4 ms·
This seems like a great idea to block the really bad offenders, but doesn't seem granular enough for the sites that have inconsistent quality of content (i.e. a
by erik_p 16y ago
This seems like a great idea to block the really bad offenders, but doesn't seem granular enough for the sites that have inconsistent quality of content (i.e. a user generated content site can have both shallow/crappy content AND useful content under the same domain).
I wish we could give more contextual feedback, like... THIS link was helpful/relevant, THIS link was not.
- stanleydrew 16y agoIt's not intended for use on sites with inconsistent quality. PageRank takes care of the individual pages on those sites.
- erik_p 16y agoHow can that intent of purpose be conveyed to the user when they are blacklisting whole sites? They aren't using these blacklisting as a signal for influencing the google algo, YET... but it seems inevitable. I'm just trying to say it seems a little too much like an axe instead of a scalpel. Personally I can't wait to start rage blocking domains that have pop over modals for surveys / advertising, or have sound enabled by default.
- stanleydrew 16y agoThat's a fair question. Since they aren't using user blacklists as a signal yet I will punt. Were they to start, then I think you have a point that finer-grained data is preferred. They should probably offer both options in that case, i.e. "don't show this result anymore" and "don't show any results from bar.example.com anymore."