Forum Moderators: open
"Our search results are not manipulated by hand. We're not able to make any manual changes to the results."
So much information...not sure who is telling the truth.
Please, let's keep this to a discussion about Google and not the controversy of the topic.
[news.com.com...]
Just my piece.
Don
So historically Google has very strongly tried to follow a policy of letting our algorithmic search results stand as they are; we put our efforts much more into improving search by writing better algorithms instead of trying to fix a smaller set of searches by hand. We have a quite small set of circumstances that can result in taking manual action: things like a valid legal request (e.g. a DMCA complaint), spam and things outside our quality guidelines (e.g. off-topic porn for a person's name), and a very small amount of security-related stuff (e.g. credit card numbers on a web page). Other than that, we do our best to let our algorithms work out the results on their own. I think that's the right approach, and I think most of our users would prefer that instead of lots of hand-editing.
I appreciate the principle but I cannot help but feel uncomfortable with it. If I were to publish a hard copy directory of any kind with adverts for extremist organisations like Al Q@eda I could expect trouble so why not just ban them all? No reasonable minded person could possibly object to this, or could they?
<snip>
The sad face of Capitalism :o(
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 8:41 pm (utc) on April 7, 2004]
[edit reason] lets leave the specifics and the ads, and the politics out folks. thanks [/edit]
There's a group in San Francisco called Critical Mass. Once a month they ride around the city in large groups to rally for better biking infrastructure. Sometimes it causes traffic jams and angry car drivers. Is Critical Mass an advocate group or an extremist group? You can see where it would get problematic if people had to make value judgments like that.
Anyway, I'm seeing a wikipedia article as #1 in the SERP.
[edited by: RonPK at 9:24 pm (utc) on April 7, 2004]
Regardless of the results that are displayed on the SERPs, I think it would be wrong to take them off by hand.
Look at the way counties counter terrorism. They don't give any exceptions. They will not agree to terrorist demands.
Instead, Countries try to find a better way to fight the threat. One that will eradicate the problem at the source. Not at the receiving end.
I have no doubt that google work 24/7 to find a way to tweak their algorithm so that it not only filters the site in question (didn't wan't to drop names) but also all of the other sites for different terms that contain similiar results.
I don't envy Google.
They have a lot of hard graft on their hands and they keep getting condemned for it. Think about how many successful searches you perform every day. I bet that the unsuccessful ones don't outweight the good ones.
Anyway, I'm seeing a wikipedia article as #1 in the SERP.
Yes, people are trying to Googlebomb that - and I think that's got to be a better approach than a petition. Anyone who cares about the results for this search should just link to the next ten sites. I can't see there being any problem getting enough support for this - forget 50,000 signatures, 500 links will be plenty good enough.
"we do our best to let our algorithms work out the results on their own. I think that's the right approach, and I think most of our users would prefer that instead of lots of hand-editing."
This is what sets Google apart from other SE's, the key word here is "lots" PR0 and hand edits are an admission of failure, that is why we see less and less of them.
All this proves is that SEOs are in as much need as lawyers.
The story reminds one of a response that
might be encountered by 60 Minutes from
a hospital profiled for malpractice.
We cannot comment on this matter due
to patient confidentiality
Laissez-faire is a concept that leads to
the slippery slope. He who does not get
involved deserves what he gets.
+++
I don't see that this is Google's problem - people have Googlebombed a hate site to the top of the SERPs while no one was looking, but now we've noticed it's going to be knocked off that spot in no time flat. And yes, this means that if a site (or cause) has lots of supporters it'll probably do better in search results. There's nothing new about that.
We can see that Jew Watch is in the DMOZ as usual.
****
Jew Watch - Archive of essays, articles and online books about a perceived international Jewish conspiracy. Society: Issues: Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations: Hate: Hate Groups: Anti-Semitic (1)
****
So Google is holding true to form with loving anything from the DMOZ.
So here is my latest stab at the Google algo.
--start Google algo/filter---
1. Is it a mom and pop commercial site? If yes delete.
2. Is it in the DMOZ? If no delete.
3. Is it a hate site? If yes pass through.
4. Is it a business related site? If yes, then rank by how much paid to Google for advertising.
5. If site ranked too high (above big Google advertisers) then accuse of spamming then delete.
6. Display results of sites who NATURALLY spend the most advertising $$$ with Google or display worthless hate sites, directories or other non-commercial irrelevant pages.
---end Google algo/filter---
Seems that a Jew hating bunch of nutcases has a much better chance of getting through the Google filters than a site for 'minor emergency care in Sacramento'. I guess Google has to decide what is really important and that is a tough job for most of us dumbies out here to understand. Obviously a jew hating site is more important to the Google search engine algo than a local minor emergency medical care site and we just need to undertsand that and deal with it.
I'm sure that this site shows up in Yahoo! and other search engines, so why put all the emphasis on Google to sort it out?
It's like telling one tv station to stop reporting on the conflict in Iraq. It doesn't stop the others and it certainly doesn't stop the conflict.
Beaker
This thread is not about politics. And this forum's TOS don't allow political and/or religous discussions anyway.
It would be a shame if the thread would get closed just because we don't respect Brett's rules and comments.
Anyway, I'm seeing ... as #1 in the SERP.
It is unfair for us to put so much weight on one search.
I have visited the site in question and agree that it is greatly offensive and also makes a number of untrue claims.
We will see this site dissappear soon enough, but when it does, it will be filtered out by the algo, not by hand. I would much prefer this as hopefully, the new algo will filter any other offensive sites, relating to another key term.
I also believe that going to the hosting company for the site in question is probabally the best action.
Are there any other examples of similiar sites but for different keywords? Don't post the url or anything, I was just wondering if Hate sites are exclusive to this keyword or whether they appear on any other SERPs.
We will see this site disappear soon enough, but when it does, it will be filtered out by the algo, not by hand.
Algo for the new controversy filter.
[b]if[/b] (complaints are made) [b]and[/b] (bad publicity may ensure) [b]then begin[/b]
writeln('The algo is automated. We can't do anything.');
[b]for[/b] i := 1 [b]to[/b] 4 [b]do begin[/b]
pause(14 + rand(7) days);
dec(PR); { leave toolbar PR unchanged }
[b]end[/b]; { for }
[b]end[/b]; { controversy filter }
Kaled.
Surely if, and again I may have got the wrong end of the stick here, people on this thread are looking for someone to point the finger at for poor search results, distastful sites coming up, innapropriate results ets. they need look no further than the people who programmed the search criteria in the first place. I don`t remember this much concern, acrimony and dispair six/severn months ago when there was a regular and seemingly fair update.
This is a fairly new problem because of uneeded tinkering. Stop blaming the machines and get the Google staff to do a better job.
if (complaints are made) and (bad publicity may ensure) then begin writeln('The algo is automated. We can't do anything.'); for i := 1 to 4 do begin pause(14 + rand(7) days); dec(PR); { leave toolbar PR unchanged } end; { for } end; { controversy filter }
lol Kaled, But great post! I mean, code. It kinda explains the whole situation to a C programmer who doesn't know what this is all about..
Sid
If this thread is still is still a discussion about the algo and possible "gaming" of SERPS, Why has no one made a comment about the #5 result on the mentioned search term. In case it changes #5 on my screen is a redirect of a for sale domain. To come up #5 out of 1,720,000 seems IMHO is a serious flaw in "something"!
This gaming act is rampant thru out google. I kid you not one phrase I searched for returned 300+ redirects to the same site in the first 500, I dont often go that deep but was amused by what I was seeing.
As a webmaster I like Google, Google has been good to me, Well until the last couple of months anyway.
As a frequent user and director of people who search daily on the net for diverse items and want fast clean revelant results, it seems to get worse, also the new look is way to busy and loaded with adds for us.
If google would admit the main thrust is money for add words with a secondary goal of revelant returns it would make it eaiser to Understand the Big G at this point in time.
Will the old Google please come back.
It kinda explains the whole situation to a C programmer
I don't mean to nit-pick, but it looks like pascal to me.
TJ
The PR0 network is looking more and more like a 'searchking' type situation...
While I don't think the site at the top is worthy of the publicity, I think if google manipulates the serp results for morality issues, it is pure and simple censorship and not something if I were Google that I would get into. The internet is full of all sorts of material that most certainly is offensive to someone or some group. religion, race, age etc. Do it just once, refuse to do it again and then the lawsuits will fly for sure.
However, If the site clearly violated Googles webmaster/spam guidelines, then any sort of manipulation is justified. This would also extend to any proponate sites just like any site would be subject to as well.
GG, it was nice to see your participation in address this issue.
