4 ms·
I understand this from a technical perspective, but I always thought this feature had the potential to allow Google to gather better qualitative metrics about w
by just2n 14y ago
I understand this from a technical perspective, but I always thought this feature had the potential to allow Google to gather better qualitative metrics about websites. For instance, if a huge chunk of people who are searching for web-related questions (end up on SO or MDN or something) and they all have ExpertSexChange and w3schools blocked, then perhaps those should be considered qualitatively worse and would therefore be ranked lower than the alternatives?
I guess not. I'm curious how they're determining quality in that case. Hey Bing, maybe you could pick this up and deliver quality results over faster results?
- notatoad 14y agoi'm sure that was the original intention, and the reason for the discontinuation is that nobody used it and the cost of maintaining the feature exceeded the value of the data they gathered from it. (or else everybody blocked the same few things in the first couple weeks the feature was available, and then they stopped learning anything from the feature)
- just2n 14y agoPerhaps, but when useful features see lack of use, it's usually because it's a prohibitively difficult feature to use or very poorly presented. Maybe if it was as simple as clicking a "never see results from this website again" it would've seen orders of magnitude more use and been far more useful. Perhaps an upvote/downvote system? Seems like these are relatively tiny time investments by a couple of engineers and would serve to massively increase the quality of results. Not sure why throwing useful features away is a better decision.