Google Defuses Googlebombs

John C. Worsley writes "Google announced today a modification to their search algorithm that minimizes well-known googlebombing exploits. Searches on 'miserable failure' and their ilk no longer bring up political targets. The Google blogger writes: 'By improving our analysis of the link structure of the web, Google has begun minimizing the impact of many Googlebombs. Now we will typically return commentary, discussions, and articles about the Googlebombs instead.'"

Comments

Big changes?

[LiquidCoooled]

Surely this changes lots of things.

If google is now discounting the wording other people use to link to a page, then isn't google themselves becoming like old fashioned engine, ie only specifically accounting for information on the actual page and not based on what other people who link to this page thinK?

By improving our analysis of the link structure of the web, Google has begun minimizing the impact of many Googlebombs. Now we will typically return commentary, discussions, and articles about the Googlebombs instead.

reworded becomes:

By ignoring the link structure of the web, Google has begun minimizing the impact of many Googlebombs. Now we will typically return only results which are from the actual page itself rather than looking at how other people link to each other.

A googlebomb is not a bad thing, its making use of the algorithm to expand the keywords which a page is associated with.

Sidenote:

I did a search for google, and the snippet that comes up under each google entry does not exist on the page itself, where does it actually come from?

for example:

Google
The local version of this pre-eminent search engine, offering UK-specific pages as well as world results.
www.google.co.uk/ - 4k - 24 Jan 2007 - Cached - Similar pages


I thought google weren't meant to display a different page to bots as to users? (didn't they get in trouble for something similar not so long ago?)

Re:Big changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did a search for google, and the snippet that comes up under each google entry does not exist on the page itself, where does it actually come from? It comes from googles' listings at dmoz.org

Re:Big changes?

[drinkypoo]

If google is now discounting the wording other people use to link to a page, then isn't google themselves becoming like old fashioned engine, ie only specifically accounting for information on the actual page and not based on what other people who link to this page thinK?

Not necessarily. It depends, like most other things, on how it is handled. The practice of googlebombing is the practice of mob rule and google quite sensibly worked to put a stop to it.

A googlebomb is not a bad thing, its making use of the algorithm to expand the keywords which a page is associated with.

A googlebomb IS a bad thing, it's a group of people with an agenda railroading the functionality of a resource upon which the health of the internet depends in a very real way. Again, it's mob rule; a certain segment of the population runs away with the whole idea.

I thought google weren't meant to display a different page to bots as to users? (didn't they get in trouble for something similar not so long ago?)

Are you saying that bots are getting different search results than users? Because absolute shitloads of websites serve different versions of their pages to google for a wide variety of reasons. For example some premium sites allow google to index part of their content in order to rope people into buying a subscription.

Re:Big changes?

[Simetrical]

Are you saying that bots are getting different search results than users? Because absolute shitloads of websites serve different versions of their pages to google for a wide variety of reasons. For example some premium sites allow google to index part of their content in order to rope people into buying a subscription.

Yes, that's called "cloaking" and can get you delisted. BMW Germany's website got removed from Google a while back for doing it, and presumably less prominent ones regularly are as well. Google's official position is that you should write a decent web page and they'll be able to figure out how it should rank:

• Make pages for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."
• Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"
• Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.
• Don't use unauthorized computer programs to submit pages, check rankings, etc. Such programs consume computing resources and violate our Terms of Service. Google does not recommend the use of products such as WebPosition Gold that send automatic or programmatic queries to Google.

Re:Big changes?

[Jerf]

With all due respect, a couple of sentences from Google are not enough to uniquely identify how they've changed their algorithms. Just because the only idea you could come up with is "ignoring link structure" doesn't mean that's what they went with. I'd expect that they came up with a way of characterizing Google-bombs and figured out how to discount that, which probably fixes some other SEO tricks too. I've got some guesses on how that could look, but none of them are informed enough to share, so I won't.

Re:Big changes?

[LordKaT]

I'd mod you down, but there's no "-1, Some Jackass Jumping To Conclusions"

Really now, stop it. There's no reason to believe, at all, that Google is ignoring link structure. Google probably sees a certain percentage of inbound links (with the exact same title) in a short period of time (say a week or two) and marks it as a potential Googlebomb.

Whoop-di-friggin-do. Yeah, it hurts shit like blog pranks, but it also fucks up spammers big time. Remember, a Googlebomb isn't just fun and games, it's also plenty of Viagra spam.

Meanwhile, the rest of us who work at getting high search rankings honestly have not been hurt. Amazing.

Re:Big changes?

[drinkypoo]

Please stop referring to a Googlebomb as "mob rule."

No. That's what it is. Why should I stop?

The Googlebomb is just an example of the weighted "democracy" that Page Rank is supposed to be all about

So is Mob Rule. That doesn't make it a good thing.

as another poster said, these sorts of guerilla campaigns are wicked fun.

So is using cars on the freeway as practice targets for your minigun. Fun is not the ultimate arbiter of what is right.

Re:Big changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

But democracy is just that, mob rule. What ever the majority of the mob wants, the mob gets. Google is maturing into a republic, the mob picks their representative (Google) to make the decisions for them.

Re:Big changes?

[sago007]

The Googlebomb is just an example of the weighted "democracy" that Page Rank is supposed to be all about

No, Page Rank is weighted democracy. A Googlebomb tries to destroy the Page Rank.

Page Rank is supposed to sort the pages according to there relevance, based on the links found on the Internet. A Googlebomb tries to prevent Page Rank from doing that by manipulating the links on the Internet. A Googlebomb does not mean that Internet users get more relevant results it is the other way around.

Re:Big changes?

[philipgar]

actually, that would appear to be an anti-sco website titled litigious bastards. That really isn't a google bomb. If people are searching for litigious bastards, they're likely looking for that site entitled such, and that happens to be about the SCO case. That's almost like saying a search for slashdot returning "slashdot.org" is a google bomb. Google bombs generally involve a search phrase returning a page that isn't related to the phrase. i.e. "miserable failure" returning bush's biography. Bush's biography does not likely say he's a miserable failure etc. The changes seem to do what they were aiming for, sites related to a topic can still get returned, but not as many of the "random" sites that are linked to words that aren't used on the site.

If a link goes to a page, part of the ranking is likely given based on what percent of the page uses that phrase. I imagine it's a bit more complex then this, as often people link to pages that have no actual text on them (all images and/or flash for the intro), but the page should be indexed accordingly. Additionally they may take into account what percent of links say the same thing. Using clustering algorithms you could likely tell that for george w. bush's biography you have a bunch of link terms related to him, his life, presidents, policies, iraq, etc, and then you have the term miserable failure which is on the complete other side, and unrelated to the other terms. While I'm not expert on text mining algorithms, I know such algorithms exist, and they are likely used to stop some of the google abuse.

Phil

Re:Big changes?

[dlanod]

To expand on this, PageRank is Google's algorithm's weighted democracy. GoogleBombing is the equivalent of someone stuffing the ballot box.

miserable failure

[TodMinuit]

Searching for "miserable failure" now brings up a million pages talking about the Googlebomb, "miserable failure". Is that much better?

The whole reason PageRank was create was because the exsiting technologies at the time, namely keywords and before that meta tags, were being abused like hell. Now PageRank is being abused left and right. It's time to take a step back and rethink.

Re:miserable failure

[harmonica]

Searching for "miserable failure" now brings up a million pages talking about the Googlebomb, "miserable failure". Is that much better?

Yes, it is. Because those seem to be the pages actually dealing with "miserable failure", different from the homepages of George Bush or Michael Moore (which were both victims of miserable failure Google bombs). If no other pages prominently feature "miserable failure", that's not the fault of the search engine. They can only find what's there.

Google bombs weren't a priority at Google precisely because the abuse was mostly done with irrelevant phrases like "miserable failure". You only search for those when you hear about Google bombs for the first time.

The whole reason PageRank was create was because the exsiting technologies at the time, namely keywords and before that meta tags, were being abused like hell. Now PageRank is being abused left and right. It's time to take a step back and rethink.

Google bombs don't have much to do with PageRank. They're about link text being abused.

As for rethinking, they're doing this all the time at Google. They're constantly updating their ranking algorithms.

Re:miserable failure

[inviolet]

Google bombs don't have much to do with PageRank. They're about link text being abused.

I'm with you on this one, but it also makes me wonder...

The purpose of link text is to impose additional, personal meaning on a link, like this: "Today in the news we learned about Windows monoculture". The "Windows monoculture" link text is my own meaning imposed on the link. Google is, or at least was, putting some trust in that imposition: Google would elevate that slashdot page's ranking under the category of "Windows monoculture", on the assumption that I'm probably not misrepresenting its content.

A google-bombing can therefore occur without any conspiracy: if lots of people imagine themselves witty for jokingly linking the phrase "miserable failure" in their blog to www.whitehouse.gov, the result is an unintiontional google-bombing. And as other posters in this thread have pointed out, there is some truth value to that.

Now we hear that Google is changing this, which means paying less attention to my link text, and instead devoting more computation towards analyzing what the target page is actually saying. I suppose Google is going to read the slashdot page I linked, and decide for itself what it's about rather than taking my word that it's about Windows monoculture. That's got to be computationally expensive.

It's the same general problem as we see in academia with scholarly references. Let's say some guy writes a thesis and uses some other paper as a reference, claiming it lends support to the new theory. We can trust his citation (i.e. Google can trust the link text), or else we can mistrust him and go and dig up the reference text and read it ourself.

Obviously that kind of mistrust is expensive (but isn't all mistrust?)... but after a certain amount of abuse, it's a price we have to pay in order to maintain the same degree of certainty. As for rethinking, they're doing this all the time at Google. They're constantly updating their ranking algorithms.

Re:miserable failure

[kimvette]

Fixing the google bomb problem should also help to fix search engine spam resulting from doorway pages and linkfarms. Ever search for a howto article and end up going to a page full of nonsense, then getting redirected to a product page, or even worse, a completely irrelevant page? If so, you have experienced a huge drawback to Google's algorithm which made it possible for blackhat SEO scumbags (such as Traffic Power/1P First Place, or whatever the hell those assholes are calling themselves today) to easily manipulate search results. Sure, Google will ban offending sites when they are reported, but there were several problems with that:

  - When searching for "How do $foo my $widget" in Google, you will find the howto you needed on page 20 after all the search engine spam, rather than on page 1 where natural search results would lead it were it not for this flaw
  - Often site owners were unaware that the "SEO" company in question was intentionally violating Google's guidelines
  - Site owners often had to change hosts and domain names, and in some instances their company names due to Traffic Power's business practices
  - Traffic Power owners keep changing their corporate identity (dissolve and reform the company under a new name) to escape litigation
  - The innocent but not-web-savvy small business owners are fucked over in the process (see third point above)
  - It takes a proactive approach from users who give a shit to report these sites. I only bother if it is a howto or a spec sheet I really needed, and alternate search engines (Yahoo, etc.) come up dry as well, because Google does not pay me to report blackhat scum.

Re:miserable failure

[Breakfast Pants]

No they wouldn't. If you look at the HTML of your post there is a rel="nofollow" attribute on your link, and every link posted in the comments of slashdot.

Easier Solution

[doroshjt]

Get ride of the I'm Feeling Lucky Button, the only time I've ever used this button is when some sends me an email saying I should search for Weapons of Mass Distruction and hit that button. haha fun, nothing found.

Re:Easier Solution

[Dr. Eggman]

I don't know, I've been pretty lucky with it.

Needed a digital calender, IFLed, now I've got a Google Calender setup.
Needed a new email service, IFLed, now I've got G-mail!
Needed a homepage that would host my many RSS feeds, IFLed, now I've got a Google Homepage!
Needed a desktop organizer, IFLed, now I've got Google Desktop!

Re:Easier Solution

[shawn(at)fsu]

I use IFL lucky often. If you know enough about what your searching for it works nice. For example do an IFL search for "Astronomy Picture Day" and you'll go right to the Astronomy Picture of The Day website. Good if your on a forign machine and you odn't have your bookmarks.

Re:Easier Solution

[massysett]

Get ride of the I'm Feeling Lucky Button, the only time I've ever used this button is when some sends me an email saying I should search for Weapons of Mass Distruction and hit that button. haha fun, nothing found.

I read an article saying that Google focus grouped this issue. Most people don't even know what the button does, and hardly anybody uses it. But Google keeps it because they think it makes the front page more whimsical.

Finally

[RyoShin]

I'm glad they took care of this horrible issue. You have no idea how hard it was for me to search for waffles before this!

Please clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that page rank is a miserable failure or not?

hahha

[fuo]

first thing i checked when i was this post was "french military victories"... then i noticed from the French-military-victories-still-works dept. glad i'm not the only one whose life wouldn't be complete without this little joke.

Well, I still think there was an legit problem

[hypermanng]

To some extent, googlebombs *were* abuse, which leads me to think Google needed to upgrade their heuristics. This appears to be much of what they've done, though I think their response was too focused on killing that specific form of abuse and not focused enough on improving analytic depth.

Alternative Page to Link To

[fyoder]

I feel a bit sad about this, since there was something wickedly fun about google bombs. But given that they subvert the intention of the search engine, it's completely understandable that they would take action against it. In fact, the surprise is that they took this long to do anything about it.

If you do the search, you'll find this page already comes up on the first page. While it's not as clever as the original google bomb, linking 'miserable failure' to it would still express the intention of the link and could be an alternative to simply removing it.... Tough call, but something should be done with all those links, since now they are essentially 'broken' and constitute just a load more cruft in an increasingly crufty web.

Well...

[nweaver]

Santorum still works.

Also "Miserable Failure" still works in MSN.

Re:Well...

[VWJedi]

Also "Miserable Failure" still works in MSN.

You expected Google to fix MSN?

Re:Well...

[Shelrem]

The difference is that "Santorum" wasn't a Googlebomb in the first place (though I'm not trying to say that no one ever attempted a Googlebomb of it). It was a meme started by Dan Savage to make Rick Santorum infamous, and its popularity had nothing to do with PageRank.

Re:Well...

[hachete]

somebody has to

Possible side-affect?

[JayTech]

The question that begs to be answered is, is it possible for this new algorithm to affect legitimate site rankings?

Google and racism

[jfengel]

In general I agree with you, though I'm aware of one instance in which it wasn't just a fun prank. For some time the search "Jews" came up with an anti-Semitic web page as its first hit, as a result of googlebombing by anti-Semitic groups.

Since there are more Jews than rabid anti-Semites in the world (I hope) I'd be tempted to just tell 'em to reverse-googlebomb, making sure you've got plenty of links to more valid pages, but a concerted (if distributed) effort to target one page is still going to put it higher up in the rankings than it really deserves to be.

That info is from Froogle

[Animats]

That's coming from Froogle. Companies that sign up with Froogle or Google Checkout have some additional info about them. Try, say, Super Warehouse, which Google describes as "Online retailer of color laser printers, laptops, hard drives, LCD monitors, and digital cameras". That text isn't from the "www.superwarehouse.com" web page, which starts out "Printers - Scanners - Toner - Monitors - Projectors & More at Super Warehouse".

Re:Ironically

[anagama]

At least "worst buy" still works.

Re:The SCO search still works

[GigsVT]

No it doesn't. The links are all to sites about the googlebomb, not to sco.com. That's how he said this fix works, you search for the bomb and you find metadiscussion about the bomb, but the bomb itself no longer links to the target.

Re:Isn't this the entire methodology of Google?

[Simetrical]

I was under the impression that the link text was the entire means by which Google
created their PageRank algorithm.

Nope. It depends heavily on how many sites link to you, how highly rated those sites are, what they're about, etc. See the Wikipedia article.

Re:Improvement?

[bky1701]

It's wrong, anyway. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox- a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs= g6p&q=failure&btnG=Search see result 5, only one instance of the word on the page... yet somehow it is #5.

French military victories

[gravesb]

Still works

How they did it.

[goombah99]

I'm just guessing here but it seems to me that there was an easy way to implement this. Namely for any short search typed in, append the word "googlebomb". anything that has become a google bomb is likely to have sites discussing how the term has become a google bomb. Then they can give negative page ranks to any site pointed to from a site discussing "googlebombs".

Re:How they did it.

[timeOday]

To some extent, googlebombs *were* abuse

Well that's the question, isn't it? Why do you think they were abuse?

If people look up "facist," they should get Hitler or Stalin, even if those guys never called themselves that, and there's no precise definition. It's what people think about them.

Re:How they did it.

[jlynd]

To some extent, googlebombs *were* abuse

Well that's the question, isn't it? Why do you think they were abuse? If people look up "facist," they should get Hitler or Stalin, even if those guys never called themselves that, and there's no precise definition. It's what people think about them.

This raises an interesting idea about the exact nature of Google (and other search engines) and exactly the type of information they aid in providing. Are they providing the most relevant factual information? Or are they providing the most relevant information according to the ever evolving "hive" mind that is the internet?

Point being, I see the evolution of Google and the internet itself becoming some sort of "Mother Brain" that people can tap into when needed, and as time goes on, at an ever increasing rate at insanely intimate levels. Do we want this collective intelligence being queried for the most factual information, or do we want it used for extracting what the hive thinks is the most factual?

Hmmmm, interesting to say the least.

Re:How they did it.

[VirusEqualsVeryYes]

Or are they providing the most relevant information according to the ever evolving "hive" mind that is the internet?

But who determines what the most relevant information is?

A shocking number of people here believe that Google should attempt to make decisions regarding what is and is not relevant. This is not the nature of the Internet. Until the telecom corporations win their multitiered internet, the Internet is "the people". Therefore, "the people" should decide what is and what is not relevant. If "the people" decide that George Bush is a miserable failure, then that should be the relevant information.

It's mod rule, you say? Well, I don't see much of a governing body (even the specifications are merely "recommendations"!), so I'd say the Internet itself (and not just Googlebombing) is itself anarchic mob rule, also known as "democracy". And hey, it's seemed to work out pretty damn well so far.

I think Googlebombing is a bit like letting Nazis have free speech in the states. It's not exactly a good thing, but to block free speech would be far, far worse. So I don't think Googlebombing is a good thing--I think it's an intentional abuse of the system--but in my opinion, for what it's worth, it's closer to being a good thing than a bad one.

KISS

[nicklott]

This is Google, I think they've paid a monkey 15k a year to look for bombs and manually fix them in their index...

Google broke my intarweb...

[rthille]

Searching for 'worst president ever' doesn't link to the whitehouse's biography of Bush anymore...

Re:Google broke my intarweb...

[rthille]

Oh Crap, forgot to check "Post Anonymously" Doh!

Tom Smykowski

[anaesthetica]

I'd mod you down, but there's no "-1, Some Jackass Jumping To Conclusions"

You know, I had an idea like that once. A long time ago. It was a "Jump to Conclusions" mod. You see, it would be this mod input that you would put on the bottom of each comment, and it would have different conclusions available in it that you could jump to.