3 ms·
The proposed solution requires a lot of manual tweaking: "Have manual spam raters spot check through a significant sample size of the pages", "If the false posi
by praptak 16y ago
The proposed solution requires a lot of manual tweaking:
"Have manual spam raters spot check through a significant sample size of the pages", "If the false positives follow some easily identifiable pattern, write code to exclude them and their ilk from the filtration system."
Google seems to avoid this kind of thing as a principle.
- WillyF 16y agoThat's the image that they like to create, and I think for the most part they like to have the algorithm do as much of the work as it possibly can; however, this post by Aaron Wall that includes Google's General Guidelines for Remote Quality Graders might make you think differently: http://www.seobook.com/full-text-googles-general-guidelines-remote-quality-raters-april-2007 http://www.seobook.com/full-text-googles-general-guidelines-... (Looks like the document has been taken offline since.) In fact, I think that using manual raters to tweak the algorithm makes a lot of sense.
- lmkg 16y agoNot really. This step basically says either "Look at the data and use that to guide how you write your algorithms" or "manually curate a statistically significant set of training data." You're not having the humans look at the data and include/exclude links or sites, you're having them look at the data to figure out heuristics for applying to the eight hundred billion pages they didn't look at. This step doesn't need to scale, so manual labor is not an incorrect solution. Given the context, and the ever-evolving nature of SEO, having human review is necessary part of the process, and this is the best way to add that human element in a scalable fashion.