11 ms·

Yes that would be good. They could then look at the number of people blocking certain domains and de-weight them in the global results. Traditionally google se

Yes that would be good. They could then look at the number of people blocking certain domains and de-weight them in the global results. Traditionally google seem against human powered editing (as this would be), but I think as the black hat SEOs run rings around them, its needed badly.

thushan 16y ago
Anyone have any ideas why the clone sites like efreedom are ranking above Stack Overflow when SO's inbound links and reputation values are likely far better than efreedom's in Google's algorithm? I'm surprised that search engine optimization could do THAT much to a site's ranking. Also it's not like SO isn't doing the same kind of SEO themselves. What I'm trying to get at is, with all things equal, let's say Stack Overflow and efreedom's SEO is on par with each other, shouldn't SO's reputation/inbound link ranks automatically trump things?
- hessenwolf 16y ago
  Efreedom is deliberately manufacturing links, whereas SO may be just hoping for the best.
  - thushan 16y ago
    Shouldn't the sites hosting deliberately manufacturing links also fall to the algorithm's reputation/inbound link values as well. We all know they don't, and that seems like that is one of the fundamental issues here. As much as I'd like to have a site black list, that doesn't really help the major issue at hand.
  - jqueryin 16y ago
    Efreedom has been the bane of my recent programming related searches, polluting my results to no end.
    - mattmanser 16y ago
      Do what I've taken to doing nowdays, for programming questions go straight to stackoverflow.com before Google. Or use google with site:stackoverflow.com
      - equalarrow 16y ago
        Or just don't use google anymore. I've switched to Duckduckgo and Blekko. So far, so good.
      - bromley 16y ago
        Or use stacksearch.org (to include serverfault et al.), or the custom search built into stackexchange (which uses Google behind the scenes as well). stackoverflow has been my first port of call for programming queries for quite some time. If Google wasn't so filled with scraper junk that probably wouldn't be the case.
    - JonnieCache 16y ago
      Just use this chrome extension, it redirects them all to the relevant SO page. https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gledhololmniapejefjfocffkhoamlll https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gledhololmniapej...
- btilly 16y ago
  My understanding is that the clones take the material and modify it to have exact matches for phrases that people are likely to search for. The exact match causes it to rank higher for those searches. SO is not editing the material for SEO, they just have whatever content the users generated.
eli 16y ago
An extremely easy way for a bunch of people to get together and destroy someone's ranking? That doesn't sound like such a good idea.
- jobu 16y ago
  Perhaps, but I'm sure any legitimate site could contact Google and resolve the issue...
  - malloreon 16y ago
    Google doesn't like to be contacted. Unless you're a (high) paying customer.
  - sjs 16y ago
    Sounds like a support headache. I'd love the feature but I don't blame Google for not just rushing out and adding this.
- csomar 16y ago
  Given that Google gets hundred of millions of search and visitors, then you'll need a hundred of thousands of down votes to get black-listed. No black hatter can really do that (create a 100K account/IP to avoid Google radar and down vote the website).
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    Most botnets would easily have more than that number of computers. So yeah it can be done.
    - moe 16y ago
      It would also be a significant undertaking if the down-votes are tied to google accounts. Not only do you have to bypass the captcha, but also the heuristics that google could (does?) employ to detect fake accounts. If the votes were weighted by account activity then the spammers would not only have to sign up and vote; they would also have to keep all these accounts busy with fake queries or other means.
stcredzero 16y ago
This would only work if 1) it was sufficiently painful to put in a block for your searches and 2) this had no effect on global results. 1) - It doesn't have to be extremely painful, just painful enough, such that true loathing is needed as motivation. This way, we filter out frivolous decisions. A few seconds pause would be enough. 2) - We need to let the reduced ad revenue do the job for us through the market. Anything else will be gamed much to everyone's detriment. Just empower people to remove the annoyance, and let the money do its thing.
- nervechannel 16y ago
  Re 2, yes. A lot of people have reacted as if I suggested letting people affect everybody else's results. I'm not convinced that's possible to do safely, I'd be happy just to see it for my own results. Re 1, painful? WTF? The whole point is to make it quick and usable. I can already blacklist sites the painful way, by adding them to a Google Custom Search page. The whole point is I'd like a quick add-to-killfile button, like email clients have had for decades.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Yes, #1 - very slightly painful. Not terribly painful, but just a pinch. Maybe something like a 2 second wait. It has to cost more than an instant and doing that also makes it a bit more of a pain to game with scripts.

thushan 16y ago

Anyone have any ideas why the clone sites like efreedom are ranking above Stack Overflow when SO's inbound links and reputation values are likely far better than efreedom's in Google's algorithm? I'm surprised that search engine optimization could do THAT much to a site's ranking. Also it's not like SO isn't doing the same kind of SEO themselves. What I'm trying to get at is, with all things equal, let's say Stack Overflow and efreedom's SEO is on par with each other, shouldn't SO's reputation/inbound link ranks automatically trump things?

hessenwolf 16y ago
Efreedom is deliberately manufacturing links, whereas SO may be just hoping for the best.
- thushan 16y ago
  Shouldn't the sites hosting deliberately manufacturing links also fall to the algorithm's reputation/inbound link values as well. We all know they don't, and that seems like that is one of the fundamental issues here. As much as I'd like to have a site black list, that doesn't really help the major issue at hand.
- jqueryin 16y ago
  Efreedom has been the bane of my recent programming related searches, polluting my results to no end.
  - mattmanser 16y ago
    Do what I've taken to doing nowdays, for programming questions go straight to stackoverflow.com before Google. Or use google with site:stackoverflow.com
    - equalarrow 16y ago
      Or just don't use google anymore. I've switched to Duckduckgo and Blekko. So far, so good.
    - bromley 16y ago
      Or use stacksearch.org (to include serverfault et al.), or the custom search built into stackexchange (which uses Google behind the scenes as well). stackoverflow has been my first port of call for programming queries for quite some time. If Google wasn't so filled with scraper junk that probably wouldn't be the case.
  - JonnieCache 16y ago
    Just use this chrome extension, it redirects them all to the relevant SO page. https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gledhololmniapejefjfocffkhoamlll https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gledhololmniapej...
btilly 16y ago
My understanding is that the clones take the material and modify it to have exact matches for phrases that people are likely to search for. The exact match causes it to rank higher for those searches. SO is not editing the material for SEO, they just have whatever content the users generated.

eli 16y ago

An extremely easy way for a bunch of people to get together and destroy someone's ranking? That doesn't sound like such a good idea.

jobu 16y ago
Perhaps, but I'm sure any legitimate site could contact Google and resolve the issue...
- malloreon 16y ago
  Google doesn't like to be contacted. Unless you're a (high) paying customer.
- sjs 16y ago
  Sounds like a support headache. I'd love the feature but I don't blame Google for not just rushing out and adding this.
csomar 16y ago
Given that Google gets hundred of millions of search and visitors, then you'll need a hundred of thousands of down votes to get black-listed. No black hatter can really do that (create a 100K account/IP to avoid Google radar and down vote the website).
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Most botnets would easily have more than that number of computers. So yeah it can be done.
  - moe 16y ago
    It would also be a significant undertaking if the down-votes are tied to google accounts. Not only do you have to bypass the captcha, but also the heuristics that google could (does?) employ to detect fake accounts. If the votes were weighted by account activity then the spammers would not only have to sign up and vote; they would also have to keep all these accounts busy with fake queries or other means.

stcredzero 16y ago

This would only work if 1) it was sufficiently painful to put in a block for your searches and 2) this had no effect on global results. 1) - It doesn't have to be extremely painful, just painful enough, such that true loathing is needed as motivation. This way, we filter out frivolous decisions. A few seconds pause would be enough. 2) - We need to let the reduced ad revenue do the job for us through the market. Anything else will be gamed much to everyone's detriment. Just empower people to remove the annoyance, and let the money do its thing.

nervechannel 16y ago
Re 2, yes. A lot of people have reacted as if I suggested letting people affect everybody else's results. I'm not convinced that's possible to do safely, I'd be happy just to see it for my own results. Re 1, painful? WTF? The whole point is to make it quick and usable. I can already blacklist sites the painful way, by adding them to a Google Custom Search page. The whole point is I'd like a quick add-to-killfile button, like email clients have had for decades.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Yes, #1 - very slightly painful. Not terribly painful, but just a pinch. Maybe something like a 2 second wait. It has to cost more than an instant and doing that also makes it a bit more of a pain to game with scripts.