Google Goes After Content Farms

RedEaredSlider writes "Aimed at stripping search results of pages from 'low-quality' sites, a new Google Chrome extension allows users to block specified websites from appearing in search results. The names of these sites are then sent to Google, which will study the collected results and use them to determine future page ranking systems. Google principal engineer Matt Cutts wrote in a post on the Google blog that the company hopes the extension will improve the quality of search results. The company has been the target of criticism in recent months, much of which centered around the effect that content farms were having on searches."

Comments

Firefox Extension Needed!

[dch24]

Dear Google,

Please port this to Firefox.

Sincerely,
The rest of the browser market

Re:Firefox Extension Needed!

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps the description for that script is lacking...BUT it doesn't report the sites you block back to google--which is the best frickin point of this extension!!!

Re:Firefox Extension Needed!

[multisync]

Dear Slashdot

Please give us a plug-in we can use to report moderation abuse.

Missing the old meta-mod system,
A concerned Slashdotter

Re:Firefox Extension Needed!

[Fluffeh]

You mean this one that is still there and happily waiting for you to metamod in?

Re:Firefox Extension Needed!

[Flipao]

They will, that's why they are collecting relevance feedback from users.

Re:Firefox Extension Needed!

[Shadow of Eternity]

Dear Google,

Please stop fucking with my search results. When I type something in the search box I want you to search for exactly that and suggest possible typos. I don't want you to search for what I DIDN'T type, I don't want you to combine it with my previous results, I don't want you to assume I must have meant something else and search for some other word entirely because you THINK it's the same thing.

Sincerely,
Everyone who's sick of searching for one thing and having something totally different returned.

Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among them

[Zilvreen]

I can't begin to express how aggravating it is to google a programming issue, and have the top five results all link to the same page with the same paywalled answers.

Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard

[ZackSchil]

Users who run into paywalls are going to pretty quickly add these sites to the filters, since the results are technically useless even if the content locked away is high-quality. This does not bode well for sites like Experts-Exchange or America's Test Kitchen.

Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard

[Intrepid imaginaut]

if a site serves different content to people than to spiders

If a site does that, why should it be listed at all? That's straight down the line spammery, as far as I can see.

Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard

[kasperd]

why is everyone here against EE? Is it because they attempt to charge you for the answer?

I'll tell you what I don't like about it. I don't mind them charging for an answer when both the person who asked the question, and the person who gave the answer is ok with that. On the other hand, I am not an ExpertsExchange user, and I do not think that it is ok that they charge for access to answers that I wrote.

I know there are ways to get to see the answer without paying, and that is why I know that some of the answers are nothing but a link to a webpage where I provided the answer to the question (before it was even asked on ExpertSexchange). So far I haven't decided what to do about this. I could direct the users who access my site by using a link from ExpertsExchange through an interstitial page, but that would seem like punishing the users instead. But maybe if I used the page not just to point out my opinion about that site, but to also mention free alternatives, then it may be ok. I have also considered telling ExpertsExchange to make all pages with links to my pages freely available. (If newspapers can claim it is a copyright violation to link to their news, then I should be able to make similar requirements to ExpertsExchange. But it does feel going a bit against my principles because I think linking directly to pages with relevant information is what the web is all about).

But what I dislike even more than sites charging for access to answers, that are little more than a link to my site, is those fake forums that pretend I am a user of their site. But in reality the entire content of that forum site is a ripoff of a selection of usenet groups. I'd feel much better about claiming copyright violation against such sites because they actually have copied content copyrighted by me. On the other hand, it seems a bit futile to try to go against all of those sites that way. And it may be difficult to draw a line between a legitimate webinterface for usenet, and a blatant ripoff. However, one distinguishing feature is whether the site makes it clear that it is a webinterface for usenet, or whether it pretends to be a amazingly popular webforum. Another distinguishing feature is whether it focuses on a (small) group of users that use it as their way to access usenet, or if the site simply try to attract all kinds of users from every searchengine out there, and just throw tons of ads at the users (with a little bit of copied content in between).

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the

[Frosty Piss]

You're talking about "Expert Exchange".

I've never used them, paying for Internet based programming help defeats the purpose of the Internet. If that's what I wanted, I'd hire a contractor.

What took them so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised it took them this long to do this. It seems like a pretty good way to leverage the fact that they've got their own software running on the client side too.

Fuck off, squidoo.com

[Fear the Clam]

I hope that site and its squads of web-shitting bastards all get kicked off google's search results.

Then, if they could boot the fake review sites and the domain squatters ("AnalRape.com: What you want, when you want it.") the web might be worthwhile again.

Re:Changes Nothing

[dch24]

It may help that Google reviews the results.

They are pretty good at spotting trends (especially spam), because spammers go for the easiest target.

Why a browser extension?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not make this a part of Google search itself, like the report spam buttons in Gmail?

Re:Google already had this feature

[ogl_codemonkey]

I suspect this is related to some overall plan for adding value to the Chrome platform.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the

[BillGod]

YES the freakin driver sites are getting ridiculous. Every time I look for a driver the first 2 pages are some crap site that just pops you around from page to page only to try and install their crappy software to "give" you the driver for a small fee! If their site was not there the driver would be easy to find. With all these sites it makes the driver impossible to find.. therefore you need these sites to find them.. AHHH gonna throw up now.. then download this bad boy.

No plugin, just extend what you have already.

[clintp]

Dear Google,

Screw the plugin.

    1. Give me a "search preference" where I can say "never this site in my results." You track my "safe search" and other preferences, just add this one.
    2. Along with the star, preview, cached, etc... buttons in the results, give me a "this site's results are shit" button. A turd icon would do nicely.
    3. Extend your search keywords to add "nosite". i.e. nosite:experts-exchange.com

All of these you could track and adjust your algorithms based on trends of "real life" searchers who utilize these features.

Sincerely,
Me