4 ms·
Google, for whatever reason, thinks that a very light touch with regard to spam sites is appropriate. (Although Cutts is right that an inurl: or site: query do
by jellicle 16y ago
Google, for whatever reason, thinks that a very light touch with regard to spam sites is appropriate. (Although Cutts is right that an inurl: or site: query doesn't show anything - he's saying, "Show me a real-world query that has nothing but spammy results and then I'll do something").
I think and have thought that a Google competitor could come along and beat them by having a heavy hand against spam sites. If it's designed to attract search engines, NewGoog doesn't index it, period. Any business generating datafog for search engine consumption gets deindexed entirely and permanently.
Go ahead, type any question you want into Google. ANY question at all. You get a list of 500 search engine question spam sites, most of which are written in broken English and contain more or less nonsense strings of words thrown together. NewGoog would wipe all that shit out.
Attention Google: offer an option (like SafeSearch) that applies a HEAVY HAND to spam sites. We will love you for it.
- ryanhuff 16y agoWhat's the best way to pass a site over to Matt Cutts? This site has GOT TO GO! http://www.codeweblog.com/ http://www.codeweblog.com/ It is polluting my Google search results. As an example, search for "android intent activity pass". The search result titled "android intent pass variable activity" looks promising, but clicking on it brings you to this site, which contains machine generated nonsense content!
- mvandemar 16y agoAre those Markovian chains, or is someone actually writing that stuff?
- percept 16y agoI've also been seeing it regularly in technical search results, and it seems to have come from nowhere as I don't remember ever seeing it before (the domain's associated with a Chinese address, created 2006).
- jpenney 16y agoI submitted a spam report about that site the other day. I've been getting up to scratch on ruby and a lot of searches for gem names return that site. I have gotten so used to trusting the top results in Google that I never think to check the domain - I need to stop that.
- jraines 16y agoThis site was killing me just last night! (I was looking for info on CKEditor plugins)
- benologist 16y agoMy favorite is bigresource.com and others that are scraping forums ... fucking hate those sites so much, reported them but of course those emails go nowhere.
- epi0Bauqu 16y agoI do this at DuckDuckGo, that is crawl, identify and delist over 60M domains. I think it works pretty well and is certainly a value add, but it is not immediately obvious to new or even many old users.
- thaumaturgy 16y agoJust a heads-up for you, and I'm sure you get this all the time, but I'm a new DDG fan. The first time I tried it some months back, it was eh-OK, but not compelling enough to pull me away from Google. In the meantime though, I've gotten more and more frustrated with Google's results -- due in part to link-spamming sites -- that DDG has become a lot more compelling. It's my default search provider now. One question though: I commented to a good old friend of mine that search was starting to feel like the old AltaVista days again. I spent a lot of time trying to find a site that I had seen just a couple of weeks previously, and no amount of Google-fu (or Duck-fu) could locate it. I kept getting completely generic results that weren't helpful at all. I finally found it by remembering where I had seen the link, and using a custom search feature on that site in particular. So ... is there a way for a search engine to rank pages by "freshness"? i.e., some combination of recently-updated and recently-mentioned? Anyway, thanks for DDG.