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 Conducts Trial on User-Voted Search Results

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the wisdom-of-the-what-now dept.

Google 110

Grim Reaping writes "A feature in testing at Google Labs allows users to not only prioritize their favorite results, but also move, ignore, and add search results to personalized records of their preferences. The experiment features a simple 'thumbs up' and 'thumbs down' option for each search result; users can also suggest a URL that might be more relevant to their query. 'Other Google users will not be affected by the individual tweaking: instead it will be stored along with the users' own personal information for the next time they search for this word or phrase, so users are required to log in to avail of it.'" The company is also clear on the experiment's page: this feature may never see full release on the site.

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

Useful (0, Offtopic)

DanielG42 (906032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522305)

I know that this is something I'd use. Props to Google for trying to make the user experience a bit better.

Re:Useful (1)

Andrew Nagy (985144) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522463)

This isn't just useful for one person but has very broad implications. The goal of Google is to provide the most relevant data to the most people. If they had access to all sorts of data about you (such as income, marital status, gender, age group, etc. etc.) they could potentially determine the kind of results certain segments of the population are looking for. They could apply that data across the board and achieve fantastically relevant data for all sorts of people.

While this sounds great for search results, it's terrifying in regards to privacy. Does any company have the right to that kind of data? Does any person? Most of us would say no. So for the time being, it comes down to you individually tailoring your own algorithm and building off of Google's base work. Which I guess, is pretty good.

Re:Useful (1)

E++99 (880734) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522779)

While this sounds great for search results, it's terrifying in regards to privacy. Does any company have the right to that kind of data? Does any person? Most of us would say no.

I don't get it. Why would anyone care if Google or any other company knows their marital status, gender or age?

Re:Useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21523117)

Why would anyone care if Google or any other company knows their marital status, gender or age?

Because the US government has repeatedly demonstrated that while it's not allowed to personally seize your papers and effects, it has no compunctions whatsoever in hiring mercenaries to do so for it. Any information held by anyone other than you is fair game, because when they're taking it from Google, it's "not Google's papers and effects so Google can't block it" but when people complain about seizure of their information, it's magically "Google's papers and effects to hand over as they please".

As for "just" marital status, gender and age, that's a tiny fraction of the information that Google would have on you, in addition to your search history, your IP (and thus an approximation of your physical location), and so on.

Re:Useful (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522897)

Then don't vote on the results.

Re:Useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21522923)

Very useful. In fact critical. Make it so mr.google the current amount of crud that makes the FP for lots of queries (at least those I make) - makes me want to ditch my formerly fave search hole.

Re:Useful (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21523041)

If it works google will let the combined totals effect overal ranking so that we will soon find a million Chinese people putting there thumb up a pron website for 1 cent a shot.

Re:Useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21523211)

what is the diff from leaptag.com?

Re:Useful (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523265)

No kidding. This at least will get rid of E x p e r t s E x c h a n g e and p l e n t o f f i s h links for some of us(POF has more gateway pages than any dating site I've ever seen and yet somehow Google does nothing to them). Though they should use the idea to make it much easier to report spam...but that would make too much sense, and also cut into their profits since, sadly, they make a decent chunk of change from the spammers. Kinda like the uncle that paid your way through college, but molested you.

Re:Useful (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523461)

This at least will get rid of E x p e r t s E x c h a n g e and p l e n t o f f i s h links for some of us
I don't know how you engineer a system that remains zero-cost and is immune to manipulation by predators.
That said, Google does employ some serious headz, so they may be able to avoid having the searches turn into the equivalent of /. mods.

Re:Useful (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526097)

Ok, I've already said this about 3 times in this thread but...have you bothered to read the summary? This is only for your own personal searches, not global. If I'm misunderstanding your point then forgive me but there seems to be a lot of confusion about how this is going to be applied.

Re:Useful (1)

notnAP (846325) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523629)

Oh God good point.

If I had a nickel for every time I clicked into experts exchange looking for the answer to some technical problem, only to curse myself for failing to look at the site I was being steered to by my Google search, I'd have, like, $2.55.

Ok, so I wouldn't retire rich. But still, that site is damned annoying, and any search engine that gives links to ExEx pages without charging them for it has been hoodwinked into giving away free advertising.

Re:Useful (2, Funny)

jackpot777 (1159971) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523957)

This at least will get rid of E x p e r t s E x c h a n g e
...and there I was, thinking it was E x p e r t S e x C h a n g e.

I'll get my coat...

Doh! (1)

TimeTraveler1884 (832874) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524433)

I had this idea about 3 years ago (yeah I know that doesn't mean anything unless I had acted on it).

What would be better though is if they had incorporated this in to the Google Toolbar. Who wants to go back in the browser just to vote on the page they just visited. Makes more sense to do it while you are still on the page.

Re:Useful (1)

bdjacobson (1094909) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524437)

I know that this is something I'd use. Props to Google for trying to make the user experience a bit better.
I've wanted this for some time, but it's not all cherries and berries.

Imagine the hooplah we'd get over controversial topics. Like religion.

Thumbs down! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21522343)

Google sucks!

MOD LINK UP (3, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522389)

Obligatory.

For now it only affects personal search results... (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522403)

...but eventually you just know that they'll start to prioritize search results with it.

At which point it will become the world's #1 target for gaming, primarily via mass vote-up botnets.

Re:For now it only affects personal search results (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522457)

That is exactly why this is only used for one person at a time.....

Re:For now it only affects personal search results (1)

m2943 (1140797) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523661)

Oh, you're so much smarter than the developers at Google! I bet they never thought of that!

Re:For now it only affects personal search results (0, Flamebait)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523791)

Oh, you're so much smarter than the developers at Google! I bet they never thought of that!

SOoooooo true. Has our Lord and Saviour Google ever made a mistake? Good God, I don't think so!

Save your fan-boy rhetoric for people who care.

Re:For now it only affects personal search results (1)

Catil (1063380) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525535)

Well, they will probably just provide more than one ranking; like maybe normal search results, personal and community-based or something like that (perhaps only via iGoogle, so normal users won't be affected anyway)- and I guess they should do it soon.

With all the scam-sites, fanpages and other "related" websites to one project, it's sometimes a real pain to use Google for something as simple as searching for the official homepage of a project, movie or game or whatever. The best source for that seems to be Wikipedia and since most of my searches are exactly of this kind, I use it more often for searching than Google these days.

Re:For now it only affects personal search results (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526877)

Nah, every Google search will bring up nothing but Ron Paul pages in the first 100 results.

Implications (4, Insightful)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522409)

This will work wonders for their advertising model. You are essentially telling them what you to see advertised right off the bat. I couldn't see why this is a bad idea. I know they say "it may never be fully released," but everything with google is always a beta. Another win-win provided from google. It just goes to show business people everywhere that actually providing a service (ie not harming your customers or trying to milk them) is an extremely effective model for business.

Re:Implications (0, Troll)

neoform (551705) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523063)

It's a bad idea since there will certainly be massive abuse. Companies will pop up whose sole purpose it is to vote up their clients links.

Imagine getting completely bogus results that you weren't looking for all because someone paid enough money to pump up the non-paid links?

Re:Implications (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523207)

Unless they're planning on hacking everyone's account, that's not going to work. It only adjusts personal preferences.

Re:Implications (2, Interesting)

richlv (778496) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524645)

that might seem like a good idea, but i rarely log in to search for something (that is, i almost never log in).
but i quite often encounter obsolete pages being in the first spots with actual search targets pushed even to second and further pages - in these i cases i really would like to provide information on which page has the actual information - but this would do little for me as next time i would now what to look for.
i'd like to give a quick feedback to help other users, but i also understand that such a system would be abused to hell. how to solve it ? i don't know. maybe some levels of trusted reporters or something...

Re:Implications (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526739)

Well, they know which link you clicked or didn't, that should provide adequate feedback to determine if the top results aren't being useful, though I suppose many will click the first link blindly skewing the figures somewhat. So just by using their site naturally you are providing feedback (assuming they examine that data).

Re:Implications (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523395)

Did you miss the part where they say it's for your *personal* results, not global?

I've been wanting this! (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522413)

Too many searches I make (and Google isn;t the worst about this, in fact they are the least bad) had none of the search terms anywhere on the page that comes up in the search results. Someone (google?) needs a system like this. Hope it works and is implimented!

END MODERATOR ABUSE (-1, Offtopic)

Taco Meat (1104291) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522437)

I have again been the victim of moderator abuse http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=366293&cid=21424075 [slashdot.org] MOD me up to correct this injustice.

Too many moderators use Insightful as "I agree". Too many moderators fall for unoriginal groupthink and mod it up. People complain about trolls, but the REAL line noise on slashdot comes from the posts modded +4 or +5 that contribute NOTHING to an intelligent discussion. You can't filter that out, and even if you have your thresholds set high, you still see all the stupid stuff that you've already seen. That's why digg sucks and will never be anything but a place for 1338 high-skool haxx0rs. And it's happening here. So I used this account to call shenanigans on sucky posts. I getted modded into oblivion for pointing out truth. I guess that's how it goes. Most of you are a bunch of mindless sheeple.

One way to fix this: I think Slashdot should give IQ tests to all would-be moderators. That would ensure most of the ramshackle pseudo-intellectuals who get mod points would be replaced by people who can actually read the moderator guidelines and adhere to them.

Re:END MODERATOR ABUSE (1)

SKiRgE (411560) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522977)

hmm... insightful.

Re:END MODERATOR ABUSE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21523043)

Wish I had mod points right now so I could mod you -1 "new here"...

THIS IS A BEAR - HELLO (1)

Eco-Mono (978899) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523101)

1) IQ tests are not intelligence.

2) What deserves to be modded Insightful? Is not "I agree" implicit in the adjective?

3) "Sheeple" makes you sound arrogant, even when it's accurate.

4) Your quest would be a useful and great idea, if you actually responded to posts that were unjustly modded. And it looks like you were doing that for a while. But now all you do is copypasta the same "HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED" rant over and over. In short, you've lost your legitimacy until you start owning idiots again. Don't give up - there are plenty of people who read at -1 and if some of them agree with you (put your account's purpose in the sig, maybe?) you'll be back in the green in no time.

--->

sounds familiar (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522475)

The experiment features a simple 'thumbs up' and 'thumbs down' option for each search result; users can also suggest a URL that might be more relevant to their query. 'Other Google users will not be affected by the individual tweaking: instead it will be stored along with the users' own personal information for the next time they search for this word or phrase, so users are required to log in to avail of it.'"
That's pretty much what StumbleVIdeo already does and has been doing for years

Re:sounds familiar (1)

SnoopJeDi (859765) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522625)

Facebook also recently introduced a thumbs-up/down system in your personalized newsfeed.

Re:sounds familiar (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524737)

talking about newsfeeds... freshmeat releases feed is quite cool, but what i _really_ would like to have - an ability to mark specific projects to never be included in my feed. this might also be a generic feed reader capability - to hide certain events by applying regexes to their subjects.
i wonder how feasible both of these are :)

Re:sounds familiar (1)

keanpedersen (1177903) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526239)

Try taking a look at Yahoo Pipes [yahoo.com] , there you can make a "pipe", which filters entries in a RSS feed using f.i. regexes.

Re:sounds familiar (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522845)

/. should implement something similar for the Firehose. ;-)

Reminds me of a 4-panel manga (3, Insightful)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522567)

Bob: "Hey Phil you mind telling why Google gives me porn and Youtube videos as the top 10 results for *anything* I type on your computer?"
Phil: "Heh heh, it is quite bothersome using other peoples' computers , is it not?"

Re:Reminds me of a 4-panel manga (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523029)

Seems like it reminds you of a 2-panel manga.

Or did you use the fabled [invisible][/invisible] tags for the other two panels? :)

Re:Reminds me of a 4-panel manga (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21523187)

the other two panels were just random images of robots and sexy underaged schoolgirls.

Re:Reminds me of a 4-panel manga (2, Informative)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523417)

Well there's a 4-panel manga called Lucky Star (also an anime now) that has a very similar bit in it (a joke to do with romaji-to-kanji transformation by word processors on JP comps -- specifically homonyms where the best-guess transformation is "learned" by the software from frequency of use). The first two panels in this case would have been 2 successive attempts at a Google search with the results being all porn/Youtube videos. Then my dialogue would have been in panels 3 and 4.

Google is... (1)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522569)

...hot or not?

What about personalized filtering? (2, Funny)

pseudorand (603231) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522583)

What I really want is a personalized filter for all my Google searches. Maybe there is already a way to do this, but I want -site:expertsexchange.com as an argument to every search I do. I don't have an account with them, so I hate it when they appear in search results. And more importantly, I'm only interested in armature sex changes, so I simply never want to see search results from that site.

Re:What about personalized filtering? (1)

OnslaughtQ (711594) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522839)

Amen to that. That site is really annoying because I keep clicking on their damn links before I realize it's that site once again. it would be great if I could automatically remove it from all results right off the bat.

And I'm of course assuming you mean experts-exchange, right? Otherwise, never mind. Well, wait, I still don't want to see the other one either.

Re:What about personalized filtering? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523581)

Last I noticed, if you view source at expertsexchange, it the page contains an unscrambled version of the answer that gets hidden by css or some such.

I didn't even know armatures had genders, but if nothing else, the internet has proven that there is a fetish for everything.

use Firefox's Customize Google (1)

m2943 (1140797) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523707)

It lets you permanently remove search results you don't want to see.

Re:What about personalized filtering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21525767)

The answers are often visible in the google cache version. But I agree. It's an a-holes business model to let the google bot see things humans has to pay for. I am surprised that google hasn't penalized them for it.

Problems with SEO's and trolls... (0, Offtopic)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522611)

if SEO's are allowed to thumb up down their competitors' websites, we're in trouble. Now a feature i'd love to see, is a "This is spam" button for search results. But then again, who's modding the mods?

And perhaps this is the very reason why it may never see the public light.

Re:Problems with SEO's and trolls... (1)

Proteus (1926) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522825)

if SEO's are allowed to thumb up down their competitors' websites, we're in trouble.
Oh, come on. RTF summary at least. The thumbs up/thumbs down will only affect your own personal search results, and will not be used to affect the results of others. It said that, explicitly, right in the summary!

Re:Problems with SEO's and trolls... (1)

eyrieowl (881195) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523527)

I would love the search engines to come up with a better way to filter spam. I totally agree on the "this is spam" button. There's probably multiple ways they could accomplish it, everything from only giving you 'mod points' for a limited time period, randomly, to requiring you to have an authenticated install of a google app on your machine to be allowed to mod. Of course nothing is foolproof, but I think you could make it very effectively difficult to corrupt the results with bots. Maybe you could simply flag the voted sites and have other random users who are asked to volunteer a few seconds to judge if the site is spam. I'd gladly volunteer some of my time to an effort like that. Here's hoping!

They're changing their name, too. (1)

RandoX (828285) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522615)

Diggle.

Re:They're changing their name, too. (1)

slyn (1111419) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522895)

Giggle?

Wait a minute... How is this useful? (2, Interesting)

SwordsmanLuke (1083699) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522651)

So, you can adjust your personal search results, which are then saved for your use next time... How is this useful? If the search results aren't what I want the first time, I'm not likely to dig through them looking for better links - I'm going to try a different search phrase.

On top of that, once I find what I'm looking for, I'm either going to bookmark it or forget about it. I'm not going to search on the same keyword/phrase every time I want to visit a website.

I realize this is just a trial, but seriously, can anyone explain to me how this a good idea?

Re:Wait a minute... How is this useful? (1)

pseudorand (603231) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522857)

That's what I though at first too, but then I realized that I have a bookmarks toolbar at the top of my browser which I NEVER touch and that I very often find pages over and over by googling them every time I need them. Maybe you have the time to carefully organize your bookmarks, but mine are old, unorganized, and useless because google is so effective that it doesn't make sense to bother with them. I'm guessing I'm not the only one.

Re:Wait a minute... How is this useful? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522993)

who said anything about the same keyword? imagine that it actually learns about your general preferences and applies that to any other keyword searches.

Re:Wait a minute... How is this useful? (1)

SwordsmanLuke (1083699) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523269)

who said anything about the same keyword?
From TFA: "[The users' adjustments] will be stored along with the users' own personal information for the next time they search for this word or phrase" (Emphasis mine, for the record.)

If it did actually learn about your preferences, that would be awesome, but such a feature would require an incredibly powerful AI to infer your preferences for future unrelated searches from your changes made.

Re:Wait a minute... How is this useful? (1)

abhi_beckert (785219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523583)

It wouldn't be nearly as difficult as you think. If I search for "text editor" and don't click anything, but 10 seconds later search for "mac text editor" and push the arrow on TextMate, then doing a search for "web ide" might give higher priority to the ones that run on a mac. That would hardly require a fancy AI. It's a piece of cake next to many of the algorithm's google is already using.

I realize they're not doing this now, but it's the next step if customizing your results goes big. Google is already altering results per-user based on your IP address. If I search for "transport", one of the front page results is transport.qld.gov.au, which is the transport department for my state.

Re:Wait a minute... How is this useful? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524081)

This is something I used to joke about when google was first emerging as the best browser. I would say "Google is so good if you wanted to buy a new Chevrolet you could type car into the search and it would give you a list of Chevrolets. If you wanted to buy a new Ford you could type car into the search and it would give you a list of Fords." This may very well produce that level of "knowning you" (hah i love scare quotes)

Re:Wait a minute... How is this useful? (1)

Java Pimp (98454) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523731)

Well, I've always wanted a way to filter out results from experts-exchange.com. They always show up when I search for something technical. The site might be useful except it costs $$$ to actually get to the answer. My employer certainly isn't going to buy me a subscription so the site is instead a c*ck tease and a waste of time. I would love a way to get them removed from my search results!

Re:Wait a minute... How is this useful? (2, Interesting)

Hunter-Killer (144296) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525825)

The workaround to get at the info on ExEx is to use Google's cached version of the link, and then browse just the cached text.

Is it wrong to do this? I'd assume ExEx thinks so, as their business model depends on it. However, their links would not appear as often on Google unless they indexed the answer too. It's wrong to offer search engines information, but users less or different stuff (which is why they're hated). Having the info accessible by other means is a price they find willing to accept in order to compete on the Internet.

As for other technical info, I would not mind if search relevance was aggregated by usergroup/tag. I doubt I'd be the first to search for a solution to a problem, so I'd find it beneficial for someone else to mod the solution (or relevant info) up. I'd tag myself with sysadmin and cisco, and contribute while reaping the benefits of a preexisting group. If there was a limit to the number of tags, link spammers would have a hard time influencing results. If the idea proved popular, one could create membership requirements for adding new members (everyone can use results, but only certain people can mod results).

Re:Wait a minute... How is this useful? (1)

number6 (38954) | more than 6 years ago | (#21529747)

Funny, my first thought was "Great, at last I can filter out experts-exchange". Rather than basing this on keywords, they should allow you to give a personalised page rank modifier to a site. They could then use the information that 90% of people mark a site up or down and factor that into their base calculations. Obviously open to abuse by site owners, though in theory real users would mark it down as soon as it started being returned near the top of search results.

Re:Wait a minute... How is this useful? (1)

martinlp (904606) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523811)

"On top of that, once I find what I'm looking for, I'm either going to bookmark it or forget about it. I'm not going to search on the same keyword/phrase every time I want to visit a website."
thats what I and I suspect many others do...unless? I need to get outside today..

It learns what you're looking for (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524123)

I realize this is just a trial, but seriously, can anyone explain to me how this a good idea?
The more you use it, the better it learns what you mean when you type "black rubber strapping" and gives the results appropriate weighting just for you.
 

Re:Wait a minute... How is this useful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21525519)

You could tweak your search results to be like mobile bookmarks.

Jesus christ (0)

moogied (1175879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522677)

Holy satan's asshole. Could they be more evil?!

Thumbs up and thumbs DOWN?!

Need I remind the slashdot crowd of the last time this way used on a massive scale?! ROMAN TIMES. Where the MURDER of thousands of slaves happen for the amusement of the masses!

My how google must suck on the tender "teet" of the devil..

Tis a dark day indeed.

Re:Jesus christ (1)

i2hsu (827179) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524103)

Actually, the Roman emperor used some thumb gesture, and no one knows what it is.

The thumbs up and thumbs down is just something people see in movies, and assumed is true.

Personal results? (3, Interesting)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522749)

Other Google users will not be affected by the individual tweaking: instead it will be stored along with the users' own personal information for the next time they search for this word or phrase, so users are required to log in to avail of it
Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of voting one site a better result than another? Why bother ranking sites when bookmarking the results would achieve the same result (as well as be independent of a login). Actually, a plugin that bookmarks the top ~15 search results automatically might be a useful FF plugin...
Back on topic: Why not allow a "standard search" or "community-moderated search" toggle switch? The only downside to a community-modded search that I can see in goatse being voted up by hoards of trolls.

Re:Personal results? (1)

JackHoffman (1033824) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524431)

The way this would work is quite simple: Google classifies all sites. So when you tell it that you like or dislike one site, Google adjusts the weight of the classes to which the site belongs in your profile. When you search, Google uses your personal class weights as one parameter of the ranking algorithm. For example, if you search for "mercedes" and "thumb down" price comparison sites, and then search for "canon", Google won't show you price comparison sites on the first page, even if they are not the same sites which compare car prices (so you haven't demoted them specifically yet.)

Re:Personal results? (1)

utnapistim (931738) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524455)

>> Why bother ranking sites when bookmarking the results would achieve the same result (as well as be independent of a login).

We're not talking about the same result you get by bookmarking here, but about splitting the results into different sub-domains and having the search system automatically prioritize the sub-domain you search most often.

For example, if you are always searching for cars and always choose links to fuel-consumption statistics, it would make sense for you to have the statistics results among the first provided results, every time.

In this way, they're simply providing a better service (and probably intending to increase customer satisfaction).

Re:Personal results? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525753)

Why bother ranking sites when bookmarking the results would achieve the same result (as well as be independent of a login).
What's not clear from the link is whether the promotion is used when you search for the same exact set of keywords, or whether it affects the any searches using any of the terms in the search that matched the particular page. Of course, either does a different thing than a bookmark, though they are something similar to the many web-based bookmark systems. What's particularly odd is that the direct link works, but there is no link to this experiment on Google's main experimental search features page [google.com] , so it doesn't seem to be possible to activate the feature.

Back on topic: Why not allow a "standard search" or "community-moderated search" toggle switch?
Google has a form of community-moderated (or perhaps -enhanced) search in the form of Google Co-op Topics. Its not so much a toggle switch as optional drill-down categories, though.

I'd like to see... (2, Insightful)

shotgunefx (239460) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522879)

the ability to tell Google "NO" when it suggests alternative phrases. You would think that would be valuable feedback.

Re:I'd like to see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21524065)

Yahoo.com -> "volkswagon" -> "We have included _volkswagen_ results - Show only _volkswagon_"

For a site that freaks out over privacy concerns and bitch-slaps people for using the dominant operating system without trying the alternatives, you guys sure seem to have a strange obsession with google.

Hooray (3, Insightful)

soxos (614545) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522915)

No more experts-exchange.com results!!

Re:Hooray (1)

centinall (868713) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523477)

This was the first thing that popped into my head too!!! Glad to see that I'm not the only one to be annoyed by experts-exchange.com.

However, an even better idea is to have a little trash can next to the link allowing you to delete EE completely of the internet. But this will do for now ;-)

Re:Hooray (2, Informative)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523893)

If you click on the cached copy, you can usually see the answers on that site.

Re:Hooray (3, Informative)

fbartho (840012) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525689)

In addition, the responses are just rot13 in the html source overlayed with a blur jpg. Someone should make a firefox extension or greasemonkey script that decrypts it. Btw isn't it against the rules to feed the googlebot something other than what a user finds?

Re:Hooray (1)

creativeHavoc (1052138) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525067)

I don't know if you have noticed, but if you get one of those results, and would like to read the actual answers instead of the "register for the answer" masking... just use the google cache link for the page. That is why google lists the result, it sees the answer text and everything. This has always worked for me.

Re:Hooray (1)

soxos (614545) | more than 6 years ago | (#21527783)

I think that was a time dependent thing. I tried it yesterday (while searching for how to do drop left join on the first row in an unrelated table... don't ask), the cache had a login page. Course I could be wrong. They're damn answers are rarely any good at all.

Re:Hooray (2, Informative)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525969)

You know you can just scroll down to see the answer, right? It's usually about halfway down the page, they just don't want you to know it's there.

Can you set results filters? (1)

verbalcontract (909922) | more than 6 years ago | (#21522971)

like ignore experts-exchange.com/*? Should I continue praying?

Re:Can you set results filters? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525795)

The easiest way to do that would seem to be with a Google Customized Search Engine [google.com] .

Has anyone actually used this? (1)

phreakhead (881388) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523049)

I can't find this feature on Google's Experimental page. Did they remove it already? Did they get slashdotted?

Global voting is sort of already there (1)

melted (227442) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523075)

All major search engines use click-throughs as one of the features in their rankers. I.e. if for a certain set of query terms people mostly click on fifth link in the results, this link will soon move up to be the first or second link. Of course, since this is not the only feature in the ranker, there's no "hard" guarantee of that happening, but on average relevant links get boosted pretty heavily that way.

Google Conducts Trial on User-Voted Search Result (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523087)

I object! What are the charges?

Another idea: don't force local results on me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21523137)

What I've always found annoying is that google sees my ip and decides what local content is best for me.

Say I'm searching for some CS terms, of course in English.
Then google thinks: hey, the IP is from Germany, give him some local crap even if I don't have that option enabled.

Even going to google.COM and changing the language gives me the best local matches first, when I really want the best matches first. Please stop guessing what I want!

Yay! (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523153)

Yay! That means it's gonna be even easier to make things like that "miserable failure" meme happen! Now excuse me while I write a script that automatically "mods up" my sites and "mods down" sites I don't like using various anonymous proxies!

Re:Yay! (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525835)

Yay! That means it's gonna be even easier to make things like that "miserable failure" meme happen!


Only if you are trying to influence other people who search while they are logged into your Google Account.

Bye bye experts exhange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21523327)

All in the subject.

Nice. (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523403)

Now, everyone can finally thumbs-down experts-exchange.com into oblivion.

Google Trial! (1)

sam_handelman (519767) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523487)

This is obviously a precursor to Google's plan to replace the entire jury system.... with Google Trial! (they'd call it gtrial but that's already trademarked in the Netherlands).

O.J. Simpson? GUILTY! [googlefight.com]

Mumia? INNOCENT BY A HAIR! [googlefight.com]

Slobodan Milosevic, a war criminal? YES INDEED. [googlefight.com]

And so is President Bush [googlefight.com] .

 

3 reasons this will suck donkey balls (0)

BestNicksRTaken (582194) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523501)

1. This has got to be so open for abuse - you'll be getting spammers paying people in third world countries to click the thumbs-up icon all day like they do with captcha's. Google searches will become like Wikipedia where you can't trust any of it!

2. If its anything like Digg, then idiots will be thumbing down everything as they don't understand it. Most of the time the things that would be modded up as Informative on Slashdot would be modded down on Digg as it seems to be populated by a bunch of teenagers.

3. If its anything like IMBB you'll get the zealots and fanatics making most of the effort - have you ever noticed just how out-of-touch the ratings seem to be these days - and what about all of the comments on there asking if there's any nudity in the film (i.e. Christians not liking it, not pr0n hunters).

Re:3 reasons this will suck donkey balls (1)

Temporal (96070) | more than 6 years ago | (#21524959)

It's one thing not to RTFA, but apparently you didn't even read the summary.

Other Google users will not be affected by the individual tweaking: instead it will be stored along with the users' own personal information for the next time they search for this word or phrase, so users are required to log in to avail of it.

Re:3 reasons this will suck donkey balls (1)

BestNicksRTaken (582194) | more than 6 years ago | (#21529825)

i did read the article and summary, but how long do you think its going to stay as individuals only? it's almost completely pointless for individuals.

Territory Encroachment (1)

ShawnCplus (1083617) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523627)

There is already a company that does user-rated/controlled search, it's called Mahalo. It's nothing new

This is different from Stumble Upon how? (1)

Zerimar (1124785) | more than 6 years ago | (#21523647)

This is basically just incorporating StumbleUpon in their web searches. I wonder if StumbleUpon (an eBay company) has a patent on this technology? If nothing else, this will make the the already frigid relationship between Google and eBay a little more testy.

Actually this is quite ingenious... (1)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 6 years ago | (#21525041)

Because if they can pull it off, and it grows beyond just an experimental state, they get Yahoo and/or DMOZ quality monitoring of the results in their main searches. Here's why: I don't use Google nearly as much as I used to because folks have figured out how to mess with the results. So where I used to get 100, 200, or 500 results, I am now getting hundreds of thousands, and there is little guarantee that the quality links will be at the top of the list any more.

So let's assume that millions of eyeballs are basically rating the quality of the searches on huge numbers of word combinations. Then assume also that Google has the monetary incentive to hire very good linguists, and demographically wise statisticians to figure out how to closely model the ratings results into the algorithms that Google uses to rank pages. Add Google's incentive to factor in geolocation, and other demographically oriented tidbits even without tracking "who you are" and what next?


My thought is that their rankings again shoot ahead in terms of quality and applicability to MY searches. Your thoughts?

People missing the real point? (1)

CTho9305 (264265) | more than 6 years ago | (#21526467)

A lot of people seem to be complaining about this being useless because it only affects your own future search results, and for terms you've already searched. Who says it'll always be that way, though? Wouldn't it make more sense that this is a test to see how many people would take advantage of such a feature, and whether they agree with each other (or can be classified into people who are looking for footwear vs. people having trouble with lilo), and whether they do a good job of rewarding really useful sites over SEO masters like expertsexchange?

People are also arguing that spammers will make this useless. I have to wonder, though - given that Google has so many real address books and so many e-mails, shouldn't it be possible for them to quickly find the real humans and use that information to build a "web of trust" system for filtering out spammers? After all, ratings are tied to gmail accounts...

Dud / Non-existant / Broken Links (1)

chris_sawtell (10326) | more than 6 years ago | (#21529105)

What I'd like to vote on is the fact that a link I followed has either changed its content, or has simply disappeared. I am getting enough of these to make searching a much less than a pleasurable experience. Google can then remove the link from their database. In this way we can all help Google to help us.

OOOPS!! So sorry I forgot - some people think helping a Giga-Corp. to help us is morally wrong.
  well. Stuffit!! Which Google employeee should I send the idea to?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?