Slashdot Mirror
Google TrustRank
Philipp Lenssen writes "Google registered a trademark for the word "TrustRank", as Search Engine Watch reveals. Is this a sign we can expect a follow-up to Google's PageRank? An earlier, possibly related paper on TrustRank is available; it proposes techniques to semi-automatically separate good pages from spam by the use of a small selection of reputable seed pages."
Its not censorship. Google couldn't censor even if they wanted to. Rather than explaining to you what censorship means, let me just tell you that what Google is doing is siply doing their job better. I don't want to find spam when searching for anything, and neither does anyone else. Ergo, eliminating spam from the search results makes everyone (except spammers) happier.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Two points: 1) Any new system Google implements will run along the side of PageRank; they've invested too much to completely switch all of Google running to TrustRank. The system might even augment current PageRank by running an algorithm over the data that PageRank returns. We can only speculate as of now. But I can assure you that one will not replace the other, and there will probably be a way to use both systems in the future if you like. Hell, using your Gmail account, you may even be able to specifically tune PageRank, making certain pages more relevant to you appear higher in search results.
2) You have the option of not using Google. Yahoo is a completely independent search engine now.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
You know, new solutions are most often patched old ones.
:)
Should Google just throw away their many years of research, and start from scratch?
I find this trust-based approach interesting, but I wonder how it's gonna work for smaller sites (Which the few trusted seeds will not ever link to), but I guess the smaller sites don't really have a problem as it is, because only specific search-terms are targeted.
There's also the problem of allowing new websites into the game, but I guess that's for the Google developers to figure out.
My <1000 UID is with a hot chick
You fail to understand that google is incapable of actually censoring anything. Them not displaying a webpage in their results does not, indeed, remove it from the web.
Google's primary responsibility now is to it's shareholders, which means increasing the chance that you and I find exactly what we are trying to look for, and not to unabashedly display every peddler that serves up content over http.
Google, as we all know, is a reputable service provider; they get the job done efficiently and innovatively. Now they are continuing their attack on the ails of the internet which was started by Gmail spam filtering. By developing this tool, Google is helping to clean the Internet up and enable it to become the massive source of pure information it has such potential to be. The "negative" sites on the Internet, such as keyword sites with no real content which invade search results, and the like are a bane to the community and by helping get rid of them, Google is yet again doing us all a favour. Google, I salute you.
* When I say sleezeballs and tweeking, I mean the people who will try outrageous stunts to game the system, rather than the consultants who will help you increase rank by the stunning tactic of actually improving your site. Radical, but sometimes it works.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
No, probably the other way round.
If you're linked by a trusted page, then your rank goes up, but there's no negative for being linked by untrusted pages - your pagerank stays the same.
but you can always go to another search engine or go to the page directly.. so if they wanted/tried to censor, they'd only lose users.
so when google desides what's trusted for us, what is good content and what isnt, are they still not being "evil"?
Are you fucking kidding me? This is just another mechanism for deciding whether particular pages should be shown for queries. Show me a search engine that doesn't do that.
If you use a search engine, then by definition you are trusting them to show you relevant results. If you don't want to trust Google, then use another search engine. If you don't want to trust another search engine, them stop using them entirely.
Your basic complaint is against the very nature of a search engine. The hysteria surrounding Google now that they have gone public has blinded people to common sense. You don't have to scrutinise every little thing Google does to see if it's "evil". You just have to use some sense.
"so when google desides what's trusted for us, what is good content and what isnt, are they still not being "evil"?
Yes.
Why is it that everyone is constantly striving to find Google's evil? Ranking the relevancy of pages to a search is Google's job. By ranking spam as relevant to my search they have failed. Using the concept of a web of trust to establish relevancy is a fairly obvious solution and has well established analogs in other fields (e.g. PKI).
If you're looking for evil, try GE, GM, or Unilever. Google doesn't even begin to rank on the evil-o-meter.
"Freedom of Speech"
First of all, the only protection that is guaranteed you here is that the gov't will make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Google, as influential as they might be, are not the government (insert 'Do No Evil' joke here). Therefore, they are not bound to this "Freedom of Speech" argument.
Secondly, "Freedom of Speech" is not this universal, higher-being ordained preserve at all cost idea that we have transformed it into.
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to spray-paint your slogan all over my front door, nor, in this case, does it give you a 'right' to be listed on Google. Nor do you have a 'right' to have your name printed on the front page of your local paper in 36pt font.
Not being listed in Google does not amount to censorship in any definition of the word. The net existed before google, and people still managed to find web-sites. Google gives (through PageRank or whatever mechanism they choose) free advertisement to 'good' sites. They have every right to only display sites that pay money, if they so desired. You have absolutely zero (0) 'rights' to be listed for free on Google.
Trotting out the Freedom of SPEECH argument is nothing more than whining about Big Brother coming to get you because what you have to say isn't worth hearing. Guess what? If you want to be heard, say something that's worth listening to. All that glitters is not gold, and much that is said (or printed) is worthless drivel. Much like this post.
It would be very nice to be able to sort out those pages that have nothing but a long list of keywords on them.
And thanks to fuckers like you, pages like THIS are full of "Free IPod" links.
You can't complain about spam of any sort when you are a spammer yourself.