Google Tweaks Algorithm; EHow Traffic Plummets

jfruhlinger writes "For some time there's been rumbling that Google's search results have been gummed up by low-quality pages from 'content farms,' written at low or no cost specifically to score high on common Google queries. Now it looks like the latest update to Google's search algorithm is having an effect, cutting into traffic to eHow (and cutting down the stock price of eHow's owner, Demand Media, in the process)."

Comments

and nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

of value was lost!

Re:and nothing

[Richard_at_work]

Demand Media tend to buy up a lot of pre-existing sites as well - Airliners.net, a fantastic aviation enthusiasts site, was bought by Demand Media in 2007 and rapidly went down hill resulting in a lot of members leaving :( Something of value is definitely lost once Demand Media get involved.

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler

[vlm]

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just block all robot traffic to expertsexchange, ehow, and the like? Or even more trivial, allow users individual profiles to block specific user selectable domains?

Well duh the stock fell

[elrous0]

If your company's business plan focuses exclusively (or even primarily) on gaming Google search results, then anyone dumb enough to invest in you *deserves* to be screwed.

Already done.

[kcbnac]

Previous Slashdot discussion:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/03/11/1711252/Google-Introduces-Domain-Blocking-To-Search

Article discussing how:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/hide-sites-to-find-more-of-what-you.html

Re:Already done.

[vlm]

Interesting.. I did not realize that feature was available, because it is not shown to me in my results. There is no "block" option next to the "cached" and "similar" as seen in the blog posts etc. I do see in my search options that I can manually block up to 500 domains from search results. Nothing weird here, just a normal google account and a normal firefox with no unusual addons/extensions.

Maybe that option only appears for certain "special" domain names, or "special" searches?

Re:Already done.

[Maximum Prophet]

You have to be logged into a google service, click on a link in the search results, go back, then just that link will have the "Block" button. It took me a few tries before it worked for me.

Even better, you can go right to http://www.google.com/reviews/t to set things up in bulk. Then, when you search, at the bottom of the page should be a link like "Some items were blocked, click to see"

Re:Already done.

[Maximum Prophet]

You can go right to http://www.google.com/reviews/t to set things up in bulk. You do have to be logged into a google service first, and for the blocking to work.

Re:Already done.

[onepoint]

Well google does cover that, just in case you do read Klingon, they want everyone to be able to read it http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=xx-klingon

Hit me badly too

[zakkie]

I run a website that is entirely my own work, is the result of years of research and involves many hours a day of new research. I am able to provide the data I collate for free to everyone because AdSense income covered hosting costs and allowed me to pay rent and buy food. I was not making vast sums of money, but I could do what I love and provide a useful resource to thousands of others. Now, scraper sites get ranked above me and even sites that cite me as the source rank higher than I do for many keywords. It's unfortunate, but for me this means less time doing actual original research and more time having to go out and market myself.

As a one man organisation, it's going to be really tough to keep going. I think Google have made a massive error here - by saying they can gauge the quality of a website (and its usefulness) algorithmically is arrogant and short-sighted. I hope they figure this out quickly. I really do hate having to sell stuff, even my own work!

Re:Hit me badly too

[drinkypoo]

I think Google have made a massive error here - by saying they can gauge the quality of a website (and its usefulness) algorithmically is arrogant and short-sighted. I hope they figure this out quickly. I really do hate having to sell stuff, even my own work!

You have it entirely backwards. Google has made the only intelligent decision here, by saying that they cannot possibly gauge the quality of all websites manually, and sticking to their guns about doing it programatically. That way, suing them over your position in the rankings is much more difficult because they can prove a lack of favoritism.

Re:Hit me badly too

[blue_adept]

Wiping out small independent publishers who "collate" mountains of information that they don't own the copyright for may well be what google intends to do. Let's be clear here. Are you an author? Do you create content? Or do you amalgamate other people's work, with or without their permission and/or using "fair use" provisions of copyright law? You don't really say, but I'm guessing from the tone of your post that you don't in fact create content. So, if your site is useful, provide the link, so we can have a better informed discussion about the merits of your site wrt the recent change in google's algorithm.

Re:Hit me badly too

[bill_mcgonigle]

On my netbook, when I navigate to your site I see two pictures, a couple menus and a bunch of ads on the first screen. I have to scroll down to the second page to even get an idea about what kind of content your site offers. That's very atypical for a good website.

like many programmers

[circletimessquare]

i've gotten experts exchange results in google searches forever, and i loathe them

however, not once, in years, have i seen "experts exchange" written in such a way in your post that it makes me think "expert sex change"

so thanks. thanks a lot. for making a bane of my existence somehow even worse. because now i will never look at "experts exchange" in google results again without seeing "expert sex change"

Good EHow sucks anyway

[JohnRoss1968]

You can get better advise from the crazy drunk down at the park.