Search Engine Watch Forums

JohnW · #1 06-01-2005

An interesting article. Enjoy.

http://www.searchbistro.com/index.ph...,-Prelude.html

Nacho · #2 06-02-2005

Outstanding find John!!! I can already see this story light up all search industry media like a Christmas tree.

incrediblehelp · #3 06-02-2005

very cool, I can't wait to see the next post.

St0n3y · #4 06-02-2005

Is Google really worried about the quality fo results for "free orgy pics", "free ametuer pictures"? You would think there would be other higher priorities.

unreviewed · #5 06-02-2005

Henk van Ess, is breaking AdSense TOS, asking people to click Google ads.

"Click on the Google Ads if you want to pay my host. Oh well. Never mind. Got a good salary."

AussieWebmaster · #6 06-02-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by unreviewed

Henk van Ess, is breaking AdSense TOS, asking people to click Google ads.

"Click on the Google Ads if you want to pay my host. Oh well. Never mind. Got a good salary."

Let's give him credit for uncovering a huge action on Google's part.... and let him beta test if the request for clicks actually works!!!

Henk van Ess · #7 06-02-2005

This posting teaches me that Dutch satire is not universal. I removed the remark.

Henk

PS The part of the 'good salary' was totally true.

randfish · #8 06-02-2005

Henk,

Glad to hear it and great work! Very impressive work; thank you for sharing with all of us. Can you let us know if you will be offering more information on the subject in the near future?

Henk van Ess · #9 06-03-2005

Some new details are posted just now:
http://www.searchbistro.com/index.ph...valuation.html

Will try to post new info on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

dannysullivan · #10 06-03-2005

Henk, the material is very, very interesting to read

How many more parts to come? And can you clarify. Have you seen anything that suggests that Google is actually changing results directly in response to the ratings?

In other words, I've seen some people suggest that Google is somehow using these human reviewers to change the results. IE, if they found a bad site, it sounds like Google might immediately pull that site. A good site? That site might be boosted.

In contrast, my read of it is like this. Find a bad site? Google might down the line penalize that site, but not immediately, when you push the button. And that type of move doesn't shock me at all. They already have spam reporting and have already done "human intervention" to remove sites that way.

Find a good site? So far, I haven't seen anything to suggest they might immediately rig the results for a particular query to make that come up. So again, no human intervention to make something rise to the top.

Google will go on and one about not having human intervention in their results, and I've written in the past that's not entirely correct. They mean they won't set a particular order for any query -- and to date, that's actually seemed to be the case. In contrast, both MSN and Yahoo in the past might have preordered certain results. But they have long intervened in terms of pulling sites out of the index or applying hand penalties that impact the site on a range of terms, as many know well.

The most intriguing part was the brief mention you made of the whitelist. I want to hear more about that. What is this white list? Who is on it? How does Google explain it? Did they make it so the reviewers would leave certain sites along. You quoted:

Quote:

Here is a non-exhaustive "white list" of the sites whose pages are not to be rated as Offensive (nor as Erroneous):

Kelkoo, Shopping.com, dealtime.com, bizrate.com, bizrate.lycos.com, dooyoo.com;

What that all you found? It's amazing that they'd ask people to review results but then say, "Don't worry about these sites."

Bernard · #11 06-03-2005

Quote:

YOU WORK AS GOOGLE RATER + Wanna earn some money?

I bid € 2.000,- for you, paid in cash for rating my site's pages
in a positive way. Get in contact with me over ....

lol... DMOZ editors aren't the (supposedly) only game in town anymore...

I, Brian · #12 06-03-2005

Quote:

Here is a non-exhaustive "white list" of the sites whose pages are not to be rated as Offensive (nor as Erroneous):

Kelkoo, Shopping.com, dealtime.com, bizrate.com, bizrate.lycos.com, dooyoo.com;

Well, these are obviously *very* quality sites, and it is surely comforting to know that Google's objectiveness is not suggested as being for sale.

NFFC · #13 06-03-2005

> Well, these are obviously *very* quality sites

I disagree.

Imho they are mainly just dupe listings of merchant feeds, little added value and clutter the SERP's with multiple listings for the same product from the same supplier. From a users POV I think they suck.

I'm very surprised they and there ilk would make a "whitelist", I struggle to see the difference between them and independent aff sites, apart from the obvious.

Henk van Ess · #14 06-03-2005

Will try to do a special section about Google's spam policy on Search Bistro with all the details I know.

incrediblehelp · #15 06-03-2005

>From a users POV I think they suck.

Well this is obviously only your opinion considering most of these shopping search sites are very popular to end users and are considered by ebay, yahoo as great investments.

Bernard · #16 06-03-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFFC

I disagree.

Quote:

Last edited by I, Brian : Today at 10:55 AM. Reason: Just playing with different methods of delivering sarcasm.

He shoots.. He scores!

I, Brian · #17 06-03-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFFC

> Well, these are obviously *very* quality sites

I disagree.

Imho they are mainly just dupe listings of merchant feeds, little added value and clutter the SERP's with multiple listings for the same product from the same supplier. From a users POV I think they suck.

Next time I'll use the special [sarcasm] tag to be a lot more obvious.

Henk van Ess · #18 06-04-2005

Quote:

Henk, the material is very, very interesting to read. How many more parts to come?

Posted two updates today. One is about Google's CommQuest - the mediator for raters when they disagree with each other and Google's full guidelines of random-query evaluation. Will publish at least two more entries: Google's spam policy and something about EWOQ, a rating system of Google

Only a fraction of the 8.058.044.651 URL's of Google are rated. What are the criteria for rating a source? I discovered no solid criteria yet. (So now and then hundreds of sources are scheduled to be rated, but the international agents don't have time to review them - the URL's just vanish and are replaced by new ones).

mykel79 · #19 06-05-2005

Good to hear you'll be posting the spam policy. I'd love to read it, as I'm sure many here would.

And of course - great work!

mykel79 · #20 06-05-2005

Anyone read the spam guide yet?
I don't understand the part about redirects.
Why is <snip> a 'sneaky redirect' and <snip> not?

I'd be grateful if someone could explain the logic to me

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)