Slashdot Mirror
Google's Fight Against 'Low-Quality' Sites Continues
nj_peeps writes
"A couple weeks ago, JC Penney made the news for plummeting in Google rankings for everything from 'area rugs' to 'grommet top curtains.' Turns out the retail site had a number of suspicious links pointing at it that could be traced back to a link network intended to manipulate Google's ranking algorithms. Now, Overstock.com has lost rankings for another type of link that Google finds to be manipulation of their algorithms. This situation has led Google to implement a significant change to their search algorithms, affecting almost 12% of queries in an effort to cull content farms and other webspam. And in the midst of all of this, a company with substantial publicity lately for running a paid link network announces they are getting out of the link business entirely."
Please tell me they are going to start going after the myriad car parts spam sites that flood the google rankings when searching for anything but the most obvious automotive items. I am sick and tired of sifting through a dozen completely worthless sites when googling for a part number I am trying to track down. Ebay is more reliable than google for almost everything I am looking for lately.
Google didn't get any worse, the spammers are the ones who got better.
I understand them if they are rather slow in making significant changes to their algorithm. In this sue-happy society they have to keep any collateral damage as low as possible (i.e. valid sites that move only a few spots down the ranking - can you imagine the outcry?). It's the disadvantage of being number one.
I don't give a damn about their soul, I just want it to point me to the information I am looking for.
I run a spider. It seems over 95% of pages on the internet are content farm and similar randomly generated crap. They take a hundred sentence fragments, string them together, then see if they can fool Google and other engines into crawling them.
You will not be very happy if they stop filtering the garbage for you.
Rod Taylor
What I can say as guy who sells ad space on his website: My Google AdSense income has gone up by a factor of 5 to 10 in the past two months. No, I'm not gonna be able to retire on this money. But it's an obvious increase. And I see it coming at exactly the same time as I see Google cracking down on rank spamming.
I think Google has "rationalized" a lot of their ad process (both ranking and sales) and the only guys who are hurt, are the ones who were gaming the system to begin with. e.g. click fraud and spamming the ranking.
It's not so much as google getting worse or better, but people and companies building businesses around pagerank, and thus the need for very aggressive SEO. Were you to dump the same "low-quality" sites onto the Internet in 2000, I'm sure the results from Google would have been FAR worse than what we see today.
Keep repeating the moronic claim of Google's overarching villainy. When Google does turn evil, no one is going to care because they're already ignoring you.
One of the things I use Google for extensively is the ability to search for wierd error messages, return codes, etc. that appear in commercial software I use for work. It's very frustruating when your very specific search query returns 45 different sites, all of which are rehosting the same forum post or newsgroup article. These get ranked higher up than other unique posts, causing a lot of scrolling through results and wasting time. Also, these aren't queries like "bmw 335i" or "" that are guaranteed to return millions of unique hits. I'm looking for the one other guy in the world who's found this issue and has a workable answer. Google used to be pretty good for that, especially if your query was well formed and incredibly specific.
Real world example - I got an error message trying to install Windows 7 SP1 last week, with a long hex number and a very specifically-worded message. I typed the query into google, and the first hit was some idiot who had no idea what he was talking about on a support forum. The next 5-6 hits were that exact same idiot's post rebroadcast to sites like eggheadcafe.com, techarea.in, etc. I eventually found the answer, but it was on page 3 of the search results.
On another topic, how and why do these content farm sites exist? How does eggheadcafe.com, which just copies newsgroup and forum data, able to pay to keep the site going? Are they all just looking to cash in on ad revenue? Do they really get that much in revenue to justify the site-crawling they must have to do?
I'd settle for it finding these two droids I've been looking for.
I guess the humor in my original post on this thread was lost somewhere.
It was low-quality humor, obviously culled from a humor farm - and thus downgraded.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Some of us actually use that shit at the top left. Suck it.
Also, what the hell is with you people. The slogan is "don't be evil", not "do no evil". It's a minor grammar error, and you're probably confused with monkeys, but this pops up time and time again. Is this some talking point kind of thing that I'm not aware of? Did I not get the memo?
This is what I don't get. How can you decry the business of another when it adversely affects you, especially when the two industries are completely unrelated (Retail vs Search/Tech)? Google's business is to provide the most relevant results to the search request made. PERIOD. One of the search terms my site consistently is in the top three sites for recently went down several spots as people who've lifted content off my site and posted it to their site, unabridged and unedited. Just flat out copy/pasted it. I know, because there are unique aspects about my content (relevantly unique), which is why my site was so well listed, and why the content was lifted and posted elsewhere.
I worked long and hard creating unique relevant pages to get to the top of the search, only to be replaced by exact copies on other websites. I'm not upset, I consider it flattery that my content is so good that people find it that useful that they want it as their own. However, I would be pissed if the information I had was commercial in nature (it isn't) and people were just taking it because of what I call the Kazaa mentality of just copying things because you want them and are too damn cheap to buy it. In a world where people (used to) buy ring tones for $2.99 but steal $.89 MP3s.
Anyway, back to my point, as a result of people plain stealing my website content, my rankings have dropped considerably by exact copies of my work. What used to be #1 on the first page is probably now somewhere on page #2. It would suck if wasn't giving the info away, the more places that have my info the better. Still, I would love for Google to realize where the original came from (history) and gave points for being "first" for relevant content.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Let people tag sites they've found as a result of a search. Build a tagging system which will allow people to exclude linkspam for example.
Because no spammer could write a program to repeatedly search for and tag their site.
Let people tag sites they've found as a result of a search. Build a tagging system which will allow people to exclude linkspam for example.
That would replace "PageRank" with "whoever can afford to pay Mechanical Turk to tag their site". At that point, Google might as well drop the middleman and use their AdSense auctions to sell page ranking directly.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You don't have to only own one identity. However building up a good rep would be enough work that it would be a limiter to promiscuous sockpuppetry. The point is that for any identity, which could span multiple sites if you want it to, we'd A) know posts were generated by the keyholder B) be able to refer to the keyholder identity compatibly C) be able to endorse or call shenanigans on certain keyholder from our own identities. D) be able to filter content based on a trust web built up over time such that trolls, spammers, and astroturfers are effectively moot -- each identity has to earn its own reputation from real people over time, either from consitently behaving as a good netizen (e.g.providing accurate information), being a good source of opinions about other netizens, or importing trust from real-world relationships. There would probably be many "flavors" of trust e.g. "this guy is a bona-fide real person but he tends to fall hook line and sinker for chain emails" or "this guy is right 90% of the time but he does not retract it when he is wrong" or "this guy has original material but don't import his endorsements because he downrates people based on personal vendettas."
Applies to email as well as forums/wikis.
I think with facebook people are getting used to the very preliminary ideas behind building a trust network, even if it is one built on a foundation of sand. So there's that at least. I'm not hopeful about anyone developing a good trust network system, much less selling it to the public, however, since developers seem to be more inclined to re-implement the CMS wheel perpetually.
Someone had to do it.
I think you are missing the point of Google's business model. Their core product is our attention, which they sell to advertisers by various means. In order to maintain their product, that is: keep our attention, they need to keep their search results relevant and useful (or at least as relevant and useful as the competition). Pushing the aggregators/copiers/similar further down the search results than the original good content sites helps to keep my attention and that of many other people (who would prefer to see, say, the original StackOverflow page instead of a copy that has 613 advert slots added), so this helps them maintain that sector of their product. And if those sites give up and concentrate on getting a high rank at Bing or somewhere else instead then that will not harm Google (they won't, of course, the listings war will continue battle after battle).
Google won, over AltaVista and others of the time, in part because the results were better - because AV's algorithm couldn't screen out the less useful results as well. They also won by just being a search engine rather than spending countless $ on becoming a "portal" when people didn't actually want a portal they wanted a search engine - perhaps AV would have done better if the $ that went into the portal thing went into improving their search functionality instead? Of course Google's keep-us-interested schemes involve much more than just the search engine these days so they could potentially fall into the same trap eventually, but unlike AV their other tools are just that: other, by which I mean that they compliment the search engine product (and the more general "information location and management" focus) or are not even related to it rather than trying to replace it.
Perhaps the communal view on the issue is much more complicated than you'd like?
Perhaps Slashdot isn't a mono-culture yet, and still has plenty of dissenting views?
Perhaps the author has a point, there is a line between open culture and exploitive culture. Remixing is fine, sharing can be fine, plagiarism is not fine.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey