7 ms·
Why does Google deeply index those useless telephone directory sites? Try searching for the impossible U.S. phone number "307-139-2345" and you'll see a bunch o
by alister 7y ago
Why does Google deeply index those useless telephone directory sites? Try searching for the impossible U.S. phone number "307-139-2345" and you'll see a bunch of "who called me?" or "reverse phone number lookup" sites. Virtually all of those sites are complete garbage. They make no attempt to collect numbers from telephone directories or from the web. They won't identify a number as being the main phone number for Disneyland for example.
It's odd that so many of those sites exist, that Google indexes them so deeply, and that they show up in searches so prominently. It's obvious that they are spam, scams, or worthless, but those same sites have been appearing prominently for years.
I agree with the author. My experience has also been that Google heavily prioritizes very large and frequently-updated sites over small static information-rich personal sites. I think it's a big flaw that needs to be fixed or for someone else to do better.
- jfoutz 7y agoI think there is an easy heuristic, bias against ads. Google can’t do this. Original sources very likely don’t have ads, scrapes will have tons. But good results are good results. Big g has done an admirable job. They can’t exploit the best metric for quality.
- tannhaeuser 7y agoNo they don't do an admirable job if they send you to scraped rather than original content. They're ruining the web. While Google still has fantastic, one-of-a-kind services such as Translate, Search isn't one of them anymore, and we should stop cheering at it and relying on it.
- jfoutz 7y agoHmm. I keep getting warnings about responding to quickly. Perhaps my account is under attack. Setting that aside, google has done good things. Today, not so much. It’s never too late to turn the ship around. Google can still be awesome. Our opinions aren’t that different. I don’t think big g can turn it around, but I’m rooting for them.
- mirimir 7y ago> Hmm. I keep getting warnings about responding to quickly. Perhaps my account is under attack. I've been getting those too, lately. I thought maybe that my touchpad finger is developing tremor ;)
- luckylion 7y ago> I don’t think big g can turn it around, but I’m rooting for them. I believe they can, but I don't know if they care to - they're highly profitable after all. What I really dislike about search is that, by treating links as currency, they have broken links. Lots of people won't put plain old links on their site because they fear it would hurt their rankings. Their overreliance on links as the sole quality indicator has, at least in my country, lead to the large media companies just renting out folders or subdomains - and whatever low quality content is published there ranks at the top. They still build good stuff, and I'm sure their engineers could "solve" search again, but it appears that their management doesn't want to.
- chachachoney 7y agoI'm struggling to think of a single historical example of corporate entity the size of google that has "turned it around" rather than abusing the good faith of a customer base for the duration of their race to the bottom. Google can't still be awesome, as they're no longer seeking to disrupt an existing market and burning through venture capital while doing everything and anything (including providing superior search results, and making ethical business practices part of their brand) to attract users. Rooting for a profit motivated transnational entity in the manner one would for a sports team exposes the insidious nature of brand narratives and the exploitable irrationality of our own interactions with them.
- cududa 7y agoMicrosoft is a good example
- chewz 7y agoGoogle Search is polluting the internet giving huge monetary incentives for creating of all these copycat sites. Google could eliminate them overnight but they don't for one reason only - Google gets revenue from these sites and not from the original content that is quite often ad-free.[1] [1] Content scraped from github, tech discusion forums, personal blogs, unix man pages etc.
- atemerev 7y agodeepl.com supports fewer languages than Translate, but the quality of translation is so much higher.
- berkes 7y agoI've switched to deepl.com recently for my translations. It has far fewer languages, but the translations of those it has, are far better in my opinion. Allthough I am also no linguist, just an average non-English speaker.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- axaxs 7y agoI've been wondering the same. I think most people google numbers that called, so it has to be a lucrative business. There are a couple sites that are for user reports that are actually nice, but the vast majority seem to be scammy and irrelevant (not even the right number), or completely fake information. Once I googled a number that returned a lot of results for a first initial, last name and address. It was my own mother's number of the last few years that I kept forgetting to save. The results were obviously either fake or many many years outdated
- jacquesm 7y agoSome of these are worse than useless: they hijack real businesses support phone numbers by presenting a high cost number that gets routed to a call center, that then connects you to the business. It's a huge scam.
- antpls 7y agoActually it does a good job. When there is some data (like crowd sourced number reporting) on internet about the specific phone number you searched for, Google will show it in the top results You get a full page of non-sense results and ads/spams when the phone number you searched for is not known from any website (I guess)
- CzechTech 7y agoThat is my experience as well.
- JetSpiegel 7y agohttps://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=307%2D139%2D2345 https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=307%2D139%2D2345 You comment now comes up first, but the rest of the results all try to contact googlesyndication.com, so ads? Google will not exclude sites that literally give them money.
- snazz 7y agoIt’s the only result I get for this search now. The ads are low-quality if I disable my adblocker however.
- yeahitslikethat 7y agoI've been saying this is inevitable for a long time. If you don't have Google ads they won't show you. YouTube ranks no ad vids lower. Google is converting the world into a content production factory FOR Google and they pay literally pennies for the work. If even pennies. Consider how much content Google search now includes from Web pages where you don't even need to click into the page. Weather. Answers to questions. Some links I click keep google.Com in the url and Google processes the page and shows me what Google wants. I don't even know anymore how much of what I see is what the creator wanted me too see our what Google wants me to see our not see. Imagine they remove competitors ads with that. Who knows what they do in the name of making the Web better. You can't go public, answer to no one accountable, who only thinks of MONEY and do no evil. If Google wants to do no MORE evil. Take yourself private and live up to your credo.
- ma2rten 7y agoI work on AdSense at Google. We need to crawl all the pages that serve our ads so that we can show ads that are relevant. We actually store those crawl results in a different place than search to prevent exactly that problem. We could probably save a lot of money if we consolidated those indices, but we don't do that prevent biasing search results. As a result a large percentage of pages that show Google Ads are not in the search index. If Google was so evil, why would we purposefully send traffic to sites where we only get a percentage cut of the revenue? EDIT: I realize I needed to explain this statement a little bit more. If we show ads on google.com we get 100% of the revenue. If show ads on reversephonelookup.it they get majority of the revenue. There is a limited amount of advertiser demand. Instead of manipulating the organic search results, it would be more profitable for google to just show more ads on the search page or inflate the ad price or something.
- LifeLiverTransp 7y agoIts some way to google-bomb a site, because the algo determinating importance by phone-numbers linking is still subvertable as it was 1999?
- fjsolwmv 7y agoWhen there are 0 good results for a query, Google and most users don't care which bad results are served
- OrgNet 7y agoMaybe Google like to increase the total number of actual search results without increasing the amount of useful content? They also fake the total number of search results, not sure why they would want to do both though... But either way, it looks like a Google employee have seen your comment and fixed this particular search query.
- ma2rten 7y agoThere is a very simple answer. It's because they get clicked. They might be the only site for given search term.
- samstave 7y agoAside from what others have said ITT, i have a personal hate for the general fact that we cannot lookup a phone number on the internet with accuracy and ease. FFS, 411 was amazing before the web. Also, in about 1989 my friend and i used to have a contest between us; to call 411 and see who could keep the 411 operator on the phone the longest. This was a fun social engineering exercise for 14 year old nerds who like the idea of being phreaks. Our record was 45 minutes and got to know a lot about the 411 system, where call centers were located and how the 411 system worked. This was right near the time that we ran the long distance bill up to $926 for one month of calling into a BBS in san jose and PCLink to chat.... Got grounded for a month for that one...
- puzzle 7y agoGoogle used to have a phonebook search feature, but it was retired years ago. I don't know the reasons, but it might have had something to do with privacy or legal actions.
- alister 7y ago> we cannot lookup a phone number on the internet with accuracy and ease I wondered the same thing and just to speculate, here's my list of reasons on why phone number search is so awful: - As far as I know, not a single cell phone carrier publishes a telephone directory (whether opt-in or opt-out). So there's no (public) data to index. - Some landline carriers still publish telephone directories, but of course landlines are dying out. And I remember reading that 30-50% of landline subscribers choose to be unpublished or unlisted anyway. So that source of phone number data is drying up. - Because international phone calls have become so cheap and caller ID is now easily spoofable, spam and scam calls have become huge. So no one wants their phone number to publicly accessible these days. - In the early web years, there were legitimate phone directory websites who appeared to have collected their data from landline telephone directories and "city directories" (if anyone still remembers those things). But I guess they didn't find a good way to monetize the service, so the honest phone lookup sites died off.
- rhizome 7y agoI have long believed that the proliferation of phone-number-lookup sites was antisocial media: spammers and other bad actors creating these sites to prevent people from having a central place to talk about bad phone experiences, associated with specific numbers. Which one is the good one? You can't tell.
- jjordan 7y agoIsn't that exactly what PageRank was designed to handle? None of these spammer sites should have any actual positive reputation.
- nikeee 7y agoI always assumed they collect phone numbers this way. People google a phone number and click on a search result. The site can - by looking at the referrer - extract the phone number and infer that it belongs to someone (and use it for any purpose). It's a similar mechanism that some forums use to highlight the terms that were part of the google query which lead to this site.
- mxd3 7y agoYou can’t get extract search query, not from referrer or with analytics software. Google changed that starting around 2011 for logged in users.
- flyGuyOnTheSly 7y ago>for someone else to do better. It's upsetting to me that doing better than Google in search seems to be very close to an impossible feat of magic at this point. I know that will change some day, but I can't see how. Even if somebody gave you hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on infrastructure and employees, it would still be an insane risk. Writing that out, it almost sounds like internet search engines should be as big and as important of an operation like the TLD registrars. Funded by big governments in collaboration with each other.
- ben_jones 7y agoNiche search verticals can still compete. Sourcegraph comes to mind, where you can tweak your search parameters to give superior results for more narrow use cases. I don't google for Recipes anymore because the blogspam is that bad, or for images because I don't want some pinterest or Reddit redirect carousal. I'm sure there are hundreds of example where Google "Lowest common denominator" search does not cut it.
- dingus 7y agoAlso, those people finder sites that scrape public records. When I search for a name, usually their blog is listed below 10 creepy lookup sites that list their name, physical address history, phone numbers, relatives, etc. Google should push that garbage to the bottom of the stack.
- ryosuke97 7y agoThe first two hits for that number is this thread now...
- userbinator 7y agoThe flip side of trying to "solve" that problem is that you then penalise everyone searching for part numbers, which often do look very similar to phone numbers. I suspect they are making an effort to, because I've been bitten by the CAPTCHA-hellban when searching for part numbers. (Likewise, the results there are also often clogged by a bunch of useless sites claiming they have the datasheet or are selling the part, when all they do is try to show ads.)
- rigorman 7y agoThoughts after thinking about this comment and thread for a day: Has the time come for wiki directory of non-commercial (possibly: advertising-free, cookie-free) sites with robust, actually valuable information, and other sites that are doorways to them (think: topical forums, even revived webrings, etc)? Could this feasibly get enough action to be useful?
- eddieh 7y agoYes. I was looking for a modern _human_ curated directory of web content just the other day and found nothing usable. I don't think that excluding commercial entries would be necessary, but perhaps there could be some way to filter commercial entries out. Ad-free, JS-free, and cookie-free would be ideal.
- greendestiny_re 7y agoJust curious – what content exactly would you be interested in? If any other poster wants to chip in with suggestions, feel free.
- h0p3 7y agoI recommend: https://href.cool/ https://href.cool/ as a sick (though highly particular) example.
- mathnmusic 7y agoAlthough it's early days for this project but do check out: https://github.com/learn-awesome/learn-awesome https://github.com/learn-awesome/learn-awesome
- h0p3 7y agoI think you should talk to kicks @ https://kickscondor.com/ https://kickscondor.com/.
- nine_k 7y agoThink about the proliferation of various "awesome" lists on Github. Some of them are curated and awesome. Some, less so. Likely some of them are even spammy. The need is realized, but execution is hard.