Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Goes After Content Farms

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the cleaning-up-the-e-streets dept.

Chrome 345

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Firefox Extension Needed! (5, Insightful)

dch24 (904899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205194)

Dear Google,

Please port this to Firefox.

Sincerely,
The rest of the browser market

Re:Firefox Extension Needed! (3, Informative)

nicedream (4923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205230)

Dear dch24,

Try this [userscripts.org] script for Greasemonkey.

Sincerely,
nicedream

Re:Firefox Extension Needed! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205294)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205716)

Eh, this is better. The spam site is permanently blocked for me. I don't have to worry about Google removing the site from their index which would result in the spam sites getting more aggressive about switching domain names.

Re:Firefox Extension Needed! (1)

dch24 (904899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205320)

Seems pretty good. (And Greasemonkey is great.)

Have you had any back-and-forth with Google? You know, the bane of google add-ons: google makes changes to their internals. Since 2008, how has the ride been?

Re:Firefox Extension Needed! (1)

nicedream (4923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205338)

I haven't had any back and forth with google....It's not my script. I'm just a happy user :)

Re:Firefox Extension Needed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205592)

The funny part is -- which most people don't know of -- is that Chrome natively supports most Greasemonkey scripts. You can install that and it'll show up under extensions.

Re:Firefox Extension Needed! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205376)

It's like putting a three legged horsey in a race with a malevolent stallion. It's not fast enough. Allow ME as a registered and positively identified user make a click and watch them die. Make the die forever with not recourse to having that domain reinstated if 1/100 of on percent of google users click on the hate button.

If a user is shown to abuse this they too can go bye.

Right now all I get is some vacuous blow off if I get any response at all.

 

Re:Firefox Extension Needed! (0)

backdoc (416006) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205422)

I wrote a Firefox extension a while back that allowed you to block results based on text within the results. It would also let you highlight based upon text. I called it "GoogleCleaner". It's not compatible with the current version of FF. But, you can fix it.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-results-cleaner/

Re:Firefox Extension Needed! (1)

Wolfling1 (1808594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205492)

Dear Google,

Do it at the server end.

Sincerely,
The rest of the world

Re:Firefox Extension Needed! (2, Insightful)

multisync (218450) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205542)

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! (3, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205670)

You mean this one [slashdot.org] that is still there and happily waiting for you to metamod in?

Re:Firefox Extension Needed! (1)

NixieBunny (859050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205832)

Darn right! I HATE those content farms.

This story sounds like an advertisement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205202)

Slashvertisement starts now....

Re:This story sounds like an advertisement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205388)

It sounds like you need to start your own site, if you don't like the content here. Domain names are $9.99 these days, get to it.

Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among them (5, Insightful)

Zilvreen (1335163) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205214)

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.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (1, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205222)

Just scroll down to the bottom. The answer is always there.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (4, Funny)

WoodstockJeff (568111) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205270)

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...

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205276)

Very true, but that is what you get with Experts Exchange.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205414)

I've never paid for expert's exchange, but the last 2 companies I've worked for had an EE account.
I must say its as hit/miss as a regular search engine, but I do find many answers there that I can't find on a regular search engines (Example: Answers where I'm too lazy to read the documentation).
Don't bother posting a question on there, because 99% of the time you stump the "Professionals".

Why use Experts Exchange? Use Stack Overflow! (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205738)

I can't believe anyone uses Expert Exchange anymore. Even if for some reason you cannot find an answer on there, if you ask within an hour you should have a number of responses.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205498)

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...

You need to choose the 'cached' version for EE and then scroll all the way to the bottom. You'll find the answers there, though recently they screwed with the stylesheet so it doesn't always look right on the cached version (but the answers are still very easy to read).

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (1)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205284)

I'm genuinely POed at myself for not figuring this out. It could have save me countless hours of frustration.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205448)

I'm genuinely POed at myself for not figuring this out

Oh, don't be so hard on yourself - the concept of "page down" and/or "scrolling down" is lost on many people. You should blame it on your parents, as I'd imagine that your stupidity is genetic.

It could have save me countless hours of frustration.

You might have tried using those hours to actually learn what you needed to know instead of expecting others on the Internet to just give you the answers.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205412)

Just scroll down to the bottom. The answer is always there.

Jesus, I didn't know that!

I still wish they would die, I hate what they do. They're not trying to be helpful first and make money second, its the other way around with them. Or being helpful might be 3rd or 4th on their list.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (3, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205616)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205228)

I don't really have a problem with expert sexchange; their answer is right there on the page; you simply have to scroll down to the bottom of a very long page filled with advertising so most people never notice that you don't need to pay. Just immediately scroll to the bottom and there is the answer. You don't even have to change your user agent string to googlebot or anything.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (3, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205234)

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.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (2)

Evildonald (983517) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205674)

or Expert Sexchange as they are really known

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (1)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205752)

I've never payed a dime to expert sexchange, but I have, on occasion, gotten good answers (they're batting about .133, for me) from their site. You don't have to pay to view the answers (as long as your referrer header is google.com) you just have to scroll all the way down.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205818)

Oh, for mod points!

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (2)

Melibeus (94008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205250)

That was one of the first sites I thought of when I saw this post.
It looks like you can set your own block list up. So I'm going to be happy never to see Experts Exchange again.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205292)

Turn page styles off, turn page styles on.

Your answers are on the bottom of the page.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (4, Informative)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205340)

Solution: Add "stackoverflow" to the end of every programming-related question. It saves a lot of time.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205366)

*pulls hair out*

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (2)

SkyDude (919251) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205424)

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.

Amen brother, amen.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205478)

There's a Greasemonkey script for that.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205658)

finally.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205734)

I haven't noticed that as much lately. These days you get stack overflow and much higher quality answers without all the crap. I don't even remember the last time Experts Exchange popped up in a search for me.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205756)

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/9462

There are at least a dozen others as well.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (2)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205770)

LOL!

Yes. I knew I could not be the first person to post Expert Exchange. It was the *very* first thing I thought of, and then some of the more annoying driver sites that popup when you do searches for various printer and hardware drivers.

I love this idea too, but honestly wonder just what Google will do the results. I can see abused like Astroturfing to influence a competitors ranking in the search results.

That being said, just being able to block Expert Exchange is priceless to me. I hate those bastards.

Re:Here's to hoping Expert's Exchange is among the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205840)

Try scrolling down. The answers are there. The paywall is a tax on the lazy.

An incremental improvement, I suppose... (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205220)

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....

Unintended Consequences (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205594)

The laws of unintended consequences suggest that this will have the exact opposite of the desired effects as the same people who run the content farms use this extension to report legitimate sites and get them removed or have their ranks lowered, further increasing the prominence of content farm placement in Google's search results. Shortly thereafter Bing's results will also go to hell since it's been implied that they're taking results from Google. Search as we know it will be set back by over a decade! Anyone know if Altavista is still around?

Re:Unintended Consequences (1)

quantumred (1311571) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205750)

While your post is probably somewhat tongue in cheek, the original article states "...will study the collected results and use them to determine future page ranking systems." It does not suggest they are automatically lowering page rankings based on collected results. Also, I would guess Google could figure out via IP(s) if a particular person or group is trying to game the system.

Re:Unintended Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205804)

Hence the part where Google will verify the reported sites manually.

Re:An incremental improvement, I suppose... (3, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205786)

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.

Search Wiki (2)

kabloom (755503) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205224)

Isn't this similar to the "Search Wiki" feature of Google that's available in every browser? Why didn't they just use that instead?

Re:Search Wiki (2)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205266)

Pretty much; I can't blame them for seeking marketshare, though.

For a somewhat short while, Google search results each had squares with "X"es in them that would take them off the list when clicked (explained further in this post on BlogsDNA [blogsdna.com] ). I kinda wish they stayed so I could nuke the spammier results I find, but we all know downvotes are just as exploitable as raves and I have a feeling this Chrome thing will get used more nefariously than not.

Re:Search Wiki (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205474)

I don't know, I think there are a lot more people annoyed with link farmers and ad sites than there are link farmers. Filtering complaints by IP should winnow out the majority of sabateurs. What's the deal with chrome anyway, is Google feuding with firefox that they won't port it or something?

Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard (5, Insightful)

ZackSchil (560462) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205226)

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 (1)

whitehaint (1883260) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205246)

Also consider that there are paywalls for content found to be free on the original (?) site! I guess this means fixya and related will stop being the top results?

Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard (1)

Anonymous Showered (1443719) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205282)

It says Google will manually check sites once enough data is gathered by users. They may just white-list EE since they are somewhat useful.

Which leads me to the following question: why is everyone here against EE? Is it because they attempt to charge you for the answer?

Has anyone ever scrolled down the page to see the answers? I'm not trolling. I've never paid a dime and always got an answer... irrelevant to whether it was right or wrong.

Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard (2)

dch24 (904899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205308)

Because they don't produce original information, they just link-farm it.

There are plenty of good sites out there who aren't gaming the system.

Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205822)

Yes, EE does produce original content and lots of it.

Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard (3, Interesting)

Mouldy (1322581) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205288)

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.

Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard (5, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205500)

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 (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205698)

There are actually valid reasons for doing that.

The classic example is JavaScript-rendered dynamic content. This tends not to work so well when you're dealing with search engines. However, if you can serve them a static page that contains the text of the page minus all the rendering, then it can index the content without choking on the JavaScript. I'm not sure how important this is these days, but it certainly was a problem at one time.

It's also useful to serve modified versions for search engines so that searches for content within your site can return more relevant results. For example, you might insert certain keywords that describe the content of the page using terms that don't actually appear. Case in point, your page talks about Airport, but you serve a copy to Google that inserts the terms 802.11 and Wi-Fi.

Finally, there's the question of bandwidth and CPU overhead. If your site changes a lot, Google beats on your servers rather frequently. You can reduce the bandwidth hit by stripping JavaScript, CSS, images, etc. from your content before serving it to Google. This won't significantly change the searchability of the content, but will reduce the bandwidth overhead. And, of course, if there are static versions of content that you can serve instead of a server-side-dynamic version, this also saves on CPU overhead.

For example, when you're writing a blog, you might decide that you don't care if the comments are searchable in Google. Thus, instead of wasting your server's CPU to compute the HTML for the comments, you can serve up a web page containing only the actual blog content when queried by a search engine.

Paywalls, of course, are a dubious reason.

Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205772)

Isn't serving different content to spiders and to people, for whatever reason, explicitly against Google's rules though? For the first point, I think Google can digest JavaScript alright these days, even some flash. For the second, that's dodgy, if you want those terms indexed include them in your article. The third, it would seem you're still serving the same content just in a slightly different format.

Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard (2)

trawg (308495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205802)

It's actually part of Google's webmaster guidelines [google.com] that you don't do this. I am not sure if it is grounds for removal though:

# Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."

Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard (1)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205810)

I was under the impression that, for a while, expert sexchange was allowing the google bot to crawl their whole site, but not allowing users who came from google to actually view the answers. My understanding was that google removed them from their indexer for that, and that they then allowed people who clicked on the link from google (getting the google.com referrer headers) to see the results by scrolling all the way down. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , however, is saying that as of Dec. 18, 2010 this is no longer the case, but they appear to be incorrect. A search on google (with site:experts-exchange.com appended to it) shows (to me, anyway) that this is still how they operate. Pasting the same url returned by the google results in a new tab makes the actual results unavailable (and not in the source of the page, at least from my cursory glance at it).

Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard (1)

Nieriko (200589) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205418)

Good. Maybe someday I would be able to block experts-exchange on Firefox. In the meanwhile I maybe even try chrome just for the joy of getting rid of these guys...

Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205482)

Sounds like it is working then. Content the user cannot get to from google directly should not be distracting the user. Experts-Exchange answers are at the bottom of the page so they should be ok, but probably filtered anyway as they are often more wrong than not.

Re:Paywall sites are going to be hit pretty hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205796)

I don't really like EE either, but you know if you reach the question via Google search you just need to scroll to the bottom of the page? That, or you just user agent switch to Google's search string, and it's unfiltered again whenever they kill the scroll method.

Death to experts-exchange.com (5, Informative)

Uloi (1996356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205256)

Here is the solution to your coding problem.. Oh wait no, give us money first.

Re:Death to experts-exchange.com (1)

Anonymous Showered (1443719) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205290)

I already asked this question right above you, but:

Did you ever scroll down to see the answer on EE pages?

Re:Death to experts-exchange.com (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205346)

Subquestion: Was the answer ever helpful? I have yet to find any "expert" advice on that site.

Re:Death to experts-exchange.com (1)

Anonymous Showered (1443719) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205382)

To be honest: sometimes. It usually gives me a good idea on what the problem might be, but yes, there is no actual "expert" advice since the content is user-generated.

Re:Death to experts-exchange.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205462)

When it's programming related, almost always.

Re:Death to experts-exchange.com (1)

BACPro (206388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205380)

Yea,
I used to get pissed off at Experts-Exchange results cluttering up searches.

But someone commented on /. that if you just scroll to the bottom, the answers are there.

Re:Death to experts-exchange.com (5, Funny)

eddy the lip (20794) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205644)

Me, too. Now I'm just annoyed because I discovered the quality of the answers.

Re:Death to experts-exchange.com (4, Informative)

idiot900 (166952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205574)

If you reach an experts-exchange.com page via Google, just scroll down to the very bottom for the solution.

Greatest fucking extension ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205260)

So long DirectoryM, HotFrog, and all you other link/content farm assholes who rip off content.

oh HELL yes (1)

Aerorae (1941752) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205272)

i have never installed an extension faster.

Goodbye (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205280)

Goodbye yahoo answers...

One search engine is enough. (1)

JimB (9642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205286)

FINALLY ! I am so tired of the first three or four pages of Google results being heavily populated with links to OTHER search engines. Fan-Tas-Tic !

What took them so long? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205296)

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.

Changes Nothing (1)

Veroxii (51114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205310)

So what stops me from burying my competition with this? Instead of getting cheap far-east labor to link to me in linkfarms, the same people will just now engage in blocking out my competitors.

There's no easy solution.

Re:Changes Nothing (3, Insightful)

dch24 (904899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205328)

It may help that Google reviews the results.

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

Fuck off, squidoo.com (3, Insightful)

Fear the Clam (230933) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205312)

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:Fuck off, squidoo.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205584)

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.

I'm not going to ask how you came across that example ;)

Re:Fuck off, squidoo.com (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205686)

Finally, a kindred spirit! I too check analrape.com every day hoping for some useful content.

This is such a good idea! (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205350)

I wish it was available for Firefox. I really get of having to look at the domain name of each returned search result before clicking on it. The so-called "experts exchange" would be first on my blocked list.

Use the blocking info influence the search ranking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205714)

The filter out feature should send the filtered sites back to Google so the search rankings of the objectional sites can be lowered. Could yo imagine what
that would do to the so-called "experts-exchange"?

Oh, good. (1)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205384)

They maybe I can disable the messy greasemonkey script that adds -site:wn.com -site:eggheadcafe.com etc to all my queries.

Could also be used for evil... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205408)

Google already "charges" for increased search "relevancy" and gives massive discounts to large bulk buyers (think Amazon, Ebay, etc)... What happens when my legit sites start getting pruned for lack of payment... er... relevancy? Google already sticks it to small businesses with Adwords rates that are uncompetitive when compared to huge advertisers, so what would stop them from not doing the same in this realm? Don't be evil? right...

Please, nuke them from orbit... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205486)

...it's the only way to be sure. Searching the web nowadays is like walking in a dog kennel cage: you're constantly stepping in crap.

Google already had this feature (5, Interesting)

skomes (868255) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205532)

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?

Re:Google already had this feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205626)

Unnecessary server-side computational overhead? Lack of use?

Re:Google already had this feature (3, Insightful)

ogl_codemonkey (706920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205684)

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

Why a browser extension? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205536)

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

How about an OpenDNS block list? (1)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205538)

I'd be happy if Google let me filter my stuff through OpenDNS. If I have blocked there, I don't want to hit it in my searches.

Bye Bye BigResource.com! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35205552)

God, I hate those pukes. Finally a way to get rid of those spammers!

this is happening with blender copycats (1)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205622)

A few sites are using these spam farms to sell blender using misleading advertising (including copyright violation I believe).

ie illusionmage.com - search 'create 3d animation'
and 3dmagixpro.com - search '3d animation software'

illusionmage.com is also using spamming via twitter and i think facebook as well.

If anyone has twitter and facebook contacts who might help us get rid of these spammers would be appreciated.

Email at LetterRip AT gmail Dot com

Selling a distribution of Blender (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205776)

What's wrong with distributing copies of GNU/Linux for a fee (e.g. Red Hat)? And what's wrong with distributing copies of Blender + video tutorials + clip art + other non-free goodies for a fee? I thought including value-added non-free components was the entire point of a free software business model. What specifically is IllusionMage.com doing wrong?

Oh boy... (1)

SwampChicken (1383905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205638)

....is my list going to be LOOONNNG!

Fox News (1)

DoubleParadoxx (928992) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205764)

I can't believe it hasn't been mentioned yet!

Pollution of search results (1)

hwstar (35834) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205782)

Web searches used to yield more relevant info back in the early to late 90's. Since the Internet has become used by everyone, commercial interests have polluted the search engines for their financial gain. Because of this you can't always trust what you see in the search engines result page, and end up cross checking things like Wikipedia and other research sites. This in my opinion is is a terrible shame as that was not meant to be how the web was used back before it was commercialized.

What would really be nice is a search engine where feedback from the users doing the searching could be used to influence the relevance of the search results. I don't think Google will ever do this because of vested financial interests in the adwords business, but maybe some day someone else will.

Study the collected results? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205800)

Whats a 'low-quality' site? A blog/forum/site that a large well connected party political flash mob sends to Google?
If Google takes time to get the code/human effort working well, good sites will be airbrushed from the 'google' web.

So instead of content farms (1)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 3 years ago | (#35205838)

Now google will have to deal with botnets constantly complaining about the competition's websites. This is not the winning strategy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?