Search Engine Watch
SEO News

Go Back   Search Engine Watch Forums > Search Engines & Directories > Google > Other Google Issues
FAQ Members List Calendar Forum Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-01-2005   #1
JohnW
 
JohnW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Virginia Beach, VA.
Posts: 976
JohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud of
Secrets of http://eval.google.com revealed?

An interesting article. Enjoy.


http://www.searchbistro.com/index.ph...,-Prelude.html
JohnW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005   #2
Nacho
 
Nacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 1,382
Nacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to behold
Thumbs up

Outstanding find John!!! I can already see this story light up all search industry media like a Christmas tree.
Nacho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005   #3
incrediblehelp
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toledo
Posts: 24
incrediblehelp is on a distinguished road
very cool, I can't wait to see the next post.
incrediblehelp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005   #4
St0n3y
The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Here. Right HERE.
Posts: 621
St0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to all
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.
St0n3y is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005   #5
unreviewed
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 46
unreviewed has disabled reputation
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."
unreviewed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005   #6
AussieWebmaster
Forums Editor, SearchEngineWatch
 
AussieWebmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 8,153
AussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant future
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!!!
AussieWebmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005   #7
Henk van Ess
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8
Henk van Ess has a spectacular aura aboutHenk van Ess has a spectacular aura about
Dutch satire

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.
Henk van Ess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005   #8
randfish
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 436
randfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to all
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?
randfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005   #9
Henk van Ess
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8
Henk van Ess has a spectacular aura aboutHenk van Ess has a spectacular aura about
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.
Henk van Ess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005   #10
dannysullivan
Editor, SearchEngineLand.com (Info, Great Columns & Daily Recap Of Search News!)
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Search Engine Land
Posts: 2,085
dannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud of
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."
dannysullivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005   #11
Bernard
www.measuring-up.com
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Friendswood, TX
Posts: 92
Bernard is an unknown quantity at this point
Talking

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...
Bernard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005   #12
I, Brian
Whitehat on...Whitehat off...Whitehat on...Whitehat off...
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 940
I, Brian is a glorious beacon of lightI, Brian is a glorious beacon of lightI, Brian is a glorious beacon of lightI, Brian is a glorious beacon of lightI, Brian is a glorious beacon of light
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.

Last edited by I, Brian : 06-03-2005 at 11:55 AM. Reason: Just playing with different methods of delivering sarcasm.
I, Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005   #13
NFFC
"One wants to have, you know, a little class." DianeV
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 468
NFFC is a splendid one to beholdNFFC is a splendid one to beholdNFFC is a splendid one to beholdNFFC is a splendid one to beholdNFFC is a splendid one to beholdNFFC is a splendid one to behold
> 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.
NFFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005   #14
Henk van Ess
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8
Henk van Ess has a spectacular aura aboutHenk van Ess has a spectacular aura about
Will try to do a special section about Google's spam policy on Search Bistro with all the details I know.

Last edited by Henk van Ess : 06-03-2005 at 02:21 PM.
Henk van Ess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005   #15
incrediblehelp
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toledo
Posts: 24
incrediblehelp is on a distinguished road
>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.
incrediblehelp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005   #16
Bernard
www.measuring-up.com
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Friendswood, TX
Posts: 92
Bernard is an unknown quantity at this point
Talking

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!
Bernard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005   #17
I, Brian
Whitehat on...Whitehat off...Whitehat on...Whitehat off...
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 940
I, Brian is a glorious beacon of lightI, Brian is a glorious beacon of lightI, Brian is a glorious beacon of lightI, Brian is a glorious beacon of lightI, Brian is a glorious beacon of light
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.
I, Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2005   #18
Henk van Ess
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8
Henk van Ess has a spectacular aura aboutHenk van Ess has a spectacular aura about
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).

Last edited by Henk van Ess : 06-05-2005 at 05:45 AM.
Henk van Ess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2005   #19
mykel79
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6
mykel79 is on a distinguished road
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2005   #20
mykel79
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6
mykel79 is on a distinguished road
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

Last edited by JohnW : 06-05-2005 at 08:40 PM. Reason: please no specifics about spam
mykel79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off