Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Algorithm Discriminates Against Bad Reviews

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the this-algorithm-sucks dept.

j_col writes "According to the official Google blog, Google has altered their PageRank algorithm to not give back linking points to bad reviews of websites belonging to online retailers, following the publication of a recent article in the New York Times describing one woman's experiences in being harassed by an online retailer she found via Google. The specific changes to the algorithm are of course a guarded secret. So considering that these changes are already live, how do we know how the algorithm determines a bad review from a good one, and whether or not innocent online retailers will be wrongly punished by having their rankings downgraded?"

7 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Poor summary... by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Google has altered their PageRank algorithm to not give back linking points to bad reviews of websites belonging to online retailers"

    Uh, no. Google changed it so that websites of poorly reviewed retailers lose points, not the reviews themselves.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  2. Poor Title: discrimination against badly reviewed by rsborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... not "bad reviews", which would be very anti-consumer.

    Instead, the poorly reviewed products and services are going to lose index.

    This kind of selective pressure will reward those companies whose services and products garner better reviews.

    I just wonder if this will lead to more astroturfed reviews and payola for review-sites like Yelp.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  3. Re:DecorMyEyes is the 4th result on the 2nd page by mjperson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's pretty buried. If I don't see what I'm looking for on the first page of results, I adjust my search terms, I don't click through to the second (of countless) page of results.

  4. Simple by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 5, Funny

    They look for phrases like

    • ...burst into flames...
    • ...still sobbing for her pet rabbit...
    • ...sucked into the trans-dimensional vortex...
    • ...shouldn't even have been any radioactive material IN a children's book...
    • ...and that's how little Tiffany learned about death and accidental dismemberment...
    • ...came to my home and set it on fire and then kicked my dog...
    • ...never knew I was capable of that sort of pain...
    • ...ordered the complete Beethoven Symphonies and the discs had nothing buy Justin Bieber on them...
    • ..contained a live bobcat... (obligatory)
    • ... would not buy again...
    1. Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great, Slashdot's PageRank just dropped like a rock thanks to you...

  5. Re:Am I the only one... by inputdev · · Score: 5, Funny

    have you tried Bing? ;)

  6. Re:Am I the only one... by corbettw · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually, I've switched the majority of my searching to Bing over the last few months. I've found their results tend to be much more accurate than Google's for the things I search for.

    Granted, not everyone out there is searching for transvestite-dwarf wrestling match information, but the way Bing services that niche is impressive.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.