4 ms·
Being in the index isn't very meaningful. Very little of our spam-fighting/ranking prevents sites from showing up for "site:" queries, because in general we thi
by moultano 16y ago
Being in the index isn't very meaningful. Very little of our spam-fighting/ranking prevents sites from showing up for "site:" queries, because in general we think that if someone is intending on going to a domain directly, the only reasonable thing to do is to show that domain.
Unfortunately I don't have a better way of assessing it to offer. Internally, we often look at impression-weighted precision as a metric, but I don't think there's an easy way we could expose that to you.
A more reasonable thing to do would be to take a sample of DDG's query logs, scrape the results from Google, then see what percentage of Google's results come from your spam domains, but that requires sending a lot more queries to get any useful data.
- pierrefar 16y agoCan you please explain "impression-weighted precision" and how it's used? Sounds very interesting.
- moultano 16y agoIn general we want to measuring what matters to users, so removing a lot of spam that nobody sees doesn't really make anything better. By the same token, if you are trying to launch a new spam classifier that has some false positives, if one of the false positives is yahoo or facebook, it doesn't really matter how good it is, it will never be worth the collateral damage. As a result, rather than measuring precision/recall as a percentage of domains or as a percentage of urls we usually try to measure it as a percentage of results that appeared on a search result page or results that users click on, mined from our logs. This is one of the bajillion reasons why it's absurd to expect Google to throw away all its logs data. The logs are essential to coming to any meaningful conclusions about the current quality of our search, let alone finding ways to improve it.
- pierrefar 16y agoThanks. Am I right in understanding that if a SERP result for a given keyword doesn't get clicked by users enough, it will be removed? By the same token: does the result's bounce rate matter? I imagine spammy sites have a very high bounce rate.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- omarchowdhury 16y agoOne reason why spam sites have high bounce rates is because they act as funnels to other websites.
- ddemchuk 16y ago"As a result, rather than measuring precision/recall as a percentage of domains or as a percentage of urls we usually try to measure it as a percentage of results that appeared on a search result page or results that users click on, mined from our logs." So this basically means that you are able to discern content spam on authoritative domains (facebook, wordpress.com, etc) based on ctr, bounce, impressions compared to surrounding serp results rather than comparing that data against the parent domain as a whole?
- moultano 16y agoNo, not at all. This is just talking about the granularity at which we compute metrics like "spam rate."
- epi0Bauqu 16y agoI think this method would violate (at least the spirit of) my privacy policy: http://duckduckgo.com/privacy.html http://duckduckgo.com/privacy.html That said, if anyone has a meaningful sample query set, I'm certainly interested in running it against my spam index. I see a lot of hits on it via other search APIs.
- gojomo 16y agoYou could let people opt their queries into such studies.
- epi0Bauqu 16y agoI don't have accounts right now so it's a bit tricky. If there was some way people could export their Google search history, then I could use that. Feel free to email it in anonymously.
- moultano 16y agoI found this link which looks like it dumps search history as an rss feed. That might be a convenient way to send it over. https://www.google.com/history/?lookup?q=&output=rss&num=1000 https://www.google.com/history/?lookup?q=&output=rss&...