6 ms·

This is such a great idea, and a mystery as to why no search engine has dared to put it on their engine. Care to enlighten me?

Waterluvian 5y ago
It hurts Google to allow the product to choose what customers have access to it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  To add to this... A lot of those super annoying ad-filled websites you get directed to from Google Search... Guess who's providing those ads and making money when you accidentally click an ad while trying to get off the website?
- bigmattystyles 5y ago
  Extend this to map search - If only I could exclude all starbucks, 7/11, even Denny's from my map searches for 'coffee shop'. No hate to those who like the coffee from there, but I want a proper coffee shop and if I could filter out certain chains, I would do it in a caffeinated heartbeat. This applies to not just Google maps though.
  - readflaggedcomm 5y ago
    At least you can -exclude those names. Gas station convenience stores come up for "grocery store" searches, yet they're all named differently.
    - varenc 5y ago
      Google maps doesn't seem to support `-exclude` like Google/DDG search does.
      - readflaggedcomm 5y ago
        You're right. I noticed this on Bing Maps before, but hadn't noticed Google following suit. It makes these sites so much less useful. Their unique location catalog is the reason I usually prefer Google, then Bing, over Here Maps or whatever OSM thing. But it's harder and harder to query it to receive anything useful.
  - type0 5y ago
    Maybe Google will make you to be able to exclude white men owned businesses in your map searches but excluding brands is not something they seem willing to do https://www.google.com/business/identity-attributes/ https://www.google.com/business/identity-attributes/ "You can now help your business stand out on Google Maps and Search by displaying the Black-owned attribute, in addition to the Women-Led..." btw, I don't see a big distinction here if I actually would like to boycott Starbucks so I better boycott Google Maps then.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      >You can now help your business stand out on Google Maps and Search by displaying the Black-owned attribute, in addition to the Women-Led Wow, that's insane. I've always assumed this stuff is made up by conspiracy nuts (like the "War on Christmas"), but there it is right on their page!
  - Minor49er 5y ago
    This frustrates me to no end. Usually, I search for "independent coffee shop" to narrow results, but then still have to zoom in until my nose is touching the pavement before I can see anything other than large chains. Even worse, if there aren't enough "popular" results, I'll get things that are very much not coffee shops, like Target or Arby's
  - Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
    This would be an interesting app to build on OpenStreetMap data.
- matthewmcg 5y ago
  This is a great, pithy expression for exactly what is driving the toxic behavior--nicely phrased.
- cwojno 5y ago
  I see what you did there ;)
- ekanes 5y ago
  Amazing phrasing.
wumpus 5y ago
It was a major feature of blekko's search engine. Google had it for a while, too.
blibble 5y ago
google used to have the personal blocklist extension not sure what happened to it...
- ma2rten 5y ago
  I think it was a stop gap solution because Google was overrun with spam sites, like Expert Village, before Google did the Panda update. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Panda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Panda
  - gruez 5y ago
    Isn't that still an issue? For some of the obscure searches I'm still seeing sites that copy content from github/stackoverflow/reddit
  - driverdan 5y ago
    It's still a huge problem. Try searching for a product or product category. For example, search for "best winter coat" on Google. Half the sites are low quality affiliate link farms who don't know anything more about the product than what's in their Amazon description.
    - rightbyte 5y ago
      Those sites are so annoying. I want some know-it-all moms on a forum telling eachother what to buy - not scam sites pretending to review stuff. Some years ago I got moms. Nowadays Google seems to serve crap.
      - potatosalad1 5y ago
        These days I just search Reddit to get real people's opinions on a product. Way more trustworthy than Amazon reviews or random blogs.
    - aqfamnzc 5y ago
      The URLs usually have a certain smell to them as well. "bestcoat.com", "topreviewsz", "theexpertreport2021.net" etc. CHECK PRICE ON AMAZON CHECK PRICE ON AMAZON CHECK PRICE ON AMAZON
systemvoltage 5y ago
Are you paying for Google search? No. So, its not in Google's interest to do what's best for the enduser (to an extent, after which it hurts them as user engagement dwindles and people move to another search engine).
- dazc 5y ago
  Yes, you are paying.
a-dub 5y ago
i suspect google does not support user configurable spam filtering because spam filtering is one of their big value adds. their job is to return relevant and spam free results in a user friendly manner. if they made client side filtering a thing, and it allowed their spam filtering efforts to shrink because "the users can always filter it themselves" then their overall product would suffer. i imagine also it's a matter of internal pride, if they do their job correctly, you shouldn't need it.
- colordrops 5y ago
  Doubt it, it's more likely that they want to maintain full control over results. They likely have certain results they don't want you to filter. Also, relevance can change over time. You might filter out something now that made sense to filter out now but not in the future after the site changed and got reindexed.
  - a-dub 5y ago
    right, their value proposition to you, as a user of their search engine, is that if you type in a few terms they'll present a carefully curated list of locations on the internet that are not only relevant to your search terms but also are useful to you, specifically, at that moment. supporting user controlled blocklists would implicitly acknowledge that their system can miss the mark. i suspect they focus on not missing the mark rather than providing supplies for their users to paper over problems with their system. i'd be really surprised if there are "certain results they don't want you to filter." separation of editorial and business in publishing has been around for a very long time and it would be pretty hard for them to defend if it came out that they were using their own ad revenue as an input to how they rank and filter results. edit: i would also suggest that if they were boosting results that drove ad revenue for them, they'd have been caught by now. there are a lot of people out there who make a living experimenting with how to boost a google ranking. if it was as simple as "use google as an advertising partner on your site" i'm sure we'd be hearing about it.
    - dazc 5y ago
bobsmooth 5y ago
You can do it without an add-on. https://www.google.com/search?q=hackernews+-site%3Anews.ycombinator.com https://www.google.com/search?q=hackernews+-site%3Anews.ycom...
- cloverich 5y ago
  They mean no way to have a persistent black list you don’t have to set every search.
  - frankosaurus 5y ago
    Couldn't you do this with Chrome search engines? https://zapier.com/blog/add-search-engine-to-chrome/ https://zapier.com/blog/add-search-engine-to-chrome/
    - varenc 5y ago
      Not practically due to the query length limit. If you take 102 site blocklist from a top comment and turn it into a site exclusion search like this: -site:code-examples.net -site:kotaeta.com -site:answer-id.com -site:code.i-harness.com -site:living-sun.com -site:qastack.jp -site:qastack.ru -site:qastack.it -site:qastack.mx -site:qastack.com.br -site:qastack.info.tr -site:qastack.in.th -site:qastack.com.de -site:qastack.fr -site:qastack.cn -site:qastack.com.ua -site:qastack.co.in -site:qastack.kr -site:qastack.vn -site:qastack.net.bd -site:qa-stack.pl -site:qastack.id -site:www.coder.work -site:www.it-swarm-ja.tech -site:www.it-swarm.jp.net -site:www.it-mure.jp.net -site:www.it-swarm-ja.com -site:www.it-swarm.com.ru -site:codeflow.site -site:codeguides.site -site:overcoder.net -site:coderoad.ru -site:www.generacodice.blog -site:www.generacodice.it -site:www.generacodice.com -site:www.javaer101.com -site:voidcc.com -site:siwib.org ... And then try adding that to a Google query you see this warning message on Google: > ".... (and any subsequent words) was ignored because we limit queries to 32 words" If you try it on duckduckgo you just get an error page.
newhotelowner 5y ago
Every time I end up on the pinterest from google, I hit back. Google knows that, but it will still show me pinterest as the top result.
dec0dedab0de 5y ago
It used to be built into Google. I was just telling someone that Google has been down hill since they removed it, and they were so young they didn't remember it being there.
freediver 5y ago
Most likely because extremely low number of people (by Google's definition) would use it and there are other things to prioritize. For a feature to be interesting to just 1% of Google users, it would need to appeal to 35 million users and this is unlikely. Even if it did, features that touch 1% users rarely get to the top of queue (unless those 1% users are "whales").
afrazkhan 5y ago
Google actually did use to have this functionality. They almost certainly removed it because it hurts profits (an advertising company that allows it's targets to define content?). I've been using this extension for a good while now, and it's probably saved me a stroke or two.

Waterluvian 5y ago

It hurts Google to allow the product to choose what customers have access to it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
To add to this... A lot of those super annoying ad-filled websites you get directed to from Google Search... Guess who's providing those ads and making money when you accidentally click an ad while trying to get off the website?
bigmattystyles 5y ago
Extend this to map search - If only I could exclude all starbucks, 7/11, even Denny's from my map searches for 'coffee shop'. No hate to those who like the coffee from there, but I want a proper coffee shop and if I could filter out certain chains, I would do it in a caffeinated heartbeat. This applies to not just Google maps though.
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  At least you can -exclude those names. Gas station convenience stores come up for "grocery store" searches, yet they're all named differently.
  - varenc 5y ago
    Google maps doesn't seem to support `-exclude` like Google/DDG search does.
    - readflaggedcomm 5y ago
      You're right. I noticed this on Bing Maps before, but hadn't noticed Google following suit. It makes these sites so much less useful. Their unique location catalog is the reason I usually prefer Google, then Bing, over Here Maps or whatever OSM thing. But it's harder and harder to query it to receive anything useful.
- type0 5y ago
  Maybe Google will make you to be able to exclude white men owned businesses in your map searches but excluding brands is not something they seem willing to do https://www.google.com/business/identity-attributes/ https://www.google.com/business/identity-attributes/ "You can now help your business stand out on Google Maps and Search by displaying the Black-owned attribute, in addition to the Women-Led..." btw, I don't see a big distinction here if I actually would like to boycott Starbucks so I better boycott Google Maps then.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    >You can now help your business stand out on Google Maps and Search by displaying the Black-owned attribute, in addition to the Women-Led Wow, that's insane. I've always assumed this stuff is made up by conspiracy nuts (like the "War on Christmas"), but there it is right on their page!
- Minor49er 5y ago
  This frustrates me to no end. Usually, I search for "independent coffee shop" to narrow results, but then still have to zoom in until my nose is touching the pavement before I can see anything other than large chains. Even worse, if there aren't enough "popular" results, I'll get things that are very much not coffee shops, like Target or Arby's
- Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
  This would be an interesting app to build on OpenStreetMap data.
matthewmcg 5y ago
This is a great, pithy expression for exactly what is driving the toxic behavior--nicely phrased.
cwojno 5y ago
I see what you did there ;)
ekanes 5y ago
Amazing phrasing.

wumpus 5y ago

It was a major feature of blekko's search engine. Google had it for a while, too.

blibble 5y ago

google used to have the personal blocklist extension not sure what happened to it...

ma2rten 5y ago
I think it was a stop gap solution because Google was overrun with spam sites, like Expert Village, before Google did the Panda update. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Panda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Panda
- gruez 5y ago
  Isn't that still an issue? For some of the obscure searches I'm still seeing sites that copy content from github/stackoverflow/reddit
- driverdan 5y ago
  It's still a huge problem. Try searching for a product or product category. For example, search for "best winter coat" on Google. Half the sites are low quality affiliate link farms who don't know anything more about the product than what's in their Amazon description.
  - rightbyte 5y ago
    Those sites are so annoying. I want some know-it-all moms on a forum telling eachother what to buy - not scam sites pretending to review stuff. Some years ago I got moms. Nowadays Google seems to serve crap.
    - potatosalad1 5y ago
      These days I just search Reddit to get real people's opinions on a product. Way more trustworthy than Amazon reviews or random blogs.
  - aqfamnzc 5y ago
    The URLs usually have a certain smell to them as well. "bestcoat.com", "topreviewsz", "theexpertreport2021.net" etc. CHECK PRICE ON AMAZON CHECK PRICE ON AMAZON CHECK PRICE ON AMAZON

systemvoltage 5y ago

Are you paying for Google search? No. So, its not in Google's interest to do what's best for the enduser (to an extent, after which it hurts them as user engagement dwindles and people move to another search engine).

dazc 5y ago
Yes, you are paying.

a-dub 5y ago

i suspect google does not support user configurable spam filtering because spam filtering is one of their big value adds. their job is to return relevant and spam free results in a user friendly manner. if they made client side filtering a thing, and it allowed their spam filtering efforts to shrink because "the users can always filter it themselves" then their overall product would suffer. i imagine also it's a matter of internal pride, if they do their job correctly, you shouldn't need it.

colordrops 5y ago
Doubt it, it's more likely that they want to maintain full control over results. They likely have certain results they don't want you to filter. Also, relevance can change over time. You might filter out something now that made sense to filter out now but not in the future after the site changed and got reindexed.
- a-dub 5y ago
  right, their value proposition to you, as a user of their search engine, is that if you type in a few terms they'll present a carefully curated list of locations on the internet that are not only relevant to your search terms but also are useful to you, specifically, at that moment. supporting user controlled blocklists would implicitly acknowledge that their system can miss the mark. i suspect they focus on not missing the mark rather than providing supplies for their users to paper over problems with their system. i'd be really surprised if there are "certain results they don't want you to filter." separation of editorial and business in publishing has been around for a very long time and it would be pretty hard for them to defend if it came out that they were using their own ad revenue as an input to how they rank and filter results. edit: i would also suggest that if they were boosting results that drove ad revenue for them, they'd have been caught by now. there are a lot of people out there who make a living experimenting with how to boost a google ranking. if it was as simple as "use google as an advertising partner on your site" i'm sure we'd be hearing about it.
  - dazc 5y ago

bobsmooth 5y ago

You can do it without an add-on. https://www.google.com/search?q=hackernews+-site%3Anews.ycombinator.com https://www.google.com/search?q=hackernews+-site%3Anews.ycom...

cloverich 5y ago
They mean no way to have a persistent black list you don’t have to set every search.
- frankosaurus 5y ago
  Couldn't you do this with Chrome search engines? https://zapier.com/blog/add-search-engine-to-chrome/ https://zapier.com/blog/add-search-engine-to-chrome/
  - varenc 5y ago
    Not practically due to the query length limit. If you take 102 site blocklist from a top comment and turn it into a site exclusion search like this: -site:code-examples.net -site:kotaeta.com -site:answer-id.com -site:code.i-harness.com -site:living-sun.com -site:qastack.jp -site:qastack.ru -site:qastack.it -site:qastack.mx -site:qastack.com.br -site:qastack.info.tr -site:qastack.in.th -site:qastack.com.de -site:qastack.fr -site:qastack.cn -site:qastack.com.ua -site:qastack.co.in -site:qastack.kr -site:qastack.vn -site:qastack.net.bd -site:qa-stack.pl -site:qastack.id -site:www.coder.work -site:www.it-swarm-ja.tech -site:www.it-swarm.jp.net -site:www.it-mure.jp.net -site:www.it-swarm-ja.com -site:www.it-swarm.com.ru -site:codeflow.site -site:codeguides.site -site:overcoder.net -site:coderoad.ru -site:www.generacodice.blog -site:www.generacodice.it -site:www.generacodice.com -site:www.javaer101.com -site:voidcc.com -site:siwib.org ... And then try adding that to a Google query you see this warning message on Google: > ".... (and any subsequent words) was ignored because we limit queries to 32 words" If you try it on duckduckgo you just get an error page.

newhotelowner 5y ago

Every time I end up on the pinterest from google, I hit back. Google knows that, but it will still show me pinterest as the top result.

dec0dedab0de 5y ago

It used to be built into Google. I was just telling someone that Google has been down hill since they removed it, and they were so young they didn't remember it being there.

freediver 5y ago

Most likely because extremely low number of people (by Google's definition) would use it and there are other things to prioritize. For a feature to be interesting to just 1% of Google users, it would need to appeal to 35 million users and this is unlikely. Even if it did, features that touch 1% users rarely get to the top of queue (unless those 1% users are "whales").

afrazkhan 5y ago

Google actually did use to have this functionality. They almost certainly removed it because it hurts profits (an advertising company that allows it's targets to define content?). I've been using this extension for a good while now, and it's probably saved me a stroke or two.