×

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 Is Introducing the +1 Button

CmdrTaco posted about 3 years ago | from the where-have-i-heard-that-before dept.

Google 218

An anonymous reader writes "It seems Google refuses to give up and is trying to push once again its way into the social space by introducing a new feature called +1, which basically has the same functionality as the Facebook 'Like' button (share recommended content with other people)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

218 comments

Please rtfa first... (-1, Redundant)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 3 years ago | (#35678884)

In before scores of users fail to read article and consequently raise concerns that are addressed by said article...

Re:Please rtfa first... (0)

improfane (855034) | about 3 years ago | (#35678932)

Are you associated with the website?

Re:Please rtfa first... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 3 years ago | (#35678988)

Are you associated with the website?

Do you mean pureinfotech.com or google.com since it appears to be a very pro Google article.

Re:Please rtfa first... (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | about 3 years ago | (#35679542)

... it appears to be a very pro Google article.

Well their single quoted source was the Official Google Blog, so their bound to 'like' it.

Re:Please rtfa first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679650)

whose bound?

Re:Please rtfa first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679764)

I think that you mean "so they are bound to +1 it"

Re:Please rtfa first... (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 3 years ago | (#35679890)

The article does not refer to any concerns. I think that was a generic "helpful frist psot" trying to garner karma instead of scorn.

Re:Please rtfa first... (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 3 years ago | (#35678976)

I can't help but take your post as a direct challenge to participate in this conversation without rtfa.

Google is become evil!

Re:Please rtfa first... (1)

Jstlook (1193309) | about 3 years ago | (#35679242)

Funny, I took the slashdot news article as a direct challenge to participate in the conversation without RTFA.
Thought it was mandatory!

Re:Please rtfa first... (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 3 years ago | (#35679070)

In before scores of users fail to read article and consequently raise concerns that are addressed by said article...

I took your advice and rtfa, but didn't really find anything that's not in the article summary which said it's basically a Facebook style "like" button for Google. Admittedly I didn't watch the video, do we need to wtfv too?

Re:Please rtfa first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679892)

Man, I just can't stand posts titled like yours. If you're going to suggest they RTFA first, in the title, it should also contain something regarding the fact that the article probably covers their concerns.

Please have a -1 Button (5, Interesting)

Dayze!Confused (717774) | about 3 years ago | (#35678890)

I know everybody just has those times they wish that they could either just "Acknowledge" that they've read the comment and care, such as a friend getting sick or being dumped or getting into a car crash, or wish that they could state that they do not like a comment, maybe they could introduce a "Wrong" button also.

Re:Please have a -1 Button (1)

thebra (707939) | about 3 years ago | (#35678946)

I know everybody just has those times they wish that they could either just "Acknowledge" that they've read the comment and care, such as a friend getting sick or being dumped or getting into a car crash, or wish that they could state that they do not like a comment, maybe they could introduce a "Wrong" button also.

And a thumb up / thumb down combination. "Just got in a car wreck and I'm ok but my friend broke their leg."

Re:Please have a -1 Button (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 3 years ago | (#35679044)

Please have a -1 Button

Since this is /. shouldn't we be asking for one or more of the following:
* ++i
* i++
* --i
* i--

Re:Please have a -1 Button (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679126)

Since nobody reads the articles, you could narrow it down to ++i or --i. We just look at the summary and spread FUD in the comments.

Re:Please have a -1 Button (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679312)

I don't know; from my whiteboard (really), I have:

i = i + 1
i += 1
i++;

I guess I need to learn more languages as the syntax you used isn't familiar to me (unless you just omitted the ; at the end of the line).

Re:Please have a -1 Button (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679098)

just click the +1 button enough times to overflow the datatype and you'll get your wish

Re:Please have a -1 Button (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679218)

I want a divide by 0 button for when shit just doesn't make sense.

Re:Please have a -1 Button (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679256)

And a "Me 2!" button, please, oh please.

Re:Please have a -1 Button (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679758)

Hey, or how about a button with values like "Insightful", "Interesting", "Troll" or "Funny"!

UI overhead won't work for Google (1)

theazureshadow (1237394) | about 3 years ago | (#35679826)

If we developed the ultimate taxonomic system for all reactions to things on the internet... it might be epic, but nobody would ever use it.

"Thumbs Up / Down" is appropriate when you are okay with a learning curve and you can afford to get more data for your ranking (StackOverflow, Slashdot).

"Like", on the other hand is appropriate for high volume sites (Digg, Hacker News), and social sites. It has a far wider (non-jerk) range of applications, even if it doesn't cover your friend's car crash. In those situations where "Like" isn't appropriate, you'll just have to comment instead -- as you should be doing anyway. "Hey, I cared enough to spend half a second pressing a button!" just doesn't cut it.

Google has the most usage and the least average commitment of any of the examples here, so they probably can't afford even the slight complication of "Thumbs Up / Down". They probably won't even show the aggregate of "+1" votes; it'll just figure as a signal into result rankings.

(TIME's ongoing "best feed" twitter showdown is an interesting example. It uses both, but only calculates ranking by "+1" votes. It currently shows Sarah Palin at position 23 of 140, while she only has a 0.14 approval ratio. That is the largest disparity between position and approval in the poll, which tracks Palin's record perfectly.)

I don't get it (5, Insightful)

suso (153703) | about 3 years ago | (#35678900)

What is the point of having a positive without a negative? Are they just trying to "keep things positive?" What if a Facebook page for the KKK had 300 likes? Isn't that be misleading when you can't compare it to anything?

Re:I don't get it (1)

thebra (707939) | about 3 years ago | (#35678930)

What is the point of having a positive without a negative? Are they just trying to "keep things positive?" What if a Facebook page for the KKK had 300 likes? Isn't that be misleading when you can't compare it to anything?

It's like when my kids watch Barney. Barney teaches kids that the world is perfect and nothing bad happens.

Re:I don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679622)

So Barney is a Democrat? Good to know.

Re:I don't get it (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 3 years ago | (#35679040)

That's an awesome idea! what the world needs is a social networking site that is the opposite of facebook. Instead of liking posts, your only course of action is to dislike posts. i would call it assbook.

Re:I don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679648)

Others would call it /b/

Re:I don't get it (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 3 years ago | (#35679048)

What happens when the NAACP Facebook page has 30,000 dislikes?

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679238)

They cry white racism and sue the entire white populace of the US for damages.

It's coming eventually.

Re:I don't get it (1)

archen (447353) | about 3 years ago | (#35679086)

The problem with a minus button is that people tend to use that kind of button on things that they don't agree with, but isn't wrong information. Like if I search for abortion and don't like what people say I just vote them down even if their points are valid from their perspective. You see this kind of behavior on movie rating sites a lot. If you're searching for something on KKK, and find that site to have the information you want why wouldn't you use +1?

I could see a problem where popularity is screwing up results where I don't know precisely what I'm asking, and expect to wade through search results to find it. Popularity will likely just yield results that I've already thought of, being popular and all that.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679250)

Probably so that when an unpopular kid posts something, it doesn't immediately get disliked by a hundred bullies. Getting only two likes from your couple friends might make you seem sad next to the popular kid with a hundred likes, but it's probably enough. There's no need to put social weapons in the hands of the irresponsible.

'Pure Infotech' (5, Informative)

improfane (855034) | about 3 years ago | (#35678906)

For a site that claims to offer pure information technology and then spams you with popovers to subscribe. Junk website waste of bandwidth.

For the real source, try google themselves [google.com] .

Re:'Pure Infotech' (1)

Andy Smith (55346) | about 3 years ago | (#35679316)

Went to site, it turned grey and popped up a message asking me to "like" it on Facebook. Closed tab.

April Fools!!!! (1)

FriendlyPrimate (461389) | about 3 years ago | (#35678916)

Good one guys, but I saw that coming from a mile away! Oh wait...it's March 31st.

Re:April Fools!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679004)

March 31 "+1" == Apr 1st

Jus' Sayin'.

Re:April Fools!!!! (1)

ElderKorean (49299) | about 3 years ago | (#35679026)

Good one guys, but I saw that coming from a mile away!
Oh wait...it's March 31st.

Not in Australia, Slashdot says your posting was at Fri 01 Apr 02:18AM, and the story was posted at Fri 01 Apr 02:12AM
Previous years have taught me not to trust anything on here until the 1st April is nowhere on the planet.
Even RTFA's can be dangerous this time of the year.

miserable failure (0)

cashman73 (855518) | about 3 years ago | (#35678924)

So, does this mean we'll get a chance to "+1" George W. Bush back up in searches for "miserable failure"? Anyone want to take any bets that the Republicans will attempt to "+1" Barack Obama up there with him? Before long, any search for the term will just be a list of politicians,. . .

Re:miserable failure (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | about 3 years ago | (#35678968)

I think you are forgetting that more people vote for American Idol than vote for the President; as such, any search term will probably just converge to Miley Cyrus, Justin Beiber, or equivalent.

Re:miserable failure (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#35679164)

You forget this is the internet. The internet is for porn. Expect much +1ings of popular pornstars and such.

Re:miserable failure (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | about 3 years ago | (#35679266)

Yes, but most people peruse porn in private, and friends can see your +1s, so I don't expect 'most' people would intentionally +1 their favorite pornstar..

Re:miserable failure (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#35679576)

Gen Xers are still nervous, yes, but Ys and Zs increasingly less so. I expect there to be sea change of sex positivism after the Boomers are gone. In fact that's why most of this discourse occurs in other channels, our parents and employers (who are often our parents' generation or like Gen X feel socially obligated to affect a similar outlook even if they don't believe it themselves) read facebook and other such things. So whenever porn manages to become an open topic of discussion for a group it is usually on IRC or at house parties or similar.

The social stigma is dieing, and at some point there will be a critical mass that will radically alter the role of sexuality as a shameful force in social structures/contexts.

Re:miserable failure (1)

Jake Griffin (1153451) | about 3 years ago | (#35679234)

I wasn't aware that Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber were on American Idol... I could have sworn they were on the Disney Channel...

False Promotion? (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | about 3 years ago | (#35678928)

I didn't see anything in the article, but how will they be able to keep someone from promoting their own service or website just to draw in consumers?

Re:False Promotion? (1)

Zerth (26112) | about 3 years ago | (#35679042)

Supposedly this only considers pluses from people in your contact list who also has a google account.

I'd much rather have something like Amazon's "other people with similar account habits as you clicked this link". Wider net of recommendations while still eliminating spammers(unless the spammer is remarkably similar to you, in which case is it really spam?).

Re:False Promotion? (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | about 3 years ago | (#35679178)

I guess it was this line that made me think everyone would be able to see:

The idea is, when you +1 something, you are publicly giving your stamp of approval

Re:False Promotion? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 3 years ago | (#35679190)

Except Amazon's "similar habits" occasionally introduces something from completely left field, such as that I'm looking at a fantasy novel and there's a twelve pack of baby bottles among the "other recommended products." So it's not perfect, either.

Social ranking to replace pigeons (1)

kipsate (314423) | about 3 years ago | (#35678964)

Google knows that no matter how smart your page rank system is, it will be gamed to the level it becomes unusable. Obviously, the +1 button will also be gamed, but at least it is going to be a bit harder. Expect botnets to take care of this, though.

Clearly, social ranking is going to be more important than algorithmic ranking. Googles pigeons [google.com] have their best times behind them.

Re:Social ranking to replace pigeons (1)

MindNumbingOblivion (668443) | about 3 years ago | (#35679216)

I can foresee an awesomely blackhat use for exploiting this. Remember back in 2008-2009 when there was a major attack that relied on SEO manipulation to direct susceptible users to a page to download "video codecs" (actually a slurry of malware)? Yeah, I can bet that Google is going to find themselves in a race to defeat similar manipulation. How many people have a friend/coworker/acquaintance who friends anyone and everyone on Facebook or any other social network? All it takes is for one of those to be a front for a botnet owner. The botnet +1's the link to a redirect, it gets recommended to everyone connected to the front account, some of those individuals follow the link and get infected, and then their own newly botted computers start the process all over again. Hooray social media worms!

Now, I know from my own research that Google does do some detection and flags potentially malicious sites. But if this attack were coupled with a 0day or an undisclosed security hole, it could have decidedly non-trivial impact.

Why all the complaining? (1)

chaboud (231590) | about 3 years ago | (#35679010)

It's basically like digg, or facebook like, or any other bumping, but, quite unlike everyone else, it's in your search results without the need to install a toolbar. It's also both social and global, so you have an incentive to link up with like-minded people, but you benefit from the preferences of the whole.

I'd certainly like a -1 facility, but I don't think that this is a small and/or stupid achievement.

On top of that, this gives Google absolutely awesome data to work with when it comes to refining search results and refining *ad* targeting.

Re:Why all the complaining? (1)

Baseclass (785652) | about 3 years ago | (#35679170)

I'll be blocking the Google +1 button just like I do with the Digg and the Facebook Like button.

Where's the -1 Hate button when you need it? (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | about 3 years ago | (#35679054)

Unless it includes both like and hate, the numbers mean nothing.

A continuum would be even better:

+3 I want to have your baby! / +2 love / +1 like / 0 meh / -1 dislike / -2 hate / -3 GODWIN FTW / -4 Belongs on idle.slashdot.org

Re:Where's the -1 Hate button when you need it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679200)

Unless it includes both like and hate, the numbers mean nothing.

A continuum would be even better:

+3 I want to have your baby! / +2 love / +1 like / 0 meh / -1 dislike / -2 hate / -3 GODWIN FTW / -4 Belongs on idle.slashdot.org

Helpful additions:

-5 posted by hosts file guy/unity100/roman_mir
-20 posted by commodore64_love and clones (Note: Reserved for Federal Government use only)

Re:Where's the -1 Hate button when you need it? (2)

tomhudson (43916) | about 3 years ago | (#35679918)

Helpful additions:

-5 posted by hosts file guy/unity100/roman_mir

-20 posted by commodore64_love and clones (Note: Reserved for Federal Government use only)

-5? That's it? APK (the hosts file guy) deserves less. -30 or so. Every time someone posts an anonymous reply to him, or down-mods him, he freaks out and thinks it's from me! Then he goes and posts all sorts of crap-floods in my journal and after my posts, all the time accusing me of cyber-stalking him - just like he's doing right now.

The guy is an obese (as in BMI over 30) narcissistic obsessive paranoid misogynist. And those are probably his better qualities.

He's become quite obsessed with me, after I pointed out that his host file claims were total bs on more than one occasion. It's funny - he thinks he's bothering me, but I completely p0wn him. He can't help himself - I just have to post "JUMP, FAT BOY, JUMP" and he jumps. And jumps. And jumps. I figure at least it gives him some exercise, and keeps him off the streets where the sight of him would probably cause pregnant women to miscarry.

HOWTO: trolling the hosts file guy in one easy step

The next time you see a post by him, just reply anonymously. And to really mess with his head, reply anonymously to your anonymous post, disagreeing with your first anon post (extra points if you claim in the second post that you're him - that REALLY sets him off). He'll accuse you of being me, call you a c*nt (and he wonders why women don't like him), then start with the usual crap-floods of half-baked lies and innuendo.

Re:Where's the -1 Hate button when you need it? (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#35679222)

Everybody thinks continuums and scales are better, that's an intuitive inclination toward a range of choices, but the reality was revealed [blogspot.com] through YouTube: most people either rated things 5/5 or 1/5. That's why they replaced the scale with up/down.

Re:Where's the -1 Hate button when you need it? (1)

TerranFury (726743) | about 3 years ago | (#35679662)

That's because choosing anything other than 5 or 1, regardless of what you think the true value should be, weighs your vote less. Really, you're driving the average towards whatever you think it should be as hard as you can. You can write down formal game-theoretic models for this, but I don't think they really offer any more insight.

Re:Where's the -1 Hate button when you need it? (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about 3 years ago | (#35679348)

I was just thinking about a meh button so I searched for it and found your post.

+1 for the meh (move along) option.

Only your friends see your +1 (2, Informative)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 3 years ago | (#35679060)

As stated IN THE ARTICLE, when you +1 something, only your contacts see it. So, if all your friends +1 something about the KKK, then you see it as highly ranked. But the rest of the world does not know how racists your friends are. When you +1 Obama = not a citizen, only your friends know see this and realize that they know a bunch of birther fools. Similarly, if you +1 GWB = failure, then only your friends see this and realize that they know you a bunch of commie fools.

Re:Only your friends see your +1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679228)

"As stated IN THE ARTICLE, when you +1 something, only your contacts see it."

Nowhere in the article does it state that only your contacts will see it, or any other possible phrasing of that line. only "Other people", meaning the rest of the internet.
Using the search function, the only time "contact" appears is the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page. 'friend' only appears in the facebook integration stating "x people like this. Be the first of your friends."

Re:Only your friends see your +1 (1)

kipsate (314423) | about 3 years ago | (#35679244)

I am convinced that Google will also use the aggregate of this information to improve their pagerank engine.

Re:Only your friends see your +1 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679322)

mod parent up

Re:Only your friends see your +1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679428)

What in the world do you mean by "your contacts"? The word "contact" doesn't appear in TFA, and Google is a search engine.

Re:Only your friends see your +1 (1)

mt42 (1906902) | about 3 years ago | (#35679656)

Actually, all +1 votes, whether or not made by your friends (and regardless of their +1 sharing preferences) may contribute to the total +1 count for a particular piece of content.

From google [google.com] : "Regardless of whether you chose to publicly share your +1’s tab, your +1’s will still be visible to others viewing the content you +1’d. For instance, your +1 could appear as part of an anonymous aggregated count of the people who have also +1’d the same thing"

Re:Only your friends see your +1 (4, Informative)

macbutch (827717) | about 3 years ago | (#35679750)

Mmmm, yeah, except Google themselves say:

+1’ing is a public action. Anyone on the web can potentially see that you’ve +1’d content when they’re searching on Google or viewing content you’ve +1’d. For this reason, you should only +1 pages when you’re comfortable sharing your recommendation with the world."

Your +1’s may appear to anyone who sees the pages you’ve +1’d. However, we'll try to display your +1’s to people (specifically those in your social connections) who would find them most useful.

https://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?answer=1186915 [google.com]

Re:Only your friends see your +1 (1)

bonch (38532) | about 3 years ago | (#35679882)

Not only is it not stated anywhere in the article that only your contacts see it, but if you go to the Google +1 Button [google.com] page, it says the following:

In order to +1 things, you first need a public Google profile. This helps people see who recommended that tasty recipe or great campsite. When you create a profile, it's visible to anyone and connections with your email address can easily find it.

It goes on to say that you can make them private. There is no indication of a setting to make them visible to friends only, so the implication is that it is either visible to everyone or only to you. One wonders what the default setting will be.

More important Google news (1)

lee1 (219161) | about 3 years ago | (#35679102)

Check out today's animated logo celebrating the 200th birthday of Robert Bunsen.

Re:More important Google news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679498)

+1

Google doesn't get it (3, Insightful)

sharonlives (832553) | about 3 years ago | (#35679204)

Why can't Google understand that I simply do not want to broadcast my searches to the world? I have been trusting Google with that information. If they want to use my click-throughs as part of their search algorithms, that's fine. But why do they want me to attach my name to it? Google keeps trying to go social and that goes against all the trust we put in Google's privacy policies.

I don't see the 'Social' aspsct of this (1)

Tigger's Pet (130655) | about 3 years ago | (#35679214)

Maybe because I'm not on FB, don't have a Twitter account etc, but I cannot see the benefit from a Social point of view of this.
As a 'search ranking' type tool though - without the need for an account etc - I could see the benefit in people being able to give a +1 to say that it was a good result for their search parameters, but a system like that would just end up being hijacked by script kiddies pushing their web pages up the list one way or another.

Re:I don't see the 'Social' aspsct of this (1)

Ancantus (1926920) | about 3 years ago | (#35679362)

From the Google site it seems as you really only see your friends '+1' so unless all your friends are spam-bots, i don't see how this will game their searches at all

Re:I don't see the 'Social' aspsct of this (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | about 3 years ago | (#35679496)

The "social" value of this is that the service provider (in this case Google) is able to implement a way for their users to declare their preferences in multiple subjects, which is a form of declared-strategy surveying. By this, the service provider is able to harvest more personal information from their users and therefore draw their profile more accurately than before, which in turn lets them better target ads and, as a consequence, earn more money.

Not Primarily an Effort at Social Networking (1)

apostle matt (886684) | about 3 years ago | (#35679280)

While there is definitely a social aspect to this, the primary thrust behind this is SERP quality. Social Media is a great way to determine which sites are relevant, and which sites are spammy. This is about increasing the relevancy of search results... not a redo of Buzz.

Um duh? (1)

chucklebutte (921447) | about 3 years ago | (#35679306)

Google, it is simple, to compete with facebook make your google profile have fucking friends! Let Gprofile users add other users, just giving us a pseudo facebook page does not cut it!

OK, IMG URI please... Adblock is waiting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679318)

Anybody already has the button's image URI already? My Adblock filter list says it's eagerly awaiting a regex for this one...

Dear Google Fanz: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679354)

I'll wait for the Google memo.

Thanks anyway for your irrational optimism.

Yours In Osh,
K. Trout

Another way to game googles algorithms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35679460)

while(true)
{
$('.plus_one_button').click();
}

or the like?

Why do we need this? (1)

lee1 (219161) | about 3 years ago | (#35679550)

I thought Google's algorithms were supposed to decide which results were the best and put those at the top. I thought the "+1" was supposed to be a link to a site from another authoritative site. Is this an admission that this mechanism doesn't work? That it's been hopelessly gamed by spammers?

Who is going to bother, after going to a site from Google and finding it useful, to return to the search result page in order to click the "+1" button?

Also, why is Google still using Flash simply to serve up a movie? I thought they were interested in pushing HTML5.

Re:Why do we need this? (1)

Animats (122034) | about 3 years ago | (#35679818)

I thought Google's algorithms were supposed to decide which results were the best and put those at the top. I thought the "+1" was supposed to be a link to a site from another authoritative site. Is this an admission that this mechanism doesn't work? That it's been hopelessly gamed by spammers?

Basically, yes.

It's surprising that Google did this, after their disastrous experience with counting Yelp and CitySearch recommendations to compute ratings in Google Places. Last October, Google merged Places results from the previously independent Google Maps system into main web search results. Google Places ranking is based on location and recommendations, both of which can be easily faked and spammed. Within a month, we were seeing SEO firms advertising "Guaranteed first page listings or your money back". [youtube.com] Within two months, Google Places spam was dominating results in local service categories like "dry cleaners" and "locksmiths".

Then Google was humiliated by the New York Times investigation into the J.C. Penny spam job. That was classic link farming, something Google supposedly knew how to stop. Google penalized J.C. Penny, but that created a political backlash. Now Google had admitted that they manually adjusted search results. The European Union's antitrust authorities started investigating that.

Blekko started sniping at Google for being so inept at dealing with web spam. Blekko improved results just by manually blocking the usual suspects, like "about.com". Demand Media went public and raised awareness of all the junk coming from "content farms". Google tried penalizing content farms, but it turned out that Google can't tell a content farm from a catalog shopping site, and was applying penalties to catalogs of real, buyable stuff. This angered some legitimate companies.

Google added a "mark as spam" link on search results a few weeks ago. (So they do have a "hate" button.) Now they've added a "like" button. They seem to be chasing after Blekko's "crowdsourced" search.

But it won't work. Blekko works only because nobody bothers to spam Blekko. They're too small to bother. Google's "like" mechanism will be spammed. Google can't stop people from creating massive numbers of phony Google accounts (see Jiffy Gmail Account Creator). As the previous Slashdot article points out, there are now far more social networking accounts than humans on the planet. Most of them were created by programs, not humans.

Really, though, Google has a "like" button because Facebook has a "like" button.

Google Reader has already 5 buttons (1)

ciantic (626550) | about 3 years ago | (#35679702)

Google Reader has following buttons after each post: Add star, Like, Share, Share with Note, Email

Finally I can also have the "+1" button!

I swear none of the buttons could be stacked, they really must be separate.

Right idea, wrong implementation. (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | about 3 years ago | (#35679832)

This would be extremely useful in increasing the quality of search results if people could '+1' search results anonymously. Instead, Google's using this EXACTLY like the "Like" button on Facebook, which relies on having friends on Google already to be useful.

I think it's the right idea, but wrong implementation. Then again, I'm not a creative.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...