Google, why not a positive approach in getting user feedback?

[indyank]

I read a post and some discussions which were far more interesting than the post, on seoroundtable - [seroundtable.com...]

The post was about a thread on "Hacker news" on how much traffic the infamous Experts Exchange lost and their "best friend" Matt Cutts response to it.

One of the signals that we've said that we use in the Panda algorithm that launched in April is how many users blocked a particular site.

what I appreciated most was a comment from one Mr. jonathan on the seoroundtable's post, which was on the same lines of what I used to think.

The core problem here does appear to be with the 'remove this site' metrics that Matt Cutts has reported.

What's interesting to me about the 'remove this site' metric (in addition to it not being included in the Google WMT reports so you can't measure it and manage to it), is that they treat people with very different intent exactly the same.

Take two people.

The first removes a site because they are unwilling to pay for it, although they generally have a good opinion about the quality of the content found on that site. The second absolutely loathes the site and never want's to see it again because they don't like anything about it.

Two very different opinions, yet they are counted exactly the same when each requests that site to be removed from their index.

To me, Jonathan was right and it was in line with what I always felt.

As I posted earlier in another thread here -http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4377266.htm, I felt "Block this site" wouldn't be very useful as compared to getting the direct users feedback on a site's quality without any spoon fed guidelines on quality (as there is always a bias in it).

Moreover, "block this site" is a negative approach in getting feedback as compared to getting the direct users feedback on a site's quality, by asking them to rate any page as "vital", "useful", "Relevant", "Spam", etc.
More details here - [webmasterworld.com...]

While the negative approach is more prone to abuse, the positive approach of getting direct user feedback on quality would be far better IMHO.

I am not sure of what made Google to use the negative "block this site" approach and why they chose to get feedback from paid home based workers of third parties, with spoon fed guidelines that are more prone to wrong interpretations. Again IMHO, the guideline by itself was drafted with some wrong notions or assumptions on "Quality".

They might have some limitations and it would be great to know them.

Brett, can you pose this question with the suggested approach to Amit at Pubcon, and find out their thinking.

[deadsea]

There is only one site that I have ever wanted to block from all my search results: experts exchange.

They have been in the serps for tons of technical queries that I do. But they do their best to hide the answers. The question is at the top of the page and then there are about 5 screens of ads you have scroll through, then the forum discussion with the answers is below that. It took me about 10 times landing on the site and backing out before I even discovered that you could scroll down that far.

It wouldn't surprise me if they are also being killed by the long click algorithms. The ones that measure how many folks seem satisfied with the result because they don't return to the SERPs.

[robzilla]

as compared to getting the direct users feedback on a site's quality, by asking them to rate any page as "vital", "useful", "Relevant", "Spam", etc.

Too complicated. Besides, why would they give their users a task that is essentially their own?

the positive approach of getting direct user feedback on quality would be far better IMHO.

Why?

[rlange]

indyank wrote:
Moreover, "block this site" is a negative approach in getting feedback as compared to getting the direct users feedback on a site's quality, by asking them to rate any page as "vital", "useful", "Relevant", "Spam", etc.

While it's a nice idea, it's only nice for webmasters. I doubt many users would be willing to be surveyed on their reason for taking a particular action when they're in the middle of searching for something. Hell, I only bother with "block this domain" if the site is obvious spam.

I will say that the one aspect of "block this domain" that has me concerned is that Google themselves could put your site in a position to be blocked by a user by ranking you for an irrelevant search.

--
Ryan

[driller41]

Well whatever the merits of killing of experts exchange are, to me this proves that feeding google with too much information will come back and destroy someones business.

[MrSavage]

It's dangerous obviously to us as webmasters. Sites can improve. What if the site was under construction? When if ever is the site evaluated again? Are you doomed forever? Seems like a penalty to your site, yet there isn't a reconsideration request is there? Why don't they offer the webmasters the stats on the number of people who "block this site"? Afterall, why shouldn't Google help us make better sites?

It's becoming obvious. Whether it is their intent or not, your organic traffic is at war with Google. I have no other way of looking at it. Somebody said it before, "all in all, it's just another brick in the wall".

I'm not a pessimist, but rather a realist. Of course my wife disagrees with that, but that's another story all together...

ps. I personally found experts exhange to be the most reliable source for fixing my computer issues. In fact I'm just now aware that they don't really exist in Google anymore. There is a fundamental problem there in my opinion. Yes they had ads, but they also had solutions by experts. Now you get a bunch of ad laden jokers on a few forums with their "fixes". A few clowns (not to insult) have told Google experts exchange is junky so now it's gone? How about the freaking silent majority? What a bunch of crap this is becoming. Somebody really needs to start a current and updating database of sites that were once popular on Google which are really no longer there. How about a new search engine based on that premise?

[indyank]

Too complicated. Besides, why would they give their users a task that is essentially their own?

I doubt many users would be willing to be surveyed on their reason for taking a particular action when they're in the middle of searching for something.

I look at it from a business perspective. Any business would like to get feedback from its customers and there is no harm in getting it from their users to whom they serve.

It is complicated, if you make it look like a survey. It might not be complicated, if you just ask them to rate with a single click. Yes there will always be people who might not like to do that as well, but there will always be happy/unhappy users who wouldn't hesitate to give their rating.

[indyank]

The unhappy users giving a lower rating for a page might even outnumber the happy users giving a higher rating. But it wouldn't look as negative an action as "block a site".

Moreover, there should always be an element of surprise in triggering this and it shouldn't be for all users and all pages they order in their results. This might ensure a more genuine vote and lesser gaming.

[rlange]

indyank wrote:
[...] but there will always be happy/unhappy users who wouldn't hesitate to give their rating.

I agree with the unhappy, disagree with the happy. It's pretty well-known that unhappy people are more inclined to voice their opinion than happy people (just look at this forum). Why do you think that, despite the demand, there's no "Dislike" button on Facebook?

Besides, Google already has a method of acquiring positive feedback: the +1 button.

None of that means I disagree with the idea that these features lack a good enough resolution; I just think your solution ends up being more of a hassle to the user than a benefit to the webmaster (or Google). How much information do options like "vital", "useful", "relevant", or "spam" really convey, anyway? Do they say more about the page itself or Google's placement of it in the SERPs?

--
Ryan

[indyank]

None of that means I disagree with the idea that these features lack a good enough resolution; I just think your solution ends up being more of a hassle to the user than a benefit to the webmaster (or Google). How much information do options like "vital", "useful", "relevant", or "spam" really convey, anyway? Do they say more about the page itself or Google's placement of it in the SERPs?

Those are ratings that their latest guildeline document ask their work from home moms to give and they are about the page. I think they can device a small set of words to explain them.

+1 doesn't make those distinctions between "useful" and "relevant". If they could design the +1 to capture these grades, it would definitely be innovative and they can do away with "Block the site". Yes, Some thinking need to go into it, as the suggestion might be raw.

[indyank]

Just running my imagination wild on this.

Throw a human doodle in front of the users and ask them to trigger these funny actions, depending on how they feel.

If you consider this page vital, "salute" him.
If you find it useful "pat" him.
If you find it relevant but not as useful as you would like, "encourage" him with a drink.
If you find it annoying, "slap" him.

[robzilla]

+1 doesn't make those distinctions between "useful" and "relevant". If they could design the +1 to capture these grades, it would definitely be innovative and they can do away with "Block the site".

Basically, you have positive feedback in the form of +1, and negative feedback in the form of "Block this site" upon returning to the SERPs. That's probably the closest you'll get to direct, non-obtrusive user feedback. Any further distinction, as between "useful" and "relevant", is bound to be ambivalent. Users will surely disagree on the relevance and usefulness of certain pages for the same search results, because their intentions are different. What's relevant for some, is useful to others, and vice versa.

I look at it from a business perspective.

That's understandable, but, unfortunately for you, Google is unlikely to care much for that perspective. It caters primarily to its users.