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."

Comments

Re:more censorship, unimpressed

[penguinoid]

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.

Re:more censorship, unimpressed

[ciroknight]

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.

Re:Cheeseh...

[TheViciousOverWind]

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. :)

Re:more censorship, unimpressed

[telecsan]

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.

A good sign

[treff89]

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.

Re:A good sign

[pjrc]

Yes, this is a good thing. It might result in wiping out search engine spam, maybe. If the "search engine optimizers" don't find creative ways to cheat.

Let's not get overly optimistic about what this is going to do for the web... such as:

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.

What exactly is "pure information" anyway?

Consider my little website. Lots of pages about how to design electronic stuff. But we sell components that support those activities, so it's not 100% "pure", is it? You could consider all those pages as a giant ad for the stuff on the store section of the site. But most people would consider my pages on the more informational side (and the vast majority really are).

About once every 2 or 3 weeks, I get a call from one of these search engine optimiztion companies. Not sure if it's the same couple companies... I usually just say "no" and ask to be on their do-not-call list. They're mostly a bunch of slimey people and probably don't honour such requests.

But sometimes, the idea is tempting. I resist because I believe it's unethical, and ultimately a bad long-term investment. Still, to anyone selling via the web, even a tiny little 2-person company like me, the sales pitch is quite compelling. Pay some fee, traffic goes up, more sales, increase in revenue offsets the cost for the SEO's work. Maybe it's not so bad if they don't stupe to cheating.

Still, I resist because I know it's not a black and white distinction. It's a fuzzy line between the obviously good techniques (improving site structure, rewording page titles, etc) and the obviously bad (cloaked pages). I also just don't trust them.

But even the distinction between "pure information" and "spam" is fuzzy. I'd like to think I'm leaning towards the "pure information" side, but we do indeed sell products. It wasn't always that way... in the mid-90's, the site was smaller and hosted at a university and no products were sold. I had several people begging me to sell them a few of the parts needed for a project. Eventually, a friend started selling some stuff (prices were high, service poor), and so I took it over. Satisfaction with the site has improved dramatically since then!

Still, it's a fuzzy area between pure information and purely commercial, or advertising or spam.

I can tell you it's a lot more work crafting really good web pages than just writing a check to a seedy SEO company. But if these ranking algorithms really do improve to perfection, the response is probably going to be more and more pages appearing in that gray region. Increasing sales can pay for a lot of man hours to author more material that's compelling for visitors and truely does help them to solve their products (especially if they buy the described products).

So, in a best case scenario, these algoriths reaching perfection (seems unlikely) is probably going to lead to a lot more very good content, but content that revolves around pitching products (eg, infomercials), and not "pure information".

Re:more censorship, unimpressed

[telecsan]

"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.