4 ms·

Swu said it best: "Google lacks a feature that it should have added year ago: A search user who is logged in should have the ability to block entire domains f

by jobu 16y ago

Swu said it best: "Google lacks a feature that it should have added year ago: A search user who is logged in should have the ability to block entire domains from all future results. The benefits of this are many. The cost is very low. Why is this option not already available? Google - we depend on you. Do it."

mistermann 16y ago
>Why is this option not already available? I think the answer to this question is the same reason why google's results have become spammy. Allowing users to exclude specific domains, or even having a "report as content farm" button, are in direct conflict with google's business model, to a certain degree.
- kijinbear 16y ago
  Maybe Google will charge money for the "premium" search service. Take money from advertisers to show their ads, _and_ take money from users to hide the same ads. I'll hate Google when that day comes. At least I take comfort in the fact that programming-related searches now return more StackOverflow links than ExpertSexChange links.
- gwern 16y ago
  I wonder how much is due to user-friendliness. An invisible global blacklist on my search results? How could that possibly go wrong...
  - quanticle 16y ago
    Well, does it have to be an invisible global blacklist? Would it be possible to create personal blacklists and have one for each user? I mean, Google already customizes search results for logged in users, so this wouldn't be too far of a stretch.
    - gwern 16y ago
      > Would it be possible to create personal blacklists and have one for each user? I think that's pretty clearly what we were talking about. There are invisible global blacklists already, as should come as no surprise (even if you haven't run into one of the hits omitted thanks to the DMCA).
cpeterso 16y ago
I believe there are Firefox and Chrome extensions to blacklist sites from Google search results.
tptacek 16y ago
This is a feature that would be used by 0.00000001% of Google's userbase. It would have the effect of shutting up that tiny subset of Google's users while allowing Google's result to continue to degrade silently. Google may not agree that it's in their long-term interests to hide a problem that may eventually make them competitively vulnerable. It's also possible that the fast path of "simple search" -> "standard SERP" is so optimized that serving that 0.00000001% of users might involve a headache disproportionate to the payoff.

by jobu 16y ago

mistermann 16y ago

>Why is this option not already available? I think the answer to this question is the same reason why google's results have become spammy. Allowing users to exclude specific domains, or even having a "report as content farm" button, are in direct conflict with google's business model, to a certain degree.

kijinbear 16y ago
Maybe Google will charge money for the "premium" search service. Take money from advertisers to show their ads, _and_ take money from users to hide the same ads. I'll hate Google when that day comes. At least I take comfort in the fact that programming-related searches now return more StackOverflow links than ExpertSexChange links.
gwern 16y ago
I wonder how much is due to user-friendliness. An invisible global blacklist on my search results? How could that possibly go wrong...
- quanticle 16y ago
  Well, does it have to be an invisible global blacklist? Would it be possible to create personal blacklists and have one for each user? I mean, Google already customizes search results for logged in users, so this wouldn't be too far of a stretch.
  - gwern 16y ago
    > Would it be possible to create personal blacklists and have one for each user? I think that's pretty clearly what we were talking about. There are invisible global blacklists already, as should come as no surprise (even if you haven't run into one of the hits omitted thanks to the DMCA).

cpeterso 16y ago

I believe there are Firefox and Chrome extensions to blacklist sites from Google search results.

tptacek 16y ago

This is a feature that would be used by 0.00000001% of Google's userbase. It would have the effect of shutting up that tiny subset of Google's users while allowing Google's result to continue to degrade silently. Google may not agree that it's in their long-term interests to hide a problem that may eventually make them competitively vulnerable. It's also possible that the fast path of "simple search" -> "standard SERP" is so optimized that serving that 0.00000001% of users might involve a headache disproportionate to the payoff.