4 ms·
What if they took only votes from people that pay and have account for X time? Also what’s the problem with adding revert per user? With some events architektur
by machiaweliczny 5y ago
What if they took only votes from people that pay and have account for X time? Also what’s the problem with adding revert per user? With some events architekture it should be trivial. They could even train AI on this data to automatically sugest suspects.
- mcv 5y agoIt's totally fine if they only use my own votes to modify my results. In fact, if we're going to do that, I'd really like to block some sites from my search results entirely. Though ideally, I would also like to include the votes from people I trust.
- lbriner 5y agoPeople sell good accounts for lots of money to the spammers.
- mcv 5y agoAnd when those accounts suddenly start behaving like bad accounts, their votes get treated as such. There will be a window of confusion, but it might not be that big. And there would be an economic incentive for people to establish trusted accounts with high-quality voting behaviour.
- PoignardAzur 5y agoHere's an easy thought experiment: for any propose of the type "what if they had a system that did X?", imagine that someone tells you they'll give you 10 million dollars if you can figure out a way to game that system that can't be detected by Google. If you spend 5 minutes on it, can you think of a way? If you can, congratulations, now imagine millions of other people thought about the same tricks and you get the reason why Google can't ever really win against SEO.
- eru 5y agoGoogle might not be able to 'win', but they can stay ahead. Eg if they can get to a place where SEO efforts point in the same direction as making your website genuinely more useful to people, then that's good enough for Google.