3 ms·
I think Google prefers to programmatically detect and blacklist behaviours, without too many innocent casualties - even if working out how to do that takes long
by JulianMorrison 17y ago
I think Google prefers to programmatically detect and blacklist behaviours, without too many innocent casualties - even if working out how to do that takes longer. They aren't interested in playing whack-a-mole.
- aaronwall 17y agoThey do often play whack-a-mole at the lower level too...but they also take human reviewers into account so it is not so expensive on engineering time. And at the higher level they absolutely do penalize people individually to send a message. Watch the opening of this video if you think otherwise http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-07-08-n14.html http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-07-08-n14.html
- w00pla 17y agoCan they then at least pick one scraping site from all the others (to prevent duplicate information)? Although this is perfectly legal, there is quite a few big sites that scrapes Wikipedia and adds ad-sense. If you are searching for a narrow topic, page 1-2 is WP and WP copies. As a sidenote - I see that Google Search has upvotes, comments and deletes in the search - yet it does not seem as if anyone uses it. Why? Why can't the user at least blacklist sites?
- mvandemar 17y agoThat's only if you are logged in, and it only affects that user.You cannot up/down vote the Google results for everyone.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago>If you are searching for a narrow topic, page 1-2 is WP and WP copies. It would be good to have a "remove all pages with Wikipedia content" button on searches. Sometimes it seems half the results are simply Wikipedia copies.
- skinnymuch 17y agoThey've played whack a mole plenty of times. They do it daily. This isn't some random guess or 'I think' like you're saying. This is fact.