4 ms·

>With search engines, [...] If the core goal was simply to link to content then the incentive goes away, and so does the problem. Why would the incentives go a

by jasode 10y ago

>With search engines, [...] If the core goal was simply to link to content then the incentive goes away, and so does the problem. Why would the incentives go away for bad actors to game the ranking algorithms so that their bad content rises to the top of results? Your chain of logic doesn't make sense. E.g. Since the core goal of SMTP is exchanging electronic mail -- it means the incentive for for advertising (SPAM) goes away and the problem solves itself?!? Why would spammers and bad actors let the idealized goal of technology stop them from abusing it?

ksk 10y ago
>Why would the incentives go away for bad actors to game the ranking algorithms so that their bad content rises to the top of results? Then you're talking about bad-actors who are not motivated strictly by financial gain, but by the successful spreading of their bad content. That is not really a problem specific to search engines. It applies to any medium that has the ability to disseminate information. > E.g. Since the core goal of SMTP is exchanging electronic mail -- it means the incentive for for advertising (SPAM) goes away and the problem solves itself?!? That is not comparing like to like. Unlike mail servers, google plays a very active role in choosing what kind of content it indexes. My point was that if they chose to simply index information and never link to ads or pages with ads, then the incentive to game the results is greatly reduced. (For e.g. - Google Scholar.)
- jasode 10y ago
  >bad-actors who are not motivated strictly by financial gain, but by the successful spreading of their bad content. The "bad content" showing up on the top of page 1 of the search results is directly related to financial gain. That's why the SEO industry exists! >if they chose to simply index information and never link to ads or pages with ads, then the incentive to game the results is greatly reduced. The flaw in your logic is that it's the ads that's the primary motivation for bad actors to push their unwanted pages to the top. Let's say I'm a bad author that wrote a bad book about "traveling to Paris". I would want my blog page about me and my book to be at the top of search results when you type "Paris" in the search box. It doesn't matter what ads are showing in the side panel. It also doesn't matter if ads didn't exist at all because every Google user would pay a $9.99/month subscription. Either way, I still want my webpage at the top so that some percentage of search users click on my (non-ad) link and buy my sightseeing book.
  - ksk 10y ago
    >The flaw in your logic is that it's the ads that's the primary motivation for bad actors to push their unwanted pages to the top. Yes, that is my opinion. > I would want my blog page about me and my book to be at the top of search results when you type "Paris" in the search box. It doesn't matter what ads are showing in the side panel. It also doesn't matter if ads didn't exist at all because every Google user would pay a $9.99/month subscription. Either way, I still want my webpage at the top so that some percentage of search users click on my (non-ad) link and buy my sightseeing book. Okay, but that is simply marketing. You are not assured of any monetary compensation if someone visits your website or clicks on a link. Its like 'buying' influence in a bookstore to make sure your book is displayed prominently. I was primarily thinking about the SEO surrounding link farms and other similarly abhorrent web sites.
    - jasode 10y ago
      >Okay, but that is simply marketing. You are not assured of any monetary compensation It doesn't matter that I'm not 100% assured of a sale. What matters is that I have used up the finite space of pixels with a link to my bad webpage. Add in other bad actors like me gaming the ranking system and now the first page of results is full of spammy web pages. The "good" links such as a wikipedia article about Paris is completely pushed off the first page. If we get 0.01% of eyeballs to our "bad" links converted as sales, that's still better than zero. As a user of Google and Bing search engines, I do not want any government to force them to publish their algorithms. It will make the search results worse. Keeping the algorithms and heuristics a secret is a valid way to fight abusive gaming of the system. The opaque strategy for search rankings is not the same issue as a closed-source encryption algorithm with a backdoor.
      - ksk 10y ago
        >If we get 0.01% of eyeballs to our "bad" links converted as sales, that's still better than zero. Where did you get the 0.01% from ? That sounds like a rather high number. >It will make the search results worse. Keeping the algorithms and heuristics a secret is a valid way to fight abusive gaming of the system. I understand that this is your opinion. Thankfully, there is no evidence that this is true.

by jasode 10y ago

ksk 10y ago

>Why would the incentives go away for bad actors to game the ranking algorithms so that their bad content rises to the top of results? Then you're talking about bad-actors who are not motivated strictly by financial gain, but by the successful spreading of their bad content. That is not really a problem specific to search engines. It applies to any medium that has the ability to disseminate information. > E.g. Since the core goal of SMTP is exchanging electronic mail -- it means the incentive for for advertising (SPAM) goes away and the problem solves itself?!? That is not comparing like to like. Unlike mail servers, google plays a very active role in choosing what kind of content it indexes. My point was that if they chose to simply index information and never link to ads or pages with ads, then the incentive to game the results is greatly reduced. (For e.g. - Google Scholar.)

jasode 10y ago
>bad-actors who are not motivated strictly by financial gain, but by the successful spreading of their bad content. The "bad content" showing up on the top of page 1 of the search results is directly related to financial gain. That's why the SEO industry exists! >if they chose to simply index information and never link to ads or pages with ads, then the incentive to game the results is greatly reduced. The flaw in your logic is that it's the ads that's the primary motivation for bad actors to push their unwanted pages to the top. Let's say I'm a bad author that wrote a bad book about "traveling to Paris". I would want my blog page about me and my book to be at the top of search results when you type "Paris" in the search box. It doesn't matter what ads are showing in the side panel. It also doesn't matter if ads didn't exist at all because every Google user would pay a $9.99/month subscription. Either way, I still want my webpage at the top so that some percentage of search users click on my (non-ad) link and buy my sightseeing book.
- ksk 10y ago
  >The flaw in your logic is that it's the ads that's the primary motivation for bad actors to push their unwanted pages to the top. Yes, that is my opinion. > I would want my blog page about me and my book to be at the top of search results when you type "Paris" in the search box. It doesn't matter what ads are showing in the side panel. It also doesn't matter if ads didn't exist at all because every Google user would pay a $9.99/month subscription. Either way, I still want my webpage at the top so that some percentage of search users click on my (non-ad) link and buy my sightseeing book. Okay, but that is simply marketing. You are not assured of any monetary compensation if someone visits your website or clicks on a link. Its like 'buying' influence in a bookstore to make sure your book is displayed prominently. I was primarily thinking about the SEO surrounding link farms and other similarly abhorrent web sites.
  - jasode 10y ago
    >Okay, but that is simply marketing. You are not assured of any monetary compensation It doesn't matter that I'm not 100% assured of a sale. What matters is that I have used up the finite space of pixels with a link to my bad webpage. Add in other bad actors like me gaming the ranking system and now the first page of results is full of spammy web pages. The "good" links such as a wikipedia article about Paris is completely pushed off the first page. If we get 0.01% of eyeballs to our "bad" links converted as sales, that's still better than zero. As a user of Google and Bing search engines, I do not want any government to force them to publish their algorithms. It will make the search results worse. Keeping the algorithms and heuristics a secret is a valid way to fight abusive gaming of the system. The opaque strategy for search rankings is not the same issue as a closed-source encryption algorithm with a backdoor.
    - ksk 10y ago
      >If we get 0.01% of eyeballs to our "bad" links converted as sales, that's still better than zero. Where did you get the 0.01% from ? That sounds like a rather high number. >It will make the search results worse. Keeping the algorithms and heuristics a secret is a valid way to fight abusive gaming of the system. I understand that this is your opinion. Thankfully, there is no evidence that this is true.