportion on the blockers would be first time users, there would be a lot of the same referrers or their would be a spike in traffic and searches by the site name/domain.

[aristotle]

I agree that the Google algorithm can probably detect and negate a barrage of Blocks that result from an organized attack on a website.

But that still leaves the problem of the possible rankings bias introduced by ordinary random visitors. If a website promotes a minority view on an issue, then it will tend to get more Blocks and fewer +1s than a site that expresses a majority view. As a result, sites that promote minority views will be unfairly demoted in the rankings. In effect, Google will be suppressing minority views.

[walkman]

@aristotle

Huffington Post passed NYT's traffic last week and we know the difference between the two in content and site design. With some help from Aol.com but it still passed it. I remember Huff Post #1 for a lot of mainstream news as well when I searched.

[aristotle]

Walkman -- I really don't know why Huffington Post would get a rankings boost. Well, I did read somewhere that its writers are encouraged to use keywords in the titles and first paragraphs of the articles, so that might have helped. At any rate, I think that the +1 and Block features are too new to have had much effect in their case. I'm more concerned about smaller one-focused-issue sites anyway, because I think they will be the most vulnerable.

[walkman]

aristotle, with Huff Post vs NYT was trying to say that I think G is already using FB, Twitter and other 'social engagement' very heavily so they will probably use the +1 /block too.

So there's bias and probably has always been there. Sadly Google can do a lot of things and shift the online world with one algo. You're right to be worried, but I think that train has left the station.

[aristotle]

You're right, Walkman -- there are already ways for sites that promote unpopular views to get hurt in the rankings. This is one reason why I personally don't think "social engagement" should be a major factor in the ranking algorithm. I just hope that Google will recognize the seriousness of the problem and try to make adjustments to the algorithm that will minimize its effect.