Google Goes After Content Farms

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Goes After Content Farms

Posted by Soulskill on Monday February 14, 2011 @12:54PM from the cleaning-up-the-e-streets dept.

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."

27 of 345 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Firefox Extension Needed! by dch24 · 2011-02-14 12:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Dear Google,

Please port this to Firefox.

Sincerely,
The rest of the browser market
1. Re:Firefox Extension Needed! by nicedream · 2011-02-14 13:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Dear dch24,
  Try this script for Greasemonkey.
  Sincerely,
  nicedream
2. Re:Firefox Extension Needed! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-14 13:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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!!!
3. Re:Firefox Extension Needed! by Fluffeh · 2011-02-14 14:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You mean this one that is still there and happily waiting for you to metamod in?
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
4. Re:Firefox Extension Needed! by multisync · 2011-02-14 15:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That is not a meta-mod system. It is a comment popularity system.
  It is useful as well. It is comment-centric, and gives site administrators a very high level snapshot of what users think about the current state of the user generated content.
  The old meta-moderation system oth tasked the meta-moderator with judging whether a specific moderation a comment received was fair. It wasn't a perfect system, but it provided just the smallest possibility that there may be consequences for abuse of moderation privileges.
  
  --
  I don't care why you're posting AC
5. Re:Firefox Extension Needed! by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2011-02-14 20:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among them by Zilvreen · 2011-02-14 13:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
An incremental improvement, I suppose... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-02-14 13:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Frankly, no browser extension will be suitable to the task of going after link farmers until Lethal Force over IP is developed and widely adopted; but, in the absence of robust LF/IP implementations, I suppose hitting them in the wallet will have to do....
1. Re:An incremental improvement, I suppose... by Dachannien · 2011-02-14 14:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Frankly, no browser extension will be suitable to the task of going after link farmers until Lethal Force over IP is developed and widely adopted; but, in the absence of robust LF/IP implementations, I suppose hitting them in the wallet will have to do....
  As I understand it, there are concerns of collateral damage because of all the hosts behind Network Assassination Translation firewalls.
Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard by ZackSchil · 2011-02-14 13:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard by Mouldy · 2011-02-14 13:10 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  A trick I learnt with experts exchange is that the posts are actually accessible. You just have to scroll past the "GIMMER ALL YER MONEY" messages and you get to the original text. Experts Exchange's paywall is a simple example, but if Google's indexer can read past the paywall, there's no reason why you can't. Sometimes, if a site serves different content to people than to spiders, you can just click on the "cached" link in Google's results page to see the version that Google indexed.
2. Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2011-02-14 13:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard by kasperd · 2011-02-14 16:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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).
  
  --
  
  Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the by Frosty+Piss · 2011-02-14 13:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Death to experts-exchange.com by Uloi · 2011-02-14 13:06 · Score: 5, Informative

Here is the solution to your coding problem.. Oh wait no, give us money first.
1. Re:Death to experts-exchange.com by idiot900 · 2011-02-14 13:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If you reach an experts-exchange.com page via Google, just scroll down to the very bottom for the solution.
2. Re:Death to experts-exchange.com by eddy+the+lip · 2011-02-14 14:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Me, too. Now I'm just annoyed because I discovered the quality of the answers.
  
  --
  This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.
Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the by WoodstockJeff · 2011-02-14 13:08 · Score: 4, Funny

Well, more correctly, AN answer is there... May not be correct or even relevant to the question, but there will be an answer. I used to have my Google preferences to exclude Expert Sex Change from results, but that setting keeps getting reset...
Fuck off, squidoo.com by Fear+the+Clam · 2011-02-14 13:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by dch24 · 2011-02-14 13:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

It may help that Google reviews the results.

They are pretty good at spotting trends (especially spam), because spammers go for the easiest target.
Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the by Korin43 · 2011-02-14 13:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Solution: Add "stackoverflow" to the end of every programming-related question. It saves a lot of time.
Google already had this feature by skomes · 2011-02-14 13:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

What really pisses me off is that google already had this feature. Personalized search results used to let you relegate some websites to the bottom and mark some results and sites as being more important. It was incredibly useful when filtering out garbage spam sites. Google also said were would be able to share these in some way to improve search results. Then for no reason they removed that feature and replaced it with the ability to put a gold star on some results. Of course the benefit of the feature was in relegating spam up the bottom of the page and you could no longer do that. When they removed they feature I stopped using the feature entirely. Now google is backtracking by introducing this extension. What was entre point of removing the original feature which worked on all browsers?
1. Re:Google already had this feature by ogl_codemonkey · 2011-02-14 14:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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 by h4rr4r · 2011-02-14 14:03 · Score: 3, Funny

My name is not Jesus, most people stopped getting confused about that when I cut my hair.
Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the by BillGod · 2011-02-14 15:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
No plugin, just extend what you have already. by clintp · 2011-02-14 15:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
Get off my lawn.
Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the by IICV · 2011-02-14 19:29 · Score: 5, Informative

They occasionally have actual answers. The thing is, Google won't give you any credit for answers browsers can't see - which would mean the paywall would knock your page rank to shit.
How does Expert Sex Change get around this? They pretend that the answer is behind a paywall, when in fact the answer is actually all the way at the bottom of the page. The Google search bot is much more patient than you are, and will not care about the pretend-paywall.
So yeah. Whenever it looks like Expert Sex Change has your answer, just follow the link and scroll all the way down.